Result is out! See how you/your country performed

[t20]

Corruption perception index 2010

http://www.transparency.org/policy_rese ... 10/results

[Vikram]

Thanks for posting this. I am surprised at some of the results.If I reveal why, I may be stoned to death,hence better not.

Best-
Vikram

[hamiclar01]

That's it. I'm calling myself a Bhutani now

[m24]

Thanks for posting this. I am surprised at some of the results.If I reveal why, I may be stoned to death,hence better not.

Best-
Vikram

Please do share.

I just checked and was surprised to know that I was actually Swedish. Or was that Finnish!!!

Regards

-- Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:01 am --

That's it. I'm calling myself a Bhutani now

[timmy]

When I look at this report, I have more questions than answers. If you look at what it measures, it says it measures perceptions of corruption. Measuring perceptions of corruption is far from measuring corruption.

In this context, what is the difference between a perception and an opinion? I ask this because a perception is clearly not an objective measurement at all, by definition, so exactly what does measuring perceptions prove?

So the next question I have is, whose perceptions are being measured? When I went into the back to see, the only people I saw listed as being asked for their perceptions were bankers and "experts," whatever that may be. "Expert" wasn't defined, but out in the West of the USA, we usually said that an "expert" was a former drip under pressure.

My perception of these perceptions is that they may fit in with some preconceived notions, but what does it actually prove?

Here in the USA, the Supreme Court recently removed any and all spending limits by corporations for election campaign donations, and the nation is awash with money. The airwaves are full of commercials and the broadcasters are happy. The Wall St. Bankers are funding a huge amount of this, and I would have to think that it would have been their opinions about "perceptions of corruption" that were solicited for this study.

My perceptions of corruption would be shaped in part by how much money these same bankers are pouring into election campaigns, so you see that my perception of corruption here in the USA would be different from that of the bankers, who have the freedom to spend millions saying whatever they want on the air.

To be blunt, I'm not convinced of the value of this study, although it certainly looks impressive. Corruption can take many forms, and the limited scope of this inquiry limits the usefulness of its results, in my opinion (or, should I say, perception?).

[OverUnderPump]

I agree with Timmy, this is a myopic view.

And Vikram, we could buy you some riot gear . So do let us know.

regards

OUP

[Rajat]

Thanks for sharing your views Timmy but corruption does not necessarily lie in high places, wall st., presidential elections etc.

The normal citizen does not really care about these things in a country such as ours.

It really matters when it has reached the lower level and everyones day to day life is affected by the corrupt system we face everywhere .

No matter how true the poll may or may not be but I am an Indian and there is no denying it. I do not know if it will make a difference or not: I realize that I am living in a country dominated and run by corrupt people and officials and I am against the corrupt system and raise my voice against it whenever I can.

[shooter]

When I look at this report, I have more questions than answers. If you look at what it measures, it says it measures perceptions of corruption. Measuring perceptions of corruption is far from measuring corruption.

In this context, what is the difference between a perception and an opinion? I ask this because a perception is clearly not an objective measurement at all, by definition, so exactly what does measuring perceptions prove?

So the next question I have is, whose perceptions are being measured? When I went into the back to see, the only people I saw listed as being asked for their perceptions were bankers and "experts," whatever that may be. "Expert" wasn't defined, but out in the West of the USA, we usually said that an "expert" was a former drip under pressure.

My perception of these perceptions is that they may fit in with some preconceived notions, but what does it actually prove?

Here in the USA, the Supreme Court recently removed any and all spending limits by corporations for election campaign donations, and the nation is awash with money. The airwaves are full of commercials and the broadcasters are happy. The Wall St. Bankers are funding a huge amount of this, and I would have to think that it would have been their opinions about "perceptions of corruption" that were solicited for this study.

My perceptions of corruption would be shaped in part by how much money these same bankers are pouring into election campaigns, so you see that my perception of corruption here in the USA would be different from that of the bankers, who have the freedom to spend millions saying whatever they want on the air.

