Corruption Correlations

Our blog “International Development and the Challenge of Public Sector Corruption” discusses the results of our examination of correlations for the control of corruption and government effectiveness and public financial management (PFM) performance.

Corruption and Government Effectiveness

Correlations were calculated for the relationships between the control of corruption (capturing perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain) and government effectiveness (including the quality of public services) for 184 countries using data from the World Bank’s 2013 Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), together with World Bank 2013 per capita income data and Rand Corporation’s Trace (bribery) Matrix risk scores for these countries.

The Trace (bribery) Matrix risk scores have an inverse relationship with corruption control levels i.e. low Trace Matrix risk scores indicate relatively favourable levels of control over corruption whilst high Trace Matrix risk scores indicate relatively poor control over corruption. Strong relationships between WGI control over corruption /government effectiveness scores and Trace Matrix risk scores will result in relatively high negative correlation values.

Results were prepared for the total sample of 184 countries as well as the halves and quartiles of the sample.

Corruption and Public Financial Management

Correlations were calculated for the relationships between some measures of PFM performance and the measures of corruption and government effectiveness for the 39 developing countries for which Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessments were made available during the past three years from 2013 to 2015. The respective PFM performance measures used are performance indicators prescribed in the PEFA methodology applicable in 2011 comprising the initial 2005 indicator set and subsequent amendments.

Results were also prepared for this sample of 39 countries as well as the halves and quartiles of the sample.

Correlations download

The correlations are presented in a spreadsheet that can be downloaded here.

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of the Republic of Congo’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between the Republic of Congo’s performance and the performance of the other twenty-three countries that had PEFA assessments published in 2014-2015. All analyses have been prepared using results reported from using the 2011 PEFA methodology.

Overall PFM performance

Individual country PFM performance has been determined by applying the following points scale to reported individual performance indicator (PI) scores as presented in Table 1. No points were allocated to PIs that were not scored because either data was unavailable, a D score was given or the PI was not applicable.

Table 1: PI scoring methodology

The graph in Figure 1 below shows the Republic of Congo’s overall score was ranked twenty-second out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Download a png version of Figure 1 here (the Republic of Congo’s overall result) to review the overall scores of the Republic of Congo and the twenty-three other countries in more detail.

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. The Republic of Congo’s overall score was 21 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

The Republic of Congo’s overall PFM performance is classified as “weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for the Republic of Congo’s individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no scores were recorded for the top seven indicators in Figure 2 as one indicator (PI-15) was not assessed and six other indicators (PI-4, PI-5, PI-9, PI-16, PI-21 and PI-23) received D scores.

Figure 2: Republic of Congo PI score comparisons

Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (the Republic of Congo PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.

Twenty-seven PIs were assessed. Five PIs had scores above the country average, one PI had a score equal to the country average whilst twenty-one PIs had scores below the country average.

Performance across key PFM activities

The graph in Figure 3 below shows the average scores for the six key PFM activities compared with the average score recorded for these activities across the twenty-four country PEFA assessments we have studied.

 Figure 3: Republic of Congo key PFM activity comparisons

All six key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average. Download a png version of Figure 3 here (the Republic of Congo’s key PFM activities) to review these scores in more detail.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for the Republic of Congo here.

Download pdf

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Guinea-Bissau’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Guinea-Bissau’s performance and the performance of the other twenty-three countries that had PEFA assessments published in 2014-2015. All analyses have been prepared using results reported from using the 2011 PEFA methodology.

Overall PFM performance

Individual country PFM performance has been determined by applying the following points scale to reported individual performance indicator (PI) scores as presented in Table 1. No points were allocated to PIs that were not scored because either data was unavailable, a D score was given or the PI was not applicable.

Table 1: PI scoring methodology

The graph in Figure 1 below shows Guinea-Bissau’s overall score was ranked twenty-fourth out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Download a png version of Figure 1 here (Guinea-Bissau overall result) to review the overall scores of Guinea-Bissau and the twenty-three other countries in more detail.

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Guinea-Bissau’s overall score was 14.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Guinea-Bissau’s overall PFM performance is classified as “very weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Guinea-Bissau individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no scores were recorded for the top twelve indicators in Figure 2 as six indicators (PI-4, PI-7, PI-8, PI-11, PI-25, PI-27) were not assessed and six other indicators (PI-9, PI-10, PI-22, PI-23, PI-26 and PI-28) received D scores.

 Figure 2: Guinea-Bissau PI score comparisons

Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (Guinea-Bissau PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.

Twenty-two PIs were assessed. One PI had a score above the country average whilst twenty-one PIs had scores below the country average.

Performance across key PFM activities

The graph in Figure 3 below shows the average scores for the six key PFM activities compared with the average score recorded for these activities across the twenty-four country PEFA assessments we have studied.

 Figure 3: Guinea-Bissau key PFM activity comparisons

All six key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average. Download a png version of Figure 3 here (Guinea-Bissau key PFM activities) to review these scores in more detail.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Guinea-Bissau here.

Download pdf

Introduction

This note presents a series of charts which provide an overview of Madagascar’s recent public financial management (PFM) performance based on this country’s 2014 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment. Comparisons are made between Madagascar’s performance and the performance of the other twenty-three countries that had PEFA assessments published in 2014-2015. All analyses have been prepared using results reported from using the 2011 PEFA methodology.

Overall PFM performance

Individual country PFM performance has been determined by applying the following points scale to reported individual performance indicator (PI) scores as presented in Table 1. No points were allocated to PIs that were not scored because either data was unavailable, a D score was given or the PI was not applicable.

Table 1: PI scoring methodology

The graph in Figure 1 below shows Madagascar’s overall score was ranked twentieth out of the twenty-four countries.

 Figure 1: Aggregate PEFA scores for 24 countries

Download a png version of Figure 1 here (Madagascar overall result) to review the overall scores of Madagascar and the twenty-three other countries in more detail.

Details of the distribution of overall country scores across PFM performance categories, as determined by PFMConnect, are presented in Table 2. Madagascar’s overall score was 25.5 points.

Table 2: Distribution of country PFM performance levels

Madagascar’s overall PFM performance is classified as “weak”.

PI performance

The graph in Figure 2 below shows the scores for Madagascar individual PIs compared with the average score recorded for each PI across the twenty-four PEFA assessments we have studied. Please note that no scores were recorded for the top six indicators in Figure 2 as one indicator (PI-4) was not assessed and five other indicators (PI-1,PI-7, PI-9, PI-23,and PI-28) received D scores.

 Figure 2: Madagascar PI score comparisons

Download a pdf version of Figure 2 here (Madagascar PIs) to review individual PI scores in more detail.

Twenty-seven PIs were assessed. Four PIs had scores above the country average whilst twenty-three PIs had scores below the country average.

Performance across key PFM activities

The graph in Figure 3 below shows the average scores for the six key PFM activities compared with the average score recorded for these activities across the twenty-four country PEFA assessments we have studied.

 Figure 3: Madagascar key PFM activity comparisons

All six key PFM activities recorded scores below the country average. Download a png version of Figure 3 here (Madagascar key PFM activities) to review these scores in more detail.

PEFA ASSESSMENT

You can download the 2014 PEFA assessment for Madagascar here.

Download pdf