Recently Transparency International released it's annual list of the most and least corrupted countries, the Corruption Perceptions Index 2009. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 180 countries and territories. A composite index, the CPI is based on 13 different expert and business surveys. (For more on the Corruption Perceptions Index, check the Transparency International website.)
The scale is from 0-10, from high to low perceived corruption. Here are the scores of the former Soviet States:
Armenia 2.7 Azerbaijan 2.3
Belarus 2.4 Estonia 6.6
Georgia 4.1 Kazakhstan 2.7
Kyrgyzstan 1.9 Latvia 4.5
Lithuania 4.9 Moldova 3.3
Russia 2.2 Tajikistan 2
Turkmenistan 1.8 Ukraine 2.2
Uzbekistan 1.7
Overall average: 3.02
What does all this have to do with Public Relations? Well, I would argue than in countries where corruption is high, the level of PR professionalism and education is low. This idea is based on simple logic: if you can buy your way ahead, you need not spend money building an image, managing your reputation etc. With the right connections and the right bribes, who needs communication management?
The numbers seem to agree with me. For example, in Estonia PR is a growing field - and it's score is the highest in this group - while our bottom trio of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan probably don't have many communication practitioners, apart from those working for the [corrupted] governments.
I cannot say that I was surprised by these results. In many poorer countries (ie. the majority of the world) money talks, and cash is often exchanged between business folk and the authorities, be they police, municipal and local government or ministers and higher officials. Most of the corruption is practical, and hardly malicious - a few extra dollars gets the permits a bit faster - but as you go up the chain, it becomes evident that organizations that are successful have gotten their hands dirty. For example, if two companies are bidding for a town's road building contract, the one on better terms with the major will probably get the job, and nothing makes good "terms" in a poor country than gifts and large sums of cash. A favor gets a favor.
Public relations may not grow in these countries as it has in the West, mostly because the overall climate is quite different. Then again, thinking back 50 or so years, even the now squeaky clean countries (like Finland) were poor, war torn and corrupt. Perhaps, having these things pointed out will encourage former Soviet States to work harder towards transparency and free flowing information, thus creating a solid ground on which PR can blossom.
How does this work with other countries? Find yours on this map.
Sources:
Transparency International. 2009.
-Methodology.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/methodology
-Corruptions Perceptions Index 2009. http://media.transparency.org/imaps/cpi2009/
-Methodology.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/methodology
-Corruptions Perceptions