Bribe Payers Index
The Bribe Payers Index (BPI) is a ranking published by the non-governmental organization Transparency International from 1999 to 2011, evaluating the perceived propensity of multinational corporations from major economies to engage in foreign bribery by offering undue payments to public officials abroad.[1][2] Unlike Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, which gauges domestic public-sector corruption, the BPI targeted the supply side of transnational corruption, selecting countries based on their shares of global exports and foreign direct investment outflows.[1][3] The index's methodology relied on surveys of senior business executives operating in 30 emerging-market economies, who rated the likelihood of firms from ranked countries to pay bribes across various sectors and transaction types, such as securing government contracts or expediting regulatory approvals.[1][3] Scores ranged from 0 (high perceived bribery risk) to 10 (low risk), with rankings reflecting aggregated perceptions rather than verified incidents, underscoring the index's focus on reputational assessments informed by executive experiences.[1] The 2011 edition, the final one, covered 28 countries and territories, revealing that foreign bribery was viewed as commonplace globally, occurring in 57% of interactions with public officials according to respondents.[1][4] Key findings across editions consistently identified firms from Russia and China as most likely to bribe, scoring below 6.5 in 2011, while those from the Netherlands (8.8), Switzerland (8.7), and Sweden (8.6) ranked highest, indicating lower perceived propensities.[1] Bribery was deemed most prevalent in public works and construction (64% of respondents noting it as common), utilities (63%), and real estate and property (60%), with smaller bribes more frequent to speed processes and larger ones to influence laws or regulations.[1][4] These patterns highlighted how economic powerhouses' firms could distort markets in developing regions, prompting calls for stronger enforcement of anti-bribery laws like the OECD Convention.[1] Publication ended after 2011 amid funding limitations and a strategic shift toward other corruption metrics deemed more actionable by Transparency International.[5] The BPI faced critiques for its reliance on subjective perceptions over hard enforcement data, with some analyses questioning underlying assumptions about sectoral bribery drivers, yet it remains a seminal tool for exposing cross-border corruption dynamics.[6][1]Origins and History
Founding and Early Development
The Bribe Payers Index (BPI) was initiated by Transparency International (TI), a Berlin-based non-governmental organization founded in 1993 to combat global corruption, with its inaugural edition published on October 26, 1999.[7] Unlike TI's Corruption Perceptions Index, which emphasized corruption on the demand side in recipient countries, the BPI targeted the supply side by assessing the perceived propensity of companies from major exporting nations to engage in foreign bribery.[7] This focus stemmed from TI's recognition of the role played by multinational firms in perpetuating corruption abroad, particularly in emerging markets, amid growing international efforts such as the 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which criminalized such practices among signatories.[7] The 1999 BPI derived from a survey commissioned by TI and executed by the Gallup International Association from April to July 1999, comprising 779 confidential in-depth interviews with senior executives from private firms, accountancies, chambers of commerce, banks, and law firms across 14 emerging economies: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and Thailand.[7] Interviewees rated the bribe-paying likelihood of firms from 19 leading exporting countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—on a 0-to-10 scale (0 indicating high likelihood, 10 negligible).[7] Aggregate scores yielded rankings, with Sweden achieving the highest at 8.3 and China the lowest at 3.1; standard errors remained below 0.2, reflecting methodological consistency despite reliance on subjective perceptions rather than verified incidents.[7] Funding for the survey came from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, underscoring TI's strategy to leverage empirical perceptions data for advocacy.[7] TI founder Peter Eigen, a former World Bank regional director whose experiences in Africa highlighted institutional inaction on graft, emphasized the index's intent to expose "the massive scale of bribe-paying by international corporations in the developing countries of the world."[7] Early iterations highlighted sectors like public works/construction and arms manufacturing as particularly prone to bribery, with 33% of respondents reporting rising corruption trends over the prior five years, often linked to low public salaries and official impunity.[7] Subsequent refinement occurred with the 2002 edition, which expanded coverage while preserving the core perceptions-based framework, though direct comparability was limited by evolving survey questions and samples.[8] This progression reflected TI's aim to iteratively monitor compliance with anti-bribery norms, pressuring governments and firms through publicized rankings amid uneven enforcement in high-scoring nations.[8]Evolution of Scope and Focus