To be blunt, I'm not convinced of the value of this study, although it certainly looks impressive. Corruption can take many forms, and the limited scope of this inquiry limits the usefulness of its results, in my opinion (or, should I say, perception?).

It is difficult to measure corruption.

Most studies have biases, confounders, errors and provisions are made for these.

Transparency is quite a famous organisation and have been doing these studies for many years.

The perceptions of participants cant be all wrong.


"yeh public hai yeh sabjaanti hai" Roughly translated into english as the famous quote " you can fool some................. but you cant fool all the people all the time."

this list has been more or less consistant over several years and please note that they also correspond to quality of life index studies.

So there is some truth to it.

[timmy]

Please understand, I recognize that corruption exists: we have all seen it, and don't need a study to tell us what we already know.

My point here is that the study attempts to present a comparison between countries, to say that one country is more corrupt than another.

I claim that this presentation is not useful because:

1. it is subjective, as any perception by definition must be

2. The data presented is based on a narrow and specifically sorted segment of the population: bankers and "experts."

Anyone with exposure to statistics knows that the class used to represent a population must be randomly chosen by statistical principles.

We all have our own perceptions. We say, "Yes, I've encountered corruption in my country too." I am not debating the validity of this observation. I'm simply pointing out that because this experience happens to parallel what the study says about a particular country, this does not validate the study's assertion regarding the relative levels of corruption between countries.

Furthermore, there's no account taken for the imprecise value of what's being measured. My example in my first post highlights this: that cultural and/or economic class values may accept certain behaviors as acceptable that other cultures and/or economic classes would consider as corruption.

Because what constitutes corruption is not clearly defined, and because a valid random statistical sample is not used in the study, I cannot accept the presentation of the data in the report as meaningful.

I'm not saying what the study asserts is true or false. I am saying the study has little or no value in demonstrating its findings in a rationally convincing way.

[Steve007]

Here in the USA, the Supreme Court recently removed any and all spending limits by corporations for election campaign donations, and the nation is awash with money. The airwaves are full of commercials and the broadcasters are happy. The Wall St. Bankers are funding a huge amount of this, and I would have to think that it would have been their opinions about "perceptions of corruption" that were solicited for this study.

My perceptions of corruption would be shaped in part by how much money these same bankers are pouring into election campaigns, so you see that my perception of corruption here in the USA would be different from that of the bankers, who have the freedom to spend millions saying whatever they want on the air.

Timmy has a clear political bias here in his analysis which is totally evident to an American. Suffice to say that there is an entirely different point of view regarding what he claims is the situation he describes which has nothing to do with "bankers" or "corruption". This is not a political board, and I have no wish to comment further on this. However, if you will apply extremely biased political views to Indian issues, you will see that things can be seriously skewed by one side or the other in describing alleged "situations". As indeed Timmy has done. I wouldn't want you fine fellows to have the wrong opinion of the US based on an incorrect interpretation of incorrect information.

[timmy]

I don't think that my view is an incorrect interpretation at all, Steve.

And while this is not a political board, I fail to see how my comments are not in keeping with the original post, which is pertinent to the "General Ramblings" forum.

My point here, overall, would be to underline the fact that, when comparing India's corruption with the USA's corruption, the views expressed by bankers and "experts" may represent the reasons why international loans (both business and governmental) are granted (or not) the way they are, but this report does not give a valid comparison between levels of corruption.

May I gently point out, Steve, that your comments could very well be considered by an American to represent a specific political viewpoint, as well. That is not the issue I intended to bring up. The validity of the report regarding the comparison of corruption between nations is the issue I intended to bring up.

As Ramachandra Guha points out (correctly, I think), governments exist to resolve conflicts between members of society (among other things). When governments fail resolve these conflicts with fairness and justice because of undue influences, I would take this to be a better definition of corruption than asking bankers and experts about their perceptions.

It was also my intention for readers not to have the wrong impression of the USA with regards to India or any other country in the matter of corruption, thus my comments.

[Steve007]

I don't think that my view is an incorrect interpretation at all, Steve.

Of course you don't.