RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ja slips 12 places on corruption index

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    OK,

    Just as I thought, your post above proves me RIGHT:


    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      Well...due dilligence always needed. Maybe this whole thing should be scrapped or different standards chosen. To me it's unscientific.

      Comment


      • #48
        Yes,

        It does not seem very useful. Pity that serious investors put much stock in this...or do they?

        Comment

        Working...
        X