The 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) points to a strong correlation between corruption and poverty, with a concentration of impoverished states at the bottom of the ranking.

The 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite index that draws on multiple expert opinion surveys that poll perceptions of public sector corruption in 163 countries around the world, the greatest scope of any CPI to date. It scores countries on a scale from zero to ten, with zero indicating high levels of perceived corruption and ten indicating low levels of perceived corruption.

According to the TI press release, a strong correlation between corruption and poverty is evident in the results of the CPI 2006. Almost three-quarters of the countries in the CPI score below five (including all low-income countries and all but two African states) indicating that most countries in the world face serious perceived levels of domestic corruption. Seventy-one countries - nearly half - score below three, indicating that corruption is perceived as rampant. Haiti has the lowest score at 1.8; Guinea, Iraq and Myanmar share the penultimate slot, each with a score of 1.9. Finland, Iceland and New Zealand share the top score of 9.6.

Countries with a significant worsening in perceived levels of corruption include: Brazil, Cuba, Israel, Jordan, Laos, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and the United States. Countries with a significant improvement in perceived levels of corruption include: Algeria, Czech Republic, India, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Mauritius, Paraguay, Slovenia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uruguay.

A concentration of so-called ‘failed states’ is apparent at the bottom of the ranking. Iraq has sunk to second-to-last place, with pre-war survey data no longer included in this year’s CPI.

The Top 10 countries in the index were:

1-      Finland

2-      Ireland

3-      New Zealand

4-      Denmark.

5-      Singapore.

6-      Sweden

7-      Switzerland

8-      Norway.

9-      Australia.

10-   Netherlands.

Again the Scandinavian countries seem to be present at the top 10 of everything positive list in the world. The only non-western country in the top 10 is Singapore.

And, the winners of the worst records are…

163- Haiti.

162- Myanmar.

160- Iraq

160- Guinea

156- Sudan.

As for the great Arab world, the results where as follows:

31- United Arab Emirates.

32- Qatar.

36- Bahrain.

39- Oman.

40- Jordan.

46- Kuwait.

51- Tunisia.

63- Lebanon

70- Egypt and Saudi Arabia

79- Morocco

84- Algeria and Mauritania

93- Syria

111- Yemen

156- Sudan

16- Iraq

So, Jordan was worse than Botswana, Bhutan, Uruguay, Malta, Macao, Barbados and Israel. However it was better than Malaysia, Italy, Czech republic, Slovakia, Greece, Poland, Brazil and Croatia.

While the industrialised countries score relatively high on the CPI 2006, we continue to see major corruption scandals in many of these countries. Although corruption in this context may have less of an impact on poverty and development than in developing countries, these scandals demonstrate that there is no room for complacency.

According to TI's press release, the weak performance of many countries indicates that the facilitators of corruption continue to assist political elites in laundering, storing and otherwise profiting from unjustly acquired wealth, which often includes looted state assets. The presence of willing intermediaries – who are often trained in or who operate from leading economies – encourages corruption; it means the corrupt know there will be a banker, accountant, lawyer or other specialist ready to help them generate, move or store their illicit income.

Based on the results, Transparency International recommends:

·         Promotion and, where necessary, adoption of corruption-specific codes of conduct by professional associations for their members, for instance the International Bar Association, International Compliance Association, and professional associations for accountants;

·         Professional training to ensure that honest intermediaries better understand their role;

·         Legal or professional sanctions for legal, financial and accounting professionals that enable corruption;

·         Greater scrutiny of the role of insufficiently transparent financial centers in facilitating corrupt transactions.