Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index is evidently, not perceivably, fraudulent

Dear Editor,
It is unfortunate that some of our local media houses of good standing, as well as some of our most highly educated, adopt these “so called” international reports without performing an iota of critical analysis.
It is imperative that one should seek to competently interrogate the integrity of these reports – any report, for that matter – such as the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International (TI), before parroting and reselling its contents wholesale.
First, let’s examine the methodology by which the CPI is compiled. The methodology states “the CPI aggregates data from a number of different sources that provide perceptions among businesspeople and country experts of the level of corruption in the public sector” (Corruption Perceptions Index Report, pg8).
In other words, the CPI is based on a compilation of opinions expressed by a group of people. This means that there is no real, practical, scientific and empirical analysis and/or assessment of the country’s anti-corruption framework. The CPI is simply not based on a factual, credible, data-driven analysis, thus the methodology in of itself is unscientific and untrustworthy.
It is interesting to note that more than 60% of TI’s funding comes from governments. This information can be independently verified from TI’s own website, which can be accessed here: https://www.transparency.org/en/the-organisation/who-supports-us.
More interestingly, there are fourteen (14) countries that provide funding to the organization: Denmark, France, Bhutan, Germany, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Taiwan, Sweden, United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand and Ireland. And somehow – miraculously, or coincidentally, or both – all fourteen of these countries obtained scores that are from above 65 to 90, with Denmark scoring the highest, at 90.
This means that Denmark is “perceived” to be the least corrupt country in the world, but is this so in actual fact? Let’s find out. Most importantly to note is that Guyana is not one of the countries that finance this organisation.
With the aforementioned being established, let us now examine the facts in respect of the actual state of affairs of Denmark’s anti-corruption framework by a legitimate and credible organization that Denmark is a member of; namely, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The OECD is a “unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies with market-based economies collaborate to develop policy standards to promote sustainable economic growth” (cited from the US Department of State).
According to the OECD’s “Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook: Country Fact Sheet 2024” for Denmark, the country that scored the highest (90) on the corruption perception index, or the perceivably least corrupt country in the world,
“Denmark fulfills 7% of standard OECD criteria on the quality of its [anti-corruption] strategic framework and 7% for implementation in practice, compared to the OECD average of 45% and 36%, respectively. E.O. no. 116 of 2018 does not include a situation analysis that identifies existing public integrity risks. It also has no outcome-level indicators to measure implementation of strategic objectives, and does not include an action plan to facilitate implementation”.
The full report can be accessed here for ease of reference: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-integrity-outlook-2024-country-notes_684a5510-en/denmark_84a628ae-en.html.
This situation is not the first of its kind, nor is it unusual. There was a similar case involving the World Bank’s ease-of-doing-business index. Bear in mind that the World Bank is a far more credible organization than Transparency International.
In 2021, the World Bank discontinued the “Doing Business” report, “following allegations of data manipulation, undue influence, and unethical behaviour by several staff members”. The full statement on this matter can be accessed on the Bank’s website here for ease of reference: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2021/09/16/world-bank-group-to-discontinue-doing-business-report.
In the final analysis, it has evidently been demonstrated herein that the Corruption Perception Index is by no means and standard whatsoever credible. It is erroneous. In fact, we can unarguably conclude that the index is evidently, not perceivably, fraudulent.

Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin