Integrated assessment of the corruption level in the world

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 191, Issue 7-8(1), Pages: 4-15

Citation information:
Panasenko, N., Myrna, O., & Svitlychna, A. (2021). Integrated assessment of the corruption level in the world. Economic Annals-XXI, 191(7-8(1)), 4-15. doi:

Nataliia Panasenko
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Poltava State Agrarian Academy
1/3 Skovoroda Str., Poltava, 36003, Ukraine

Olha Myrna
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Poltava State Agrarian Academy
1/3 Skovoroda Str., Poltava, 36003, Ukraine

Alla Svitlychna
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Poltava State Agrarian Academy
1/3 Skovoroda Str., Poltava, 36003, Ukraine

Integrated assessment of the corruption level in the world

Abstract. The methodology of assessing the level of corruptibility of the society occupies an important place in the strategic programs of anti-corruption activities. The obtained rating indicators reflect the dynamics of corruption in the country, and the change of the state’s position in the ranking show the efficiency of anti-corruption policy. Since the data of obtained ratings differ significantly, the urgent scientific problem is to combine them in a single integral assessment. The authors have developed a methodology of integral assessment of the level of corruption in the country and evaluated the influence of different social and economic factors on it. Integral assessment was carried out on the basis of initial indicators Corruption Perception Index, Index of Economic Freedom, World Government Indicator, Doing Business, Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide. We have used the method of modified principal component to determine gross coefficients of the above indicators in the integral assessment. The following indicators were found to have a significant impact on the level of corruption: human development index, education index, GDP per capita, coefficient of human inequality, employment to population ratio, unemployment. A multi-factor model has been developed that makes it possible to evaluate the efficiency of anti-corruption measures taken.

Keywords: Integrated Assessment; Integrated Assessment of The Corruption Level; Rating Indices; Multicollinearity; Regression Equations

JEL Classification: C82; F29; К22

Acknowledgements and Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Contribution: The authors contributed equally to this work.

Data Availability Statement: The dataset is available from the authors upon request.



