Why a new measurement of transparency?

The ‘Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an average of expert scores produced by a variety of agencies assessing corruption at the national level as perceived by experts and businesspeople. It is an aggregate of corruption risk perception and does not measure transparency. The existence of a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOI) is the most used transparency proxy, but, since the adoption in many countries of such acts did not lead to a decrease in corruption, an instrument is needed to measure also implementation: real, and not just legal transparency.

However, measures of comprehensive real (de facto) transparency are not easy to come by in a comparative format for multiple countries, despite transparency being enabled by digitalization. The only way to assess de facto transparency is to directly observe the existence of such data, its accessibility and coverage, thus de facto practice of transparency rather than just its de jure existence.

The existence of such a measurement brings important advantages for public policy and good governance. It allows establishing benchmarks of transparency, and thus informs a very specific reform agenda. It offers an international ranking based on facts, not perceptions, which would not only incentivize countries to progress (as CPI is used mostly for naming and shaming) but also offer specific policy targets. Finally, it allows policy relevant research, as the resulting measurement can be tested in relation with curbing corruption. This is what the new transparency measure (T-index) offers.

The methodology of the T-index has been published in full in the peer-reviewed journal Regulation and Governance as "Transparency and Corruption: Measuring real transparency by a new index" in 2022. It can be found at DOI: 10.1111/rego.1250. In June 2023, we published a new report with our survey of government transparency expanded to 143 countries and a new de jure subcomponent regarding beneficial ownership. A summary of these articles follows below.

What concept do we measure? The T-index

We define transparency as the available and accessible (cost free) minimal public information required to deter corruption and enable public accountability in a society. We build our definition on the fact that corruption is deterred to a great extent not by offensive actions against it, but by the capacity of every individual to defend herself from being abused and discriminated. Corruption in a democracy often results in discrimination, as few states dispose of unlimited resources, where favors granted to some individuals or companies would not result in the deprivation of others of similar merit. Transparency contributes to control of corruption both by decreasing opportunities for corruption and by increasing constraints (see Figure).

In the age of Internet and e-government, transparency often becomes computer-mediated - with the generalization of smartphones raising access to information to unprecedented levels. Evidence exists that technology enables transparency. The additional advantage is that Internet-based transparency is easier to observe than classic transparency requiring paperwork and having significant time lags. This is the transparency that we measure.

What transparency matters for corruption control?

Transparency features prominently in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC, 2004), and is explicitly mentioned among the ‘outcome targets’ list of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 as in ‘developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions’; and ‘ensuring public access to information’, although it is implicit in the other targets as well. UNCAC is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument. Transparency is covered under preventive measures, one of the five areas included in the treaty. The Convention specifies from Article 1 the obligation of all the state parties to govern on the basis of transparency, and goes on to spell out transparency as a key principle of public sector organization and function (Article 7, § 1a), political finance (Article 3), conflict of interest prevention (Article 4), public procurement (Article 9, § 1), public finance management (9, §§ 2 and 3), public reporting and proactive disclosure of information, including on policy formulation (Article 10), ownership of private entities (Article 12, § 2c) and any information enabling oversight, and “the freedom to seek, receive, publish and disseminate information concerning corruption” (Article 13, § 1d). We thus use UNCAC to limit the categories of information that a government should offer to enable democratic accountability in order to come up with a measurable instrument and limit its scope.

How do we select the indicators?

The main procedure for building a transparency index includes selecting appropriate transparency indicators and then weighting and aggregating them into a composite index.

To measure transparency and its effect on corruption we use two sets of indicators: one for de jure transparency and the other on de facto transparency. The advantage of collecting both is that we can also test to what extent regulation produces the expected outcome, i.e. delivers actual transparency.

By eliminating non-universal categories which could impend comparison across a large number of countries (for instance, websites which disclose party finances, important only for democracies), we arrive at 14 de facto components and 6 de jure (legal commitment for a central public register of beneficial ownership was added in 2023 as the sixth de jure subcomponent).

The anti-corruption international agreements and treaties compiled in the de jure index are:

UNCAC ratification
Membership to Open Government Partnership (OGP)
FOI act present in national legislation
Ratification of either the OECD Convention against Bribery of International Officials, Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, World Trade Organization Agreement on Global Procurement (GPA), or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
Financial Action Task Force against Money Laundering or equivalent
Legal commitment for a central public register of beneficial ownership

For the 14 de facto components, please scroll down to the end, where a full questionnaire is included.

As each category has its separate theoretical importance, which cannot be statistically tested against the whole, to aggregate the index we use a qualitative method similar to building an index of qualitative variation (IQV). The availability of the 14 resources in full is considered the ‘anti-corruption transparency’ target, and each component adds up equally to fulfill it to 100%, which is the equivalent of the maximum score of 14 points. A country’s score represents the percentage to which the target is fulfilled. The same logic is applied to the de jure and to the total T-Index score, bringing the total 100% up to 20 points. The resulting index is highly internally consistent and correlates well with measures of corruption and democracy.

Why and how should you use this index?

As any other similar aggregated index at the country level, the T-Index can also serve a “naming and shaming” purpose, identifying good and bad performers in the field of government transparency, giving visibility to best practices and (hopefully) producing incentives for laggards to improve transparency standards.

But more importantly, by capturing real instead of just formal transparency the novel de facto T-Index and its disaggregated components offer a unique and valuable diagnosis tool especially for international donors, as well as practitioners and activists in the field of government transparency, helping to identify benchmarks and concrete gaps in the availability of public information in each individual area assessed by the index. This can be useful for better targeted local advocacy efforts demanding increased transparency where it is most lacking.

