Sri Lanka stagnates on Corruption Perceptions Index

• Latest data shows score of 38 not changed since 2017
• SL rank changed from 89 in 2018 to 93 last year
• India, Bhutan rank better than SL but Pakistan and Bangladesh lower 
• Globally New Zealand and Denmark secure top rank 
• Campaign financing regulations could help increase SL rank  

By Shailendree 

Wickrama Adittiya

Sri Lanka’s score on the latest Corruption Perceptions Index released yesterday remained unchanged, indicating that the public’s view of State sector governance remains stagnant despite policy and political promises.     

Sri Lanka ranks 93rd out of 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2019, which was launched by Transparency International Sri Lanka yesterday. 

Sri Lanka received a score of 38 out of 100, the same as in 2018 and 2017. In 2016, Sri Lanka received a score of 36. However, the country went from being ranked 95th out of 176 countries in 2016 to 91st out of 180 countries in 2017 and 89th out of 180 countries in 2018.

Looking at the South Asian region in 2019, India received a score of 41 and ranked 80th, Pakistan had a score of 32 and a rank of 120, and Bhutan had a score of 68 and ranked 25th. Nepal was ranked 113th while Bangladesh was ranked 146th on the index. 

Globally, New Zealand and Denmark ranked first with scores of 87, with Finland ranking third with a score of 86. Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland received scores of 85 and ranked fourth. The lowest ranking country was Somalia, with a score of 10.

Compiled by Transparency International, the CPI looks at the perceived levels of corruption in the public sector based on data collected from experts and businesspeople. A total of 13 surveys and expert assessments were used to measure the scores of the 180 countries and territories.

At the launch of the report, TISL Executive Director Asoka Obeyesekere said the report “is the one opportunity where we get to see how Sri Lanka is fairing against other countries in the world and to also have an assessment of how we are doing domestically as well, when we look at the issue of corruption, specifically focusing on the perceptions of public sector corruption.”

One of the main observations made by Obeyesekere was on campaign financing, which he said was an indicator of performance when it comes to perceptions of public sector corruption. 

“If you look at the countries that have campaign finance regulations which are enforced, typically, they have a score on the CPI of 70,” he said, adding that countries that do not have campaign finance regulations or do not implement their campaign finance regulations typically have scores of 34 and 35 respectively.

Thus, if Sri Lanka was to improve its score, regulations on campaign financing needed to be looked into.

Analysis shows that countries that perform well on the CPI also have stronger enforcement of campaign finance regulations and a broader range of political consultation. Countries where campaign finance regulations are comprehensive and systematically enforced have an average score of 70 on the CPI, whereas countries where such regulations either do not exist or are poorly enforced score an average of just 34 and 35 respectively. Sixty per cent of the countries that significantly improved their CPI scores since 2012 also strengthened regulations around campaign donations.

Transparency International Chair Delia Ferreira Rubio, in her global statement, said: “Frustration with Government corruption and a lack of trust in institutions speaks to a need for greater political integrity. Governments must urgently address the corrupting role of big money in political party financing and the undue influence it exerts on our political systems.”