Ja slips 12 places on corruption index

[Willi]

Corrupt then corrupt now, nutten nuh change, man still have the same intention

1. Good House
2. Good Car
3. Good Money

If yuh caan get it here then run go a farin, and I mean anywhere in the world other than Ja.

BUT THE SURVEY SAID IT GOT WORSE!!!!

I can buy it being no better, but worse????

[Karl]

well certainly the pnp presided over the escalation in corruption. one has to be in a position of power to be corrupt...the scarce benefits argument...the US government also has corruption .....

but if yuh nuh have nuh power how can you offer scarce benefits?

...and what about the power to steal, etc? ...or the power to receive ill-gotten goods? ...or get to pay-off others to turn a blind eye to your corruption?

...have to be at a PNP supporter? ...or have to be PNP presiding over?

[Gamma]

corruption STARTS from the top.....the peoiple below si the people above doing it and that makes them feel that it is ok....that is how we descended into this MESS!!!

who is at the top, those in power....falla di bread crumbs..

[Willi]

corruption STARTS from the top.....the peoiple below si the people above doing it and that makes them feel that it is ok....that is how we descended into this MESS!!!

who is at the top, those in power....falla di bread crumbs..

Karl a play smart.

PNP going to give the lion share of corruption spoils to labourites???

Clearly, the lions share go to their people, just as it is for the JLP.

The difference is if the leadership implements measures to stem the tide.

[1of1]

coruption at the top start long time more than 20 yrs, them time a only rich influential people do it, now a everybody sitten,

[Gamma]

agreed...it found much cuccour however during thhose middle years..maybe if jlp was in power it would have been the same and then the same blame could have been levelled....but no doubt it reached a new high under the former pnp administration..

[Peter R]

The survey IMPLIES we are getting worse.... but maybe 12 countries got better?!?

Peter R

[Exile]

Thanks Peter, when Willi starts to pick hairs....I know you can be as objective as they come.

[Exile]

Willi...show me the money...no let me rephrase...show me the emperical evidence for your conclusions..at least the Germans have some methodology thats consistent.

[Gamma]

well that is easy enough to check..i assume a that a number is allocayted..therefore if the number is the same and we got worse...

[Willi]

Willi...show me the money...no let me rephrase...show me the emperical evidence for your conclusions..at least the Germans have some methodology thats consistent.

oh?

Show me their methodology and data set!
Have you done any digging into it?

[Willi]

The survey IMPLIES we are getting worse.... but maybe 12 countries got better?!?

Peter R

Dont draw my tongue!

This is a direct report no implication. The newspaper article is the one "implying" by withholding readily available info.

LoL

Raw scores:
2005 3.6 rank=64
2006 3.7 rank=61
2007 3.3 rank=84
2008 3.1 rank=96

So Jamaica magically improved in corruption perception from 2005 to 2006 when we were in the midst of Trafigura, etc and then just tumbled in 2007 and continued the slip in 2008?

This survey just does not make much sense to me in neither absolute or relatove terms. They have Cuba at a rank of 65 in 2008..Cuba for crying out loud. Many things come to mind about Cuba, but curropt is not one of them. Jamaica is below the likes of Burkino Faso, China, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Guatemala, Suriname, Bosnia, etc.

[Willi]

Thanks Peter, when Willi starts to pick hairs....I know you can be as objective as they come.

Dont make inconvenient facts stop you...

[TDowl]

You should rehprase it as " All who are not corrupt stand" eeehh ehhhe LOL

[Exile]

Corruption Perceptions Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

Overview of the index of perception of corruption, 2007


Since 1995, Transparency International has published an annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)[1] ordering the countries of the world according to "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians".[2] The organization defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".[3]
The 2003 poll covered 133 countries; the 2007 survey, 180. A higher score means less (perceived) corruption. The results show seven out of every ten countries (and nine out of every ten developing countries) with an index of less than 5 points out of 10.
Contents


[edit] Methods and interpretation

Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[2] The CPI 2005 draws on "16 different polls and surveys from 10 independent institutions… The institutions who provided data for the CPI 2005 are: Columbia University, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Information International, International Institute for Management Development, Merchant International Group, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, World Economic Forum and World Markets Research Centre. Early CPIs used public opinion surveys, but now only "experts" are used. TI requires at least three sources to be available in order to rank a country in the CPI.[2]
"TI writes in their FAQ on the CPI that "residents' viewpoints correlate well with those of experts abroad. In the past, the experts surveyed in the CPI sources were often business people from industrialised countries; the viewpoint of less developed countries was underrepresented. This has changed over time, giving increasingly voice to respondents from emerging market economies."[2]
As this index is based on polls, the results are subjective, and less reliable for countries with fewer sources. Also, what is legally defined (or perceived) to be corruption, differs between jurisdictions: a political donation legal in some jurisdiction may be illegal in another; a matter viewed as acceptable tipping in one country may be viewed as bribery in another. In former Soviet states, the term "corruption" itself has become a proxy for the broader frustration with all changes since the breakup of the USSR. Thus, the poll results must be understood quite specifically as measuring a poorly defined public perception, rather than being an objective measure of corruption. More direct corruption-survey data, such as bribe-payer surveys, don't track closely with corruption perceptions data.
Statistics like this are, by nature, imprecise; statistics from different years aren't necessarily comparable. The ICCR itself explains, "…year-to-year changes in a country's score result not only from a changing perception of a country's performance but also from a changing sample and methodology. Each year, some sources are not updated and must be dropped from the CPI, while new, reliable sources are added. With differing respondents and slightly differing methodologies, a change in a country's score may also relate to the fact that different viewpoints have been collected and different questions been asked… [despite] anti-corruption reform… [or] recent exposure of corruption scandals… t is often difficult to improve a CPI score over a short time period, such as one or two years. The CPI is based on data from the past three years (for more on this, see the question on the sources of data, below). This means that a change in perceptions of corruption would only emerge in the index over longer periods of time".[4]

[edit] Criticism

The Corruption Perception Index has sometimes been criticized as the perception of a select few, since it ignores the perception of the wider population, and instead focuses on that of a few experts like the rest of science does. Furthermore, some have opined that the index analyzes a "mere perception", and that the method followed in preparing the index couldn't measure institutional corruption.[5]
Additional criticism stems from the use of third-party survey data, which can vary widely in methodology and completeness from country to country. The methodology of the Index itself changes from year to year, thus making even basic better-or-worse comparisons difficult. Media outlets, meanwhile, frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance, without clarifying what the numbers mean.

[edit] CPI Ranking (2002–2007)