The Bribe Payers Index (BPI) began in 1999 as a ranking of 19 leading exporting countries based on perceptions of their firms' propensity to pay bribes abroad, primarily gathered through surveys of business executives in 14 emerging market economies conducted between April and July of that year.[9][7] The initial focus was narrowly on overall bribe-paying tendencies by multinational corporations from developed economies, emphasizing the supply side of corruption in developing markets without detailed breakdowns by sector or bribery type. The 2002 edition expanded the scope to 21 countries, incorporating an exclusive survey that ranked not only national propensities but also specific business sectors within those countries, such as public works and utilities, which were perceived as higher-risk areas for bribery.[10] This iteration shifted the focus slightly toward sectoral vulnerabilities, while the survey base broadened to include responses from executives in both emerging and select developed markets, aiming to capture more granular insights into how different industries contributed to foreign bribery. Subsequent editions further evolved the methodology and emphasis. The 2008 BPI covered 22 countries and relied on a comprehensive survey of over 2,700 senior business executives across 30 emerging markets, delving into the nature, scope, and impact of bribery, including distinctions between payments to public officials, private entities, and facilitation fees.[3][11] It introduced sub-rankings highlighting state-owned enterprises' roles and sector-specific risks, reflecting a maturing focus on diverse corruption mechanisms beyond simple national aggregates. The 2011 edition represented the pinnacle of expansion, ranking 28 of the world's largest economies—including emerging giants like China and Russia for the first time—and drawing from surveys of executives in 30 countries to assess perceived bribe-paying likelihoods.[1] This broadened geographic scope underscored a pivot toward evaluating supply-side corruption from both traditional and rising economic powers, with added scrutiny on private-to-private bribery and the influence of state involvement, though core scores showed minimal shifts from 2008, indicating persistent patterns rather than dramatic methodological overhauls.[12] No further editions followed, halting further evolution.Methodology
Data Collection and Survey Process
The Bribe Payers Index relies on perception-based surveys targeting senior business executives to gauge the likelihood of companies from specific countries engaging in foreign bribery. Transparency International commissions these surveys, typically partnering with established polling firms such as Gallup International, to collect qualitative assessments rather than objective transaction data. Respondents evaluate the perceived frequency of bribe-paying by firms headquartered in the indexed countries when operating abroad, focusing on scenarios involving public officials, procurement processes, and regulatory approvals.[3][13] Surveys employ stratified sampling to ensure representation across firm sizes, sectors, and geographic locations, with deliberate oversampling of larger enterprises (typically those with at least 100 employees) and those with significant foreign ownership (at least 20% foreign capital) to capture insights from multinational operations. For the 2008 edition, 2,742 executives were interviewed across 26 countries, achieving a minimum of 100 respondents per country through mixed methods including face-to-face interviews, telephone calls, and online questionnaires, selected based on local feasibility and response rates. Data quality is maintained via standardized protocols enforced by the polling partner, including validation checks and exclusion of incomplete responses. Self-assessments by respondents from the indexed countries are omitted to mitigate national bias.[3] Questionnaires probe specific bribe-paying behaviors on a Likert-style scale (e.g., from "never" to "almost always"), covering tactics such as payments to high-level politicians, low-level officials, or leveraging personal networks to influence contracts or customs. The 2011 survey expanded this to over 3,000 executives worldwide, assessing 28 major economies with analogous question structures emphasizing cross-border business interactions. Earlier iterations, such as the inaugural 1999 poll, followed similar executive-focused designs but with smaller samples and fewer countries, evolving to incorporate sectoral breakdowns in later years for nuanced analysis. These methods prioritize breadth over depth, relying on aggregated perceptions that may reflect experiential anecdotes rather than verifiable incidents, though they provide consistent cross-country comparability.[13][3]Index Calculation and Ranking Criteria
