Transparency and corruption: Measuring real transparency by a new index

Abstract

Despite the salience of transparency in policy and democracy debates a global measurement of transparency has always been missing. In its absence, measuring the impact of transparency on accountability and corruption for a large number of countries has been difficult, with scholars using more or less adequate proxies. This paper introduces a new measurement of real transparency—the T‐index—using 14 de facto components, based on direct observations of official websites in 129 countries and five de jure components, based on the transparency laws and conventions adopted. The resulting index is a measurement with very good internal and external validity and moderate precision. The paper argues that de facto transparency must be considered alongside de jure (legal) transparency if we are to judge the impact (or lack of) transparency against accountability and corruption, as a large implementation gap exists, in particular in poor countries, between legal commitments and real transparency. The T‐index has significant impact on both perception and objective indicators of corruption, including perceived change in corruption over time as measured by the Global Corruption Barometer. An analysis of outliers shows that high transparency alone is not sufficient to achieve control of corruption, especially in countries with low human development and poor rule of law, although transparency is a robust predictor of corruption with GDP controls. The data with all sources is available for download as T‐index 2022 dataset: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7225627 and an interactive webpage developed for updates is available at www.corruptionrisk.org/transparency.

Determinants of differences in RT-PCR testing rates among Southeast Asian countries during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

“…While concurrently controlling for the independent effects of transparency, accountability and public trust on the outcome is desired to be able to describe a more informative relationship between corruption and RT-PCR testing rates, corresponding established country-level indicators are either unavailable altogether, or have missing values for some countries (e.g., T-index [ 51 ], open government index [ 52 ]). On the other hand, the stringency index (SI), formulated by the Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker (OXCGRT) Project [ 53 ], is a widely available composite measure that equals the average score from nine response metrics (namely: school closures; workplace closures; cancellation of public events; restrictions on public gatherings; closures of public transport; stay-at-home requirements; public information campaigns; restrictions on internal movements; and international travel controls), each ranging from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating a stricter response.…”

Advancing governance indicators: Four ways forward

“…Taking these measures into account could help in developing policy responses to a country's governance performance in the BGI's environmental goods dimension. Another example is Mungiu‐Pippidi (2022), which assesses de jure and de facto transparency of governments at a level of detail much greater than relevant BGI subindicators.…”

The European administrative space over time: Mapping the formal independence of EU agencies

“…In sum, principal‐agent approaches provide an indispensable theoretical and conceptual foundation to devise a measurement of agencies' formal independence. By providing a valid measurement and a longitudinal perspective, this article also provides a yardstick for future studies of actual EU agency behavior as measures of formal and de facto behavior develop their full potential if taken together (Mungiu‐Pippidi, 2023; Voigt, 2013), which could also drive theoretical innovations.…”

“…According to Adcock and Collier (2001), “[v]alid measurement is achieved when scores (including the results of qualitative classification) meaningfully capture the ideas contained in the corresponding concept.” EU agencies' formal independence is “made” of rules. Our index is composed of indicators that capture rules contributing to their formal independence (see Mungiu‐Pippidi, 2023 for a similar approach; see OECD, 2008 for an overview). As no other measurements of this type exist, it is not possible to ensure measurement validity by pitching the measurement results against other measurements.…”