Sheikh Selim
Oniket Research Group
Few global rankings stir as much domestic unease in Bangladesh as the annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published by Transparency International and given local reach through Transparency International Bangladesh. The index sets out to estimate perceived levels of public sector corruption across 182 countries, relying on expert assessments and business surveys rather than any direct count of corrupt acts. That gap between perception and reality lies at the core of both what the index offers and where it falls short.
This article sets out to question the measure itself and the indicators built into it, which appear resistant to genuine measurement. It follows on from a recent article published in the bulletin.
What the Index Actually Measures
The CPI is a composite score drawn from a range of underlying surveys and assessments carried out by independent bodies, including business risk analysts, country experts, and multilateral organizations, each asking respondents to judge how corrupt a country’s public sector appears to be. These separate sources are combined and rescaled onto a common 0 to 100 scale, where 0 signals are highly corrupt and 100 signals very clean.
Crucially, the index does not measure bribes paid, funds embezzled, or prosecutions completed. It measures belief, filtered largely through international business elites and country risk consultants who may have little firsthand experience of ordinary bureaucratic life in the countries they score.
The Vagueness Problem
This methodological choice builds in a structural vagueness that critics have long flagged. Perception based scoring is inherently backward looking and reputational, so a country’s score can move because of one high profile scandal, a shift in media coverage, or a change in which expert panels were consulted that year, rather than any real change in institutional behavior. It also tends to settle around existing stereotypes about regions and income levels, since the assessors themselves are shaped by prior headlines and general reputation.
A country can carry out genuine anti-corruption reform and still see its score move only slowly, or barely at all, because perception lags behind reality and usually needs sustained, visible change before international assessors revise their views. The index, then, works better as a snapshot of reputation among a narrow international audience than as a precise diagnosis of where corruption occurs, in which sectors, or at what scale.
Bangladesh’s Position and the Reliability of TIB’s Assessment
Bangladesh ranks thirteenth most corrupt on the index with a score of 24, a marginal gain from the previous year, while Nigeria sits 142nd of 182 with a score of 26. Transparency International Bangladesh publishes and frames this data as an indictment of governance, rightly drawing attention to real weaknesses such as procurement irregularities, weak enforcement, and limited institutional independence.
Yet TIB’s reliability deserves the same scrutiny applied to the CPI itself, since it inherits the same reliance on elite perception over transaction level evidence, and its advocacy mission tends to stress governance failure over the structural complexity shaping corruption in a fast changing, lower income economy. Neither body invents a false picture, but both offer one that captures reputation more accurately than lived economic reality.
Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nigeria versus the Toppers
Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Pakistan cluster near the bottom of the CPI year after year, a pattern reflecting shared structural conditions rather than one cause. All three run on large informal economies, roughly 85 percent of employment and 43 percent of GDP in Bangladesh, around 65 percent of GDP in Nigeria, where transactions sit outside formal oversight and read as corruption prone even when they mainly reflect survival rather than graft. Cash based trade and unregistered enterprises are hard to distinguish from concealment, inflating perceived corruption regardless of intent.
All three also carry institutional legacies from the colonial era or the decades immediately following independence, periods that left bureaucratic and judicial systems thin relative to population size and the growing complexity of these economies. Court backlogs stretch for years, regulatory bodies remain understaffed against the scale of the sectors they oversee, and civil service pay has historically lagged private sector alternatives, conditions that create genuine openings for both petty and grand corruption to persist. Yet this coexists with real, measurable economic dynamism: Bangladesh’s garment exports and remittance inflows, Nigeria’s energy and technology sectors, and Pakistan’s telecommunications growth all point to functioning, sophisticated economic activity operating alongside, not despite, the governance weaknesses the index is meant to capture. The CPI’s aggregate score struggles to hold both truths at once.
Countries such as New Zealand, Finland, and Denmark consistently top the index not primarily because corruption is biologically or culturally absent, but because they combine small, cohesive populations, long standing rule of law traditions, high quality public administration, transparent procurement systems, and a free press with strong investigative capacity, conditions that make both actual corruption rarer and perceived corruption easier to detect and punish quickly.
Their high scores reflect decades of consistent institutional investment rather than a single policy intervention, underscoring that the CPI ultimately rewards institutional durability and transparency infrastructure as much as it penalizes any single corrupt act, a nuance that gets lost when the index is read as a simple morality ranking rather than a proxy for institutional maturity.
Reading the Index Correctly
Taken together, these findings point to a single, consistent conclusion. The CPI is not fabricated, and the corruption it gestures toward in Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Pakistan is real and worth taking seriously, visible in procurement irregularities, weak enforcement, and thin institutional capacity. But the score itself measures reputation filtered through a narrow international audience more precisely than it measures the actual scale or location of corrupt activity, and it tends to penalize large informal economies and thin post-independence institutions almost as much as it penalizes graft itself.
Bangladeshi media should stop treating the annual ranking as a standalone verdict, presenting it instead alongside its methodology and domestic evidence such as procurement audits, court disposal rates, and household surveys that measure corruption more directly. Government and TIB alike would serve the public better by treating the index as one signal among several, neither dismissed nor final proof, and by focusing on underlying reforms, judicial capacity, procurement transparency, civil service pay, that improve governance itself and, eventually, its perception abroad.
Corruption in Bangladesh is real. The index is simply one imperfect way of seeing it, most useful when read together with harder domestic evidence, and most misleading when read alone.
Reference:
