Today, let us talk about the bribers

On the 26th of October Transparency International, TI, published its annual index ranking the Perception of Corruption that exists of various nations. As usual, Venezuela was somewhere down at the bottom of the list. However, for the first time, TI also published an index related to the Payers of Bribes (BPI).

This index ranks the 19 countries with most exports and is based on the perception of how corporations from those countries use bribes to generate business. 

A professional firm interviewed 770 high level executives in 14 emerging markets with geographically diversified imports. Venezuela was not included among the interviewed parties, since most of its imports come from the United States.

The executives interviewed belonged to large firms, banks, chambers of commerce, auditing firms and law firms. A result of 10 points means no bribes are used while 0 means, naturally, that bribing is used as a norm. The countries with the highest ranking were Sweden (8.3), Australia and Canada (8.1) and those at the bottom of the ranking were China (3.1), South Korea (3.4) and Taiwan (3.5). The ranking of some of our main trading partners were England (7.2), Germany and the United States tied at (6.2), Spain (5.3), France (5.2) and Italy (3.7). 

Just like the Corruption Index, the Briber’s Index will create much argument and rebuttal, especially from those that were not favored by their ranking within the index. 

Among the traditional arguments, we are sure to find that many will maintain that the index is not really objective, but is really all about perception and that therefore, before being an ethical problem, it is really just a problem of the image. 

We will perhaps also hear technologically inspired arguments, such as accusing the better-positioned countries of using advanced versions of corruption, something like anti-radar, "stealth" technology.

I have often seen how citizens of many developed countries shed their shackles and truly enjoy the tourist (and humanistic) experience of trying to avoid a traffic ticket by negotiating avidly with the particular public servant that has accosted them. 

On the other hand I have also seen people who behave better away that home. We see it over and over again when Venezuelans, who although notorious tax evaders at home, become exemplary citizens when overseas… to the extreme of paying their taxes. 

Because of those contradictions it could be interesting to compare the two indexes side by side, and find out whether there are some significant differences in ranking. It does not look that way as with the exception of 5 countries, all those that have been ranked in both indexes, are basically in the same relative position. As it were, Sweden is first in both indexes while China is last.

The two main exceptions to this rule are Singapore which, in this group of 19, appears as 3rd in terms of the least corrupt nations but as number 11 in the Bribers Index and Belgium which, contrary to Singapore, ranks as number 15 of the least corrupt nations, but comes out a lot better as number 8 among the Briber’s. Let us speculate a bit about the meaning of these results.

On Singapore the results would indicate that it behaves very well at home, but goes haywire and is a menace when abroad. Without a doubt, a country like this must be a formidable competitor in foreign trade and one would entreat the OECD to insure that it is also enrolled among those countries that have recently signed the Anti-Corruption agreement.

But how about those Belgians? Surprisingly they seen to be more behaved abroad than at home. Could this be some kind of special "stealth" technology at work? Could it be that they on purpose whish to be perceived as corrupt at home, in order to enhance their human nature? Could it be that they simply have decided to invest in a change of their image abroad, and that this was ultimately successful?

We shall see what gives next year. Investigative technology requires that you explain the unexplainable.