The Bribe Payers Index (BPI) is derived from surveys administered to senior business executives in multiple countries, who provide assessments of the propensity of firms from specific nations to engage in foreign bribery. Respondents familiar with business dealings involving companies from the countries in question rate the likelihood or frequency of such firms paying bribes abroad to secure or retain business. These ratings are aggregated by country, excluding self-assessments from executives in the home country to mitigate bias, and converted to a standardized 0–10 scale where higher scores indicate lower perceived bribery propensity.[3] In earlier editions, such as 2008, executives rated bribery frequency on a 1–5 scale (1 indicating "never" and 5 "almost always"), which was reversed and rescaled to the 0–10 index score, with means calculated from responses by at least 100 executives per surveyed country across 26 nations. Later iterations, like 2011, directly solicited likelihood ratings on a 0–10 scale (0 "not at all likely" to 10 "extremely likely"), followed by inversion to align with the convention of higher scores denoting better performance. Survey samples typically comprise 2,000–3,000 executives from sectors exposed to international trade, selected via stratified probabilistic methods prioritizing larger and foreign-influenced firms.[3][1] Countries included in the rankings—usually 19 to 30 major economies—are chosen based on criteria such as their share of global exports, foreign direct investment outflows, or gross national income, ensuring focus on influential bribe-supplying nations representing a significant portion of world trade flows (e.g., over 50% in some editions). Final rankings order countries by descending mean scores, with ties resolved by statistical confidence intervals; sectoral sub-indices may also be computed for industries like public works or pharmaceuticals, highlighting variations in perceived bribe-paying behavior.[3][1]Published Editions
1999 Edition
The 1999 Bribe Payers Index (BPI), the first edition of the index, was released by Transparency International on October 26, 1999, ranking 19 leading exporting countries according to perceptions of their firms' propensity to pay bribes abroad.[7] The index drew from a survey conducted by the Gallup International Association between April and July 1999, polling 779 senior private-sector executives—including accountants, bankers, and lawyers—across 14 emerging-market countries: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and Thailand, with approximately 55 respondents per country.[7] Respondents evaluated the likelihood of bribe payments by foreign firms on a scale from "negligible" to "widespread," yielding composite scores from 0 (indicating high bribery propensity) to 10 (negligible propensity).[7] The rankings highlighted Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon nations as least prone to such practices, while East Asian and some European countries ranked lower. Sweden topped the index with a score of 8.3, followed closely by Australia and Canada at 8.1 each. China ranked last at 3.1, with South Korea at 3.4. The full rankings are as follows:| Rank | Country | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sweden | 8.3 |
| 2 | Australia | 8.1 |
| 2 | Canada | 8.1 |
| 4 | Austria | 7.8 |
| 5 | Switzerland | 7.7 |
| 6 | Netherlands | 7.4 |
| 7 | United Kingdom | 7.2 |
| 8 | Belgium | 6.8 |
| 9 | Germany | 6.2 |
| 9 | United States | 6.2 |
| 11 | Singapore | 5.7 |
| 12 | Spain | 5.3 |
| 13 | France | 5.2 |
| 14 | Japan | 5.1 |
| 15 | Malaysia | 3.9 |
| 16 | Italy | 3.7 |
| 17 | Taiwan | 3.5 |
| 18 | South Korea | 3.4 |
| 19 | China | 3.1 |
2002 Edition
The 2002 Bribe Payers Index (BPI), published by Transparency International on May 13, 2002, ranked the bribery propensities of firms from 21 major exporting countries based on perceptions from business executives in emerging markets.[8] Unlike the 1999 edition, which drew from multiple secondary sources, the 2002 BPI relied primarily on primary survey data to assess the likelihood of foreign firms paying bribes to public officials in developing countries.[8] Scores ranged from 0 (indicating high propensity to bribe) to 10 (low propensity), with rankings reflecting aggregated responses on factors such as the frequency and size of bribes offered.[8] The index was derived from a survey conducted by the Gallup International Association between December 2001 and March 2002, involving 835 in-depth interviews with senior business executives, accountants, bankers, and lawyers across 15 emerging economies: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and Thailand.[8] Respondents evaluated firms' behaviors in securing public contracts, licenses, or regulatory approvals abroad, focusing on both national-level propensities and sector-specific patterns.[8] The methodology emphasized qualitative assessments of perceived bribery risks, though it did not incorporate objective enforcement data or legal outcomes.[8]| Rank | Country | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Australia | 8.5 |
| 2 | Sweden | 8.4 |
| 2 | Switzerland | 8.4 |
| 4 | Austria | 8.2 |
| 5 | Canada | 8.1 |
| 6 | Netherlands | 7.8 |
| 6 | Belgium | 7.8 |
| 8 | United Kingdom | 6.9 |
| 9 | Singapore | 6.3 |
| 9 | Germany | 6.3 |
| 11 | Spain | 5.8 |
| 12 | France | 5.5 |
