Corruption Perceptions Index
country ranking by public sector corruption
The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index published annually by Transparency International, a German registered association, since 1995. It scores and ranks countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, as assessed by experts and business executives. The CPI generally defines corruption as an "abuse of entrusted power for private gain".
From 1995 to 2011, the index was scored on a scale of 10 to 0. Since 2012, the Corruption Perceptions Index has been ranked on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt).
Of the 182 countries ranked in the 2025 CPI, published in February 2026, the top scorers included Denmark (89), Finland (88), and Singapore (84), while those perceived as the most corrupt included South Sudan (9), Somalia (9), and Venezuela (10).
Although widely used as a key indicator of corruption, the CPI does not capture all forms of corruption. Perceptions about corruption may differ from actual levels of corruption and the index focuses solely on the public sector. For a more comprehensive picture, the CPI should be used alongside other assessments.
Methods
The CPI methodology, revised in 2012, enables consistent comparison of corruption perceptions across countries and years.
The public source identifies “Corruption Perceptions Index” as country ranking by public sector corruption. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Corruption, Perceptions and Index.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Corruption Perceptions Index”, the useful work is to connect “country ranking by public sector corruption” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q210463. 1 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 2 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1995, 2011, 2012 and 2025.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Corruption Perceptions Index”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Corruption Perceptions Index primary sources, Corruption Perceptions Index archive and Corruption research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Corruption Perceptions Index”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Corruption Perceptions Index” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.