2010 Corruption Perceptions Index Shows Entrenched Corruption Still Prevalent in Latin America

Transparency International released it's international ranking of the perceived level of corruption in the world. 

"Transparency International(TI) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries according to the perception of corruption in the public sector. "

Latin America is generally in the 2.0-5.9 range. The USA received a 7.1, and Canada got 8.9. The highest ranking was shared by New Zealand, Denmark, and Singapore at 9.3

Latin America as a rule ranges from a high of 7.2 in Chile and 6.9 in Uruguay, and every other country falls below them. Not a single Latin American country is in the Top 25. 

The Report compiles 13 reports by 10 independent organization, including Freedom House, Africa Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, World Bank, and the World Economic Forum. These reports generally had two different kinds of surveys. One polled business people and the other polled specialists in country and regional profiling. 

The experts were asked the two following questions with the associated ranking scales attached. 

“To what extent are there legal or political penalties for officeholders who abuse their

positions?”

• [10-9] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted rigorously under established

laws.

• [8-6] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted under established laws but

also slip through political, legal or procedural loopholes.

• [5-3] Corrupt officeholders are not prosecuted adequately under the law but

occasionally attract adverse publicity.

• [2-1] Officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without

fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.

“To what extent can the government successfully contain corruption?

• [10-9] All integrity mechanisms are reasonably effective. They are actively

supported by the government.

• [8-6] Most integrity mechanisms are functioning, albeit partly with limited

effectiveness. The government provides almost all integrity mechanisms.

• [5-3] Some integrity mechanisms are implemented. Often, they remain ineffective;

their operation is impeded by private interests. The government’s motivation and

capacity to implement reforms is mixed.

• [2-1] Portions of the state are controlled by private interest groups; reform is

impeded by private interests, rendering most integrity mechanisms nonexistent or

ineffective

Latin American countries generally border the bottom two categories and trend downwards. All of these countries are supposed to have undergone a wave of democratization beginning in 1974 and accelerated with the fall of the Berlin Wall. These progresses have done little to improve the perception that the experts and business elites have of this region, demonstrating the longevity of the entrenched mixes of patronage, clientelism, bribery and other corruption.