| 13 | United States | 5.3 |
| 13 | Japan | 5.3 |
| 15 | Malaysia | 4.3 |
| 15 | Hong Kong | 4.3 |
| 17 | Italy | 4.1 |
| 18 | South Korea | 3.9 |
| 19 | Taiwan | 3.8 |
| 20 | China | 3.5 |
| 21 | Russia | 3.2 |
2008 Edition
The 2008 Bribe Payers Index (BPI), released by Transparency International on December 9, 2008, ranked the bribery propensity of firms from 22 leading exporting countries based on perceptions of their likelihood to pay bribes abroad.[3] The index was derived from a survey conducted by Gallup International between August 5 and October 29, 2008, polling 2,742 senior business executives across 26 countries selected for their significance in foreign direct investment inflows, imports, and regional trade, representing 54% of global flows in 2006.[3] Respondents rated firms from each of the 22 countries on a 5-point scale regarding bribery likelihood, with scores aggregated and rescaled to a 10-point index where higher values indicate lower perceived bribery risk; no country achieved a score of 9 or above, suggesting pervasive export of corruption by multinational firms.[3] Country rankings reflected a divide between established economies and emerging markets, with Western nations generally scoring higher. Belgium and Canada tied for first place at 8.8, followed closely by the Netherlands and Switzerland at 8.7, while Russia ranked last at 5.9, with China at 6.5.[3]| Rank | Country | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Belgium | 8.8 |
| 1 | Canada | 8.8 |
| 3 | Netherlands | 8.7 |
| 3 | Switzerland | 8.7 |
| 5 | Australia | 8.5 |
| 5 | Germany | 8.6 |
| 5 | Japan | 8.6 |
| 5 | United Kingdom | 8.6 |
| 9 | France | 8.1 |
| 9 | Singapore | 8.1 |
| 9 | United States | 8.1 |
| 12 | Spain | 7.9 |
| 13 | Hong Kong | 7.6 |
| 14 | South Africa | 7.5 |
| 14 | South Korea | 7.5 |
| 14 | Taiwan | 7.5 |
| 17 | Brazil | 7.4 |
| 17 | Italy | 7.4 |
| 19 | India | 6.8 |
| 20 | Mexico | 6.6 |
| 21 | China | 6.5 |
| 22 | Russia | 5.9 |
2011 Edition and Subsequent Hiatus
The 2011 Bribe Payers Index, released by Transparency International on November 2, 2011, ranked 28 leading export countries and territories according to the perceived likelihood of their companies engaging in foreign bribery.[1] [14] The index covered firms responsible for approximately 78% of global outflows in goods, services, and foreign direct investment, drawing from a survey of over 3,000 senior business executives across developed and emerging markets.[14] Respondents assessed bribery propensities in 19 sectors, distinguishing between petty corruption (bribes to low-level officials) and grand corruption (higher-level improper payments), as well as private-to-private bribery within value chains.[15] [16] Key findings highlighted pervasive bribery risks, with public works/construction and real estate ranked as the most bribe-prone sectors, where over 70% of respondents viewed improper payments as common.[17] The index used a 0-10 scale, with higher scores indicating lower perceived bribery likelihood; no country achieved a perfect 10. Netherlands and Switzerland topped the rankings with scores of 8.8 each, followed closely by Belgium (8.7), Germany (8.6), and Japan (8.6), reflecting stronger domestic anti-bribery frameworks and enforcement.[15] [18] At the bottom, Russia (7.9), China (7.9), and Mexico (8.1) were perceived as most likely to bribe abroad, attributed to weaker export controls and state-owned enterprise influences.[19] [20]| Rank Category | Countries | Score (out of 10) |
|---|---|---|
| Top (Least likely to bribe) | Netherlands, Switzerland | 8.8 |
| Belgium, Germany, Japan | 8.6-8.7 | |
| Bottom (Most likely to bribe) | Russia, China | 7.9 |
| Mexico | 8.1 |
Key Findings and Trends
Cross-Edition Rankings and Patterns
Across editions, Western European nations and select Anglosphere countries demonstrated consistent high rankings, reflecting perceptions of low bribery propensity among their exporting firms. Sweden led the 1999 edition with a score of 8.3 out of 10, followed by Australia and Canada tied at 8.1; similar patterns held in 2002, where Sweden, Australia, Canada, Austria, and the Netherlands/Belgium occupied top positions with scores around 8.0 or higher.[7][8] By 2008 and 2011, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and Japan frequently tied for or approached the top, scoring 8.6 to 8.8, based on surveys of business executives in emerging markets.[3][13] In contrast, emerging economies like China, Russia, and Mexico persistently ranked low, indicating higher perceived bribery likelihood. China scored the lowest in 1999 at 3.1 and remained near the bottom in 2008 (6.5) and 2011 (6.5), while Russia anchored the 2008 list at 5.9 and 2011 at 6.1; Mexico followed closely in later editions with 6.6 in 2008 and 7.0 in 2011.[7][3][13] South Korea and Taiwan also featured among early bottoms (3.4 and 3.5 in 1999), though their positions improved modestly over time.[7]| Country | 1999 Score | 2008 Score | 2011 Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 7.4 | 8.7 | 8.8 |
| Switzerland | 7.7 | 8.7 | 8.8 |
| Canada | 8.1 | 8.8 | N/A* |
| China | 3.1 | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| Russia | N/A** | 5.9 | 6.1 |