Hungary’s Nézőpont Institute has published a thorough critique of the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), questioning its reliability and offering a new perspective on Hungary’s standing in international corruption assessments. The analysis portrays an index that is not only methodologically flawed but also misrepresents the realities of corruption globally.
The CPI is presented as a robust tool for measuring corruption, but the Nézőpont study clearly demonstrates its failure to meet its own standards of transparency and consistency. The index relies on aggregated data from 13 other sources, many of which were not specifically designed to measure corruption. These sources vary significantly in scope, focus, and methodology, resulting in final scores that lack coherence. For instance, some countries are assessed using as few as three indices, while for others, including Hungary, they draw on up to 10, creating uneven and potentially misleading comparisons.
This discrepancy is particularly problematic for Hungary, where CPI scores often underpin international criticisms. The study reveals that these scores are less indicative of Hungary’s actual corruption levels and more reflective of subjective perceptions shaped by politically biased experts. Many of these so-called experts hold publicly critical views of Hungary’s government, which, according to the institute, undermines the credibility of their input. As a result, the CPI fails to measure corruption itself, instead offering the opinions of a narrow circle of contributors whose views may not align with broader realities.
The Nézőpont Institute also highlights a troubling pattern in the CPI rankings: Countries that perform best are often significant financial contributors to Transparency International. Denmark, for example, consistently ranks as the least corrupt country in the world while being one of TI’s largest donors. This apparent conflict of interest is compounded by the fact that even nations with frequent corruption scandals, such as Germany and New Zealand, rank highly, raising questions about the impartiality of these assessments.
According to the institute, Hungary’s actual position regarding corruption is far more favorable than the CPI suggests. EU-specific data, such as the Eurobarometer survey, indicates that Hungary ranks as the seventh least corrupt country among EU member states. This data reflects higher public confidence in Hungary’s anti-corruption efforts compared to the EU average, contradicting the CPI’s portrayal of Hungary as one of the most corrupt states in the EU. These discrepancies underscore the limitations of relying solely on perception-based metrics when evaluating governance.
The Nézőpont Institute concludes that while the CPI is widely cited, it lacks the reliability and objectivity needed to be a credible tool for measuring corruption. The institute urges international organizations and policymakers to reconsider their reliance on the index and to explore more accurate, empirically grounded alternatives. By focusing on evidence-based assessments rather than ideologically skewed narratives, global corruption efforts could shift toward meaningful policy-making rather than devolving into politically motivated muckraking.
