NEW BOOK: Patriotism in Action: Goans in India's Defence Services. With Foreword by Gen SF Rodrigues, PVSM, VSM, ADC (retd) former Chief of Indian Army Staff and Governor, Punjab & Administrator, Chandigarh UT. See details below of where the book is available. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Rajendra,
Perhaps, you did not understand my point. My point is that Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is a better indicator of level of corruption in a country, including any perceived trend, than your own perception and that of six of your friends. Now regarding the caveat you quoted, its meaning is ambiguous. Here it is again: "Given its methodology, CPI is not a tool that is useful for trend analysis or for monitoring the changes in the perceived levels of corruption over time for all countries." .....Transparency International (TI) It does not necessarily mean what you claim it to mean below: "This means TI itself says that you cannot interpret that 3.3 of today as improvement over 2.8 of 2000." .....Rajendra Kakodkar Please note the term "for all countries" in TI's quote above. My understanding from reading the methodology is that the reason TI uses this term is three-fold: 1. Not all countries are included each year in calculating the index. 2. For some countries the sources used to calculate the index over a two year period each year are not the same. 3. TI may have made a change in methodology to improve the index for some countries. So one cannot rule out the possibility that for those countries that have been included every year, whose CPI is based on the same sources each year, and for whom no change in methodology has been made, a trend analysis can be meaningful. This becomes apparent from the following quote from TI: QUOTE Year-to-year changes in a country/territory’s score can result from a change in the perceptions of a country’s performance, a change in the ranking provided by original sources or changes in the methodology resulting from TI’s efforts to improve the index. If a country is featured in one or more specific data sources for both of the last two CPIs (2009 CPI and 2010 CPI), those sources can be used to identify whether there has been a change in perceived levels of corruption in that particular country compared to the previous year. UNQUOTE .....Transparency International But let us stick to the criterion used by TI for a meaningful perceived change from the previous year of 0.3, and apply it to India. You will notice that nearly all of the jump in the index to 3.3 occurred from 2005 to 2006. In 2005 the CPI for India was 2.9. In 2006 it was 3.3. That is an increase of 0.4 from the previous year. So you would have to admit that the good news that I mentioned occurred in 2006. Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 12/27/10, rajendra kakodkar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Santosh, > > You seem to have not read my previous post properly or > completely. Please read it again. May be I was not > adequately clear. For your ease, I am reframing the part > for more clarity: Transparency International (TI) in the > same CPI report says: "Given its methodology, CPI is not a > tool that is useful for trend analysis or for monitoring > the changes in the perceived levels of corruption over time > for all countries." This means TI itself says that > you cannot interpret that 3.3 of today as improvement over > 2.8 of 2000. > > Further, you are right that Transparency International's > Corruption Perceptions Index has got to be at least as good > as the collective opinions of a few hundred readers posted > on a Times of India website. I would say much better > because the opinion makers (13 sources from 10 institutions) > that TI used have high opinion weights. Globally, CPI was > derived from 13 scientific surveys (1070 country-survey > combinations) with an average of around 80 experts and > businessmen voted per survey. India CPI was derived from 10 > scientific surveys of around 800 experts and businessmen. > > > TI has merely said that India CPI for 2010 is 3.3 and for > 2000 is 2.8. It is an index to be read in absolute terms. It > can also be read in relative terms to compare two countries > in the same year. But it cannot be used to compare a > country over a period of time unless there is a change of > atleast 0.3 points year-on-year. > > TI in the report only qualified the countries with 0.3 > point rise in a year as improvement (decrease in > corruption). It also elaborately says why a lesser rise > cannot be called improvement. And therefore, India's 0.5 > point change over 10 years does not allow us to conclude > what you posted originally: "The good news is that > corruption in India is on the decline over the last 10 > years". > Rajendra > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copies of *Patriotism in Action* now available at: GOA: Literati (2277740), Other India (2263306), Broadway (6647038), Mandovi (2427904), Noel D'Silva & Associates (9823120454 / 9096781714), Confidant / Golden Heart Emp (2732450), David & Co (2730326), Vardaan (9527463684) SERV/RETD Def Offrs in Goa: O/o Sainik Co-op Hse Bldg Sty, Def Col, / Porvorim (2417288) MUMBAI: David & Co (22019010) PUNE: Manney's (26131683), Popular (25678327) BENGALURU: Narayan (22865800) DELHI: Ritana (24617278) ONLINE (worldwide delivery): http://www.ritanabooks.com, http://goa1556.goa-india.org
