Comment by derstander | Hacker News Reader

Comment by derstander | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I always see this line trotted out and I always wondered how corruption is quantified. And luckily your link points to the source in a snippet in an otherwise human interest story about a mismanaged Ukrainian hospital: Transparency International’s “Corruption Perceptions Index”.

That said, I don’t think either the link or TI’s index support the claim that Ukraine was “the most corrupt country in Europe before the current situation”.

First, regarding the corruption index — “each country’s score is a combination of at least 3 data sources data sources drawn from 13 different corruption surveys and assessments”. And “the sources and surveys which make up the CPI are based on carefully designed and calibrated questionnaires, answered by experts and businesspeople”. So fundamentally perceptions (as per the title) instead of hard data — and probably different sources across different countries calibrated in some way (it might be sourced somewhere but one only has so much time).

Second, and I think more damning to the statement about Ukraine being the most corrupt in Europe prior to the current events by the referenced corruption index itself. Russia and Ukraine trade places on which is perceived to be more corrupt up until 2017 when Ukraine is clearly less corrupt than Russia. I spent my lunch graphing the data and only feel like it was mostly a waste of my time.

My bottom line based on the data: Russia and Ukraine were roughly the same amount of corrupt until 2017 when Russia distances itself as clearly more corrupt. The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions rather than hard data. The statement about Ukraine being the most corrupt state in Europe before the current events is only true if you consider Ukraine in Europe and Russia not. Which one could certainly do but considered their shared past during the USSR seems a fundamentally flawed way of treating them.

> how corruption is quantified

Like it has always been since Randians became a thing: In 2014 Ukraine got a US backed government which went full 'Chicago Boys' on the country. You know, privatizing everything, removing all social services and protections, the 'freest market' thing. Of course, in such a 'most free' environment, those who oversaw that privatization have become ! extremely ! rich.

> The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions

No, they aren't. Most of them come from the same Randian sources in Anglosphere, which consistently rank countries that are the most corrupt as 'non-corrupt'. Like how the US ends up lower on corruption indexes despite something called lobbying existing...

>> The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions

> No, they aren't.

I literally pulled those quotes from the Transparency Institute’s page on the corruption index…

So yes, they are.

But I got hung up on your wording. Check out the Transparency Institute’s rankings. Notwithstanding what I said about the softness of the ranking systems, the Nordic countries rank fairly well as being uncorrupt so it is not immediately obvious that the Randian / Libertarian model is being held up as more virtuous.

> I literally pulled those quotes from the Transparency Institute’s page on the corruption index

Such organizations literally calculate those 'indexes' on ! perceptions !. They ask the people if they think their country is 'corrupt', and people respond yes or no.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

Leaving aside just by selecting the 'right' sample you can make anything happen, there is a bigger elephant in the room: Cultural differences.

In countries like France, Russia and Eastern Europe, complaining is a national sport. People socialize by complaining about everything, foremost, the government, the bureaucracy and so on. So if you ask even a neutral observer, he or she will literally spam many complaints and will strongly state that everything is corrupt.

Conversely, the cultural paradigm in other countries is way too different - in the US, for example, the existence of lobbying and the immense, mind-boggling money in politics are not seen in the same way. They are seen as 'problems', but they are not the game-breakers that should launch the US to the top of the index. They are merely labeled as 'flaws'.

> the Nordic countries rank fairly well as being uncorrupt

Its true that these countries do better in objective criteria related to what we describe as corruption. But their presence in any index does not validate that index. To start with, neither the Nordic citizens see the immense revolving doors and cooperation in between their defense industries, their governments and how their defense industries do business with repressive regimes and all that goes around it as 'corruption'. Many are not even aware of its existence.

And the elephant is in the room for them too - Nordic countries have a cultural propensity to stoicism, and they also say that they are happy in polls for happiness indexes, and they rank high in them. And yet their suicide rates are far higher than the countries in which people say they are unhappy, but live longer and healthier (like Spain etc).

So these indexes are just PR and propaganda vessels that pitch the world view of their establishment and their society's culture.

I think we're talking past each other here.

> Such organizations literally calculate those 'indexes' on ! perceptions !.

Yes, that is literally what I said: "The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions."

> Leaving aside just by selecting the 'right' sample you can make anything happen, there is a bigger elephant in the room: Cultural differences.

Yes, I do not disagree here. Regardless, this is orthogonal to my original comment. My original comment was that the notion that Ukraine was the most corrupt country in Europe leading up to the current events is not supported by either the article used as a reference nor the underlying data source that the article itself used.

For the sake of expediency, I granted many (implicit) assumptions that I would not otherwise agree to such as that "corruption" can be quantified on a one-dimensional axis (among many others). Because the original commenter referenced an article and, therefore, an underlying data source implicitly, I granted those assumptions and showed that the conclusion still does not follow the data. Because the original commenter ostensibly believes the veracity of the statement and the validity of the data source then I can grant those assumptions and show that the conclusion does not follow, regardless of whether or not I personally believe those assumptions; I don't need to address those assumptions to address the statement.

> In countries like France, Russia and Eastern Europe, complaining is a national sport.

It seems like you have a fundamental concern about the Transparency Institute's methodology. I totally agree with this concern. Regardless, it would hopefully be part of the TI's job to calibrate these cultural norms out in order to compare across the world.

> So these indexes are just PR and propaganda vessels that pitch the world view of their establishment and their society's culture.

I don't necessarily disagree with this but, again, this is orthogonal to the context of my original statement. You seemed concerned in your previous comment about Randian biases in the corruption metric. That's a completely valid point, but my reference of the Nordic countries was just to illustrate that I do not think that is quite the case here. If, as I understand your most recent comment clarified, you're more broadly concerned about any sort of biases in the metric, then I agree.

> My original comment was that the notion that Ukraine was the most corrupt country in Europe leading up to the current events is not supported by either the article used as a reference nor the underlying data source that the article itself used.

The articles and arguments were plenty in the Western press in the years following 2014. All of them disappeared suddenly when the war started and Ukraine ended up on the side that West supports. Then again that's no surprise 'They are bastards but they are our bastards' have been de facto modus operandi of the Angloamerican West since Truman.

> Regardless, it would hopefully be part of the TI's job to calibrate these cultural norms out in order to compare across the world.

Unfortunately it won't, because it has another job - to publicize whomever supplies its funding wants. Its the same thing with the funding bias in science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

You can see the same thing in the 'university rankings'. These are generally done and publicized by mainly Angloamerican institutions, who, not surprisingly, rank a lot of Angloamerican universities at the top. Most of those universities also tend to be private ones. Its both advertising and catering to those universities - these rankings attract international students to those private universities, who then support these institutions in direct or indirect ways with funding. This is why non-Angloamerican, especially non-private universities have scarce spots in these rankings as well. Its just business.

> Randian biases in the corruption metric. That's a completely valid point, but my reference of the Nordic countries was just to illustrate that I do not think that is quite the case here

I would say that its more a 'world view' that does not permit anything else to filter into the perspective than a mere bias, but yes. However as I said, the presence of the Nordic countries in the index does not validate the index.

We more or less agree, yes. However you still give some credibility to these indexes whereas I see them as mere extensions of the PR machine of their own establishment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com