Additionally, for the academic community the T-Index may serve as a better and more valid measure of government transparency, filling an important gap in the measurement of this phenomenon.

Questionnaire used

Q1	Are past public expenditures published online? (1 point) A) Last fiscal year expenditure report is accessible online in its detailed form = 1 B) Last fiscal year expenditure report is accessible online with limited detail = 0.5 C) Not available online or too generic (only aggregated data) = 0 Note: Expenditure reports are considered as fully detailed if they are at least disaggregated by agency AND object of expenditure, allowing citizens to understand how money was spent and not just how much money was spent in a specific domain. Reports are considered as having limited detail if they are disaggregated in other forms but not by expenditure object. The time frame for analysis adopts the same criteria as the Open Budget Survey, and reporting on the last fiscal year is considered timely when information is made available within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year.
Q2	Are current public expenditures published online? (1 point) A) Data is available through an online tracking system with itemized expenditures (e.g. copy machine) = 1 B) Data is available through an online tracking system that is not itemized OR through fairly detailed budget execution reports = 0.5 C) Not available online or too generic (only aggregated data) = 0 Note: For response B, reports are considered to be fairly detailed when they include data disaggregated by agency AND object of expenditure. Current public expenditures should be published online within maximum 6 months of their occurrence for a country to score in this question.
Q3	Is there a centralized public procurement portal where both tenders and contract awards are posted? (1 point) A) Calls for bids AND award notices are published = 1 B) Only call for bids OR award notices are published = 0.5 C) No procurement portal exists OR information published is minimal (selected procedures only) = 0 Note: A full score requires that award notices include at least the winner's name and contract value.
Q4	Is there an online land cadaster where property ownership is disclosed? (1 point) A) Cadaster data is fully accessible online = 1 B) Cadaster data is partial OR limited in geographic coverage OR access requires payment = 0.5 C) Not available online = 0
Q5	Is there a register of commerce where shareholders and main data of companies is published? (1 point) A) Business registry is fully and freely available online = 1 1 point also when the register is run by a private company B) Information is partial or access to relevant information is paid = 0.5 C) Not available online = 0
Q6	Is the annual report of the Supreme Audit Institution publicly posted? (1 point) A) Annual report is available online with detailed information on individual audit results = 1 Cases where the report is not comprehensive, but all individual reports are easily accessible are granted a full point as well B) Annual report has information on selected audits (and audit results are not available elsewhere) = 0.5 C) No (current) report is available online = 0
Q7	Are supreme court hearing schedules public and accessible online? (1 point) A) All court information available online = 1 B) Not all information public, politically sensitive cases not available = 0.5 C) Not available online = 0 Note: For countries where multiple superior courts exist, the court considered is the highest court of appeal. The schedule is considered public when published at least one day in advance to the court's session. If the ruling dates are provided only on a case-basis (no full schedule available), the score is 0.5 point. If there is information on the dates in which the court will have its sessions but without listing the cases that will be decided, the information is considered insufficient, and the score is zero.
Q8	Are supreme court sentences published online? (1 point) A) All court sentences available online = 1 B) Not all information public, politically sensitive cases not available = 0.5 C) Not available online = 0 Note: For countries where multiple superior courts exist, the court considered is the highest court of appeal. Sentences are considered published when accompanied by their reasoning / justification. A full point is also given if sentences are visible via case-search with public access.
Q9	Are financial disclosures of officials publicly available online? (1 point) A) Available for all officials required to declare = 1 B) Available only for part of the officials required to declare (e.g. top officials) = 0.5 C) Not available online (or only upon request) = 0
Q10	Are conflict of interest disclosures of officials publicly available online? (1 point) A) Available for all officials required to declare = 1 B) Available only for part of the officials required to declare (e.g. top officials) = 0.5 C) Not available online (or only upon request) = 0 Note: In cases where no specific interest disclosure is required but relevant information is included in the financial disclosures (e.g. shares in companies, financial disclosure of relatives) AND those are public, criteria for this question are also considered as fulfilled.
Q11	Are incoming and outcoming donor funds’ allocations published? (1 point) A) Incoming/outcoming donor funds (or both whenever applicable) are available B) Only incoming OR outcoming donor funds are available in a situation when there should be both = 0.5 A half point is also given if information is partial. C) Not available online = 0 Note: A full score requires that aid allocations specify amounts disaggregated at least by donor/recipient country.
Q12	Are mining concessions publicly posted? (1 point) A) Information on mining concessions/licenses/titles is fully available = 1 B) Information on mining concessions/licenses/titles is partially available or access is paid = 0.5 C) Not available online = 0 Note: A full score requires that data on mining concessions specify at least location, beneficiary, and time frame of the concession. Cases in which the information is available but not fully up to date are granted a 0.5 point – given the usual long timeframe of mining concessions, the information is still considered of relevance to the public.
Q13	Are construction permits in the country’s capital city publicly posted? (1 point) A) Information on issued construction permits is fully available = 1 B) Information on issued construction permits is partially available OR access is paid = 0.5 C) Not available online = 0 Note: A full score is given when at least the address and the name of the applicant are published. In case there is an electronic portal for applying for construction permits but it does not publish the awarded permits, the information is considered insufficient, and the score is zero.
Q14	Is there an online gazette or a government portal which publishes all official legislation for everybody to access? (1 point) A) Yes = 1 B) Yes, but the access is paid OR the information is only partially provided = 0.5 C) No = 0