The central issue in the fight against corruption is how to measure success. Did changes in the way pharmaceuticals are procured and distributed reduce “leakage.” Did strengthening the anticorruption agency and creating fast track corruption courts reduce bribery?
How to assay these reforms were some of the many questions participants debated at a three-day conference on measuring corruption at the UN’s New York headquarters in early December.
The measurement issue starts with the most basic question: what is corruption. Are all gifts to a public official corrupt? Or just those over say $50? There is the conceptual issue: All other things equal, is corruption greater when two officials each take a $50 bribe or one a $100 bribe? Then there are the practical issues, starting with how to measure conduct like bribery and embezzlement that cannot be directly observed and that the participants go to great lengths to hide (here).
Organized by the UNDP, the International Anticorruption Academy, UNODC, the OECD, and the World Bank, the conference did not produce the definitive guide to corruption measurement. Nor is such a guide even possible, given the definitional, conceptual, and practical issues corruption measurement poses.
What the conference did achieve was more important.
Participants from governments and NGOs from rich and poor countries alike agreed that the impossibility of an all-encompassing measurement tool must not be taken as a counsel of despair. There are many ways progress in the fight against corruption can be measured and much that national governments with input from academics and civil society can do to develop ever better measures of that progress. The statement issued by this Second Global Conference on Harnessing Data to Improve Corruption Measurement along with the recommendations for advancing the measurement agenda is here.
GAB | The Global Anticorruption Blog 
Thank you for this interesting point of view. One famous expression says, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
However, we still need to measure corruption and the effects of anti-corruption efforts. As in most other areas of statistical measurement, we can only make assumptions about how close certain statistical figures are to reality. GDP measurements are not 100% precise, but at least we use the same methodology to measure them in every country (or at least we believe we do…).
Something similar applies to the measurement of corruption: first, we need to agree on a methodology and a system of indicators.
In 2024, UNODC issued the Statistical Framework for Measuring Corruption, which is quite comprehensive and considers a wide range of possible data sources. It has been tested in three or four countries so far, but this is only the beginning of the piloting process and attempts to standardize measurement approaches.
Let’s see what it will bring in the future…
Glad you found the post of interest and thanks for the useful comment. It reminds me of a saying my late father, an insurance executive, often repeated: Figures don’t lie but liars figure. To curb corruption, accurate, trustworthy data is essential. New York Conference great step towards reaching that goal.