 |
LATIN AMERICA |
| |
Chile and Uruguay, Least Corrupt In Latin
America
Among the 31 countries from the Americas
included in Transparency International’s
(TI) 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index
(CPI), 10 scored above 5 (out of 10) while
21 scored less than 5 indicating a serious
corruption problem. Overall, nine countries
failed to exceed a score of 3, indicating
rampant corruption.
However in the overall ranking of 180
countries, headed by New Zealand, Denmark
and Singapore, Uruguay and Chile figure in
position 25 (next to France); Argentina
ranks 106; Paraguay, 154; Brazil, 75 close
to China, 79; Mexico, 89; Venezuela 162,
worse than Russia, 146.
Canada and the US are the best performers in
the Americas, ranking 8 and 18, which
compares with the UK standing of position
17.
In Latinamerica with the exception of
Guatemala, no country in the region showed a
significant increase in its CPI score.
In the group of countries which score above
5, Canada remains at the top of the list. It
continues to be among the ten countries with
the lowest perceived levels of corruption
worldwide, serving as a benchmark and
inspiration for the Americas. Chile, Uruguay
and Costa Rica are the only Latin American
countries included in this group, although
with lower scores than their Caribbean
neighbours in Barbados and Saint Lucia.
The United States (US) score remains stable
at 7.5 despite widespread concerns over a
lack of government oversight in relation to
the financial sector. A swift government
response to the financial crisis and moves
towards regulatory reforms that include
transparency and accountability measures,
may play a role in the country’s score.
Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether
proposed reforms are far-reaching enough and
to what extent they will be implemented.
Another reason for concern is that in the US
the legislature is perceived to be the
institution most affected by corruption,
according to TI’s Global Corruption
Barometer, a public opinion survey published
in 2009.
Among the nine countries that failed to
exceed a score of 5 are Brazil, Peru,
Colombia and Mexico, all leading economies
in the region which should become
anti-corruption strongholds but have been
rocked by scandals involving impunity,
kickbacks, political corruption and state
capture.
Once again Haiti, the poorest country in the
region, ranks at the bottom though its score
improved modestly from 1.4 in 2008 to 1.8
this year. Additional low scorers include
Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Paraguay,
all countries facing high levels of poverty
and a great need for solid, transparent
institutions that could facilitate
much-needed economic growth. Argentina and
Venezuela are also among the low performers
in the index, an indication that high
perceptions of corruption are not
exclusively linked to poverty.
Throughout Latin America, which makes up the
bulk of low-scoring countries in the region,
weak institutions, poor governance practices
and the excessive influence of private
interests continue to undermine best efforts
to promote equitable and sustainable
development. Additionally, Latin American
journalists face an increasingly restrictive
environment with several countries passing
or proposing legislation aimed at silencing
critical coverage, which hampers overall
press freedom and the crucial ability to
report on corruption and its impact.
Both civil society and the media play a key
role in preventing and fighting corruption.
Weakening them, particularly at a time when
democratic institutions are also being
challenged in several countries, limits the
possibility of achieving lasting prosperity
and reducing inequality.
Although each country has its own particular
context, across the board the effects of the
financial crisis and the subsequent economic
downturn have highlighted the crucial
importance of governance in the private and
public sectors and in relationships between
the two, particularly in respect to stimulus
packages which are already pumping large
amounts of money into badly affected
economies. States across the region – rich
and poor – will have to respond by ensuring
that these public funds are handled with
integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