  1. Bahoo, S. (2020). Corruption in Banks: A Bibliometric Review and Agenda. Finance Research Letters, 35, 101499.
  2. Bahoo, S., Alon, I., & Floreani. J. (2021). Corruption in economics: a bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Applied Economics Letters, 28(7), 565-578.
  3. Bahoo, S., Alon, I., & Paltrinieri, A. (2020). Corruption in international business: A review and research agenda. International Business Review, 29(4), 101660.
  4. Baumann, H. (2020). The corruption perception index and the political economy of governing at a distance. International Relationsm, 34(4), 504-523.
  5. Bogomolov, A. V., Neretyna, A. D., & Murar, V. I. (2014). Some aspects of international experience in the fight against corruption. Science Time, 12, 47-52. (in Russ.)
  6. Budsaratragoon, P., & Jitmaneeroj, B. (2020). A critique on the Corruption Perceptions Index: An interdisciplinary approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 70, 100768.
  7. Cardenas Cardenas, G., García Gamez, S., & Salas Suarez, A. (2018). A synthetic indicator of corruption for Latin America: a global vision. Competitiveness Review, 28(2), 194-212.
  8. Chang Yi-Fang. (2013). Synergetic Application, Equations on Rule of Law and Two-Party Mechanism. International Journal of Modern Social Sciences. Florida, USA, 2(1), 10-19.
  9. Cooley, A. (2015). The emerging politics of international rankings and ratings: A framework for analysis. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance (pp. 1-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Gilman, S. C. (2018). To Understand and to Misunderstand How Corruption is Measured: Academic Research and the Corruption Perception Index. Public Integrity, 20, 574-588.
  11. Hart, E. (2019). Guide to using corruption measurements and analysis tools for development programming. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Guide 2019:1).
  12. He Ning (2016). Rethinking the Causes of Corruption: Perceived Corruption, Measurement Bias, and Cultural Illusion. Chinese Political Science Review, 1, 268-302.
  13. Holovkin, B. M. (2018). Corruption prevention mechanism. Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava (Chronicles of Kyiv university of law), 4, 254-260. (in Ukr.)
  14. Hubin, K. H. (2019). Fight against corruption rent in Ukraine: main stages and measures. Ekonomichna teoriia ta pravo (Economic theory and law), 4 (39), 114-132. (in Ukr.)
  15. Johnson, J., & Mason, P. (2013). The Proxy Challenge: Why bespoke proxy indicators can help solve the anti-corruption measurement problem. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Brief, 2013:2).
  16. Johnson, J. (2015). The basics of corruption risk management: A framework for decision making and integration into the project cycle. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Issue, 2015:18).
  17. Kolesnikova, M. V., & Turuk, N. V. (2016). Information as a way to fight corruption. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal (Legal scientific electronic journal), 2, 100-103. (in Ukr.)
  18. Luna-Pla, I., & Nicolás-Carlock, J. R. (2020). Corruption and complexity: a scientific framework for the analysis of corruption networks. Applied Network Science, 5, 13.
  19. Makarenkov, O. L. (2020). Innovative use of synergetic methodological approach to knowledge of anti-corruption transformations of public law in an open society. Pryvatne ta publichne pravo (Private and public law), 1, 8-12. (in Ukr.)
  20. Malito, D. V. (2014). Measuring corruption indicators and indices. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper, 2014/13.
  21. Mangafić, J., & Veselinović, L. (2020). The determinants of corruption at the individual level: evidence from Bosnia-Herzegovina. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 2670-2691.
  22. Marani, S. C. Z., de Brito, M. J., de Souza, G. C., & Brito, V. da G. P. (2018). Meanings in research on corruption. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(4), 712-730.
  23. Melnyk, V. M., & Koren, N. V. (2018) Main causes of corruption in Ukraine and ways of its extension. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Universytetu derzhavnoi fiskalnoi sluzhby Ukrainy (Collection of scientific works of the University of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine), 2, 207-221. (in Ukr.)
  24. Merry, S. E. (2016). The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and Sex Trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  25. Miller, T., Kim, A. B., & Roberts, J. M. (2019). 2019 Index of economic freedom. The Heritage Foundation. Washington.
  26. National Agency on Corruption Prevention. (2021, 11 March). The NACP has identified 25 typical corruption risks in public procurement. (in Ukr.)
  27. National anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine. (2017). NABU investigation in the field of agro-industrial complex. (in Ukr.)
  28. Noerlina, Wulandhari, L. A., Sasmoko, Muqsith, A. M., & Alamsyah M. (2017). Corruption Cases Mapping Based on Indonesia’s Corruption Perception Index. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 801, 012019.
  29. Parhomenko-Kutsevil, O. I. (2019). Formation and development of modern anti-corruption public authorities as a basis for preventing and overcoming corruption: a theoretical and methodological analysis. Kyiv, Publishing House «Personnel». (in Ukr.)
  30. Paunov, C. (2016). Corruption’s asymmetric impacts on firm innovation. Journal of Development Economics, 118, 216-231.
  31. Pertiwi, K. (2018). Contextualizing Corruption: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Studying Corruption in Organizations. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 12.
  32. Petrashko, S. Ya. (2014). Fighting corruption: international dimension and national practice. Kyiv, Lagislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada Ukraine. (in Ukr.)
  33. Schwab, K. (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. World Economic Forum.
  34. Sequeira, S. (2012). Advances in Measuring Corruption in the Field. In D. Serra & L. Wantchekon (Eds.), New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption (Research in Experimental Economics), Vol. 15, (pp. 145-175). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
  35. Sharma, S., Singhal, S., & Tarp, F. (2021). Corruption and mental health: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 185, 125-137.
  36. Sytnyk, L. (2016). Opportunities for sharing the europian anticorruption experience in Ukraine. Ekonomika i organizaciya upravlinnya (Economics and organization of management), 22(2), 174-180. (in Ukr.)
  37. The PRS Group. (2019, October). Regional Political Risk Index.
  38. Transparency International Ukraine. (2019). Corruption perceptions index 2019.
  39. United nations development programme. (2020). Human Development Data Center.
  40. United States Agency for International Development / ENGAGE. (2020). Regular survey of foreign investors: Special issue. Center for Economic Strategy, 2019. (in Ukr.)
  41. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, & World bank group. (2019). Doing Business 2019. Training for Reform.
  42. World bank group. (2019). Worldwide Governance Indicators.
  43. Zimelis, A. (2020). Corruption research: A need for an integrated approach. International Area Studies Review, 23(3), 288-306.
  44. Zouaoui, A., Al Qudah, A., & Ben Arab, M. (2017). World Corruption Perception Index Analysis. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 8(24), 85-91.

Received 4.04.2021
Received in revised form 19.05.2021
Accepted 31.05.2021
Available online 10.08.2021