Three Generations of Methods for Measuring Corruption in Europe

This article focuses on methods for measuring corruption, first describing three generations of corruption indicators and then comparing them qualitatively and quantitatively. Corruption is a clandestine activity that is extremely di cult to measure, there are no official statistics on the number of corruption cases. For this reason, corruption can only be measured indirectly, by various proxies, and it is extremely hard to state whether these indicators are reliable and indeed measure the corruption phenomena in a given country. A large number of different indicators have been developed over the years that try to capture and quantify corruption. Some authors measure perceptions of corruption, others try to use „hard data“ to explore the level of corruption in a country, and even others combine different measurements, weight them, and then publish composite indicators to capture the overall level of corruption in a country.

This article aims to evaluate the quality of the different indicators using quantitative and qualitative methods. Possible uses and value of each individual indicator are discussed in terms of quality and practical considerations. First-generation indicators combine expert evaluations, surveys, and other data on corruption. The article focuses on the two best-known and most frequently used indicators – CC and CPI. Second-generation indicators are based on opinion surveys that ask respondents about their perceptions of and own experience with corruption. There are two types of such surveys, one focusing on the public and the other one on businesses. The second-generation indicators include surveys such as Eurobarometer, World Values Survey (WVS), European Social Survey (ESS), Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), WB BEEPS, or International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Finally, the third generation of corruption measures is based on „hard data“ and usually focuses on a specific sector in a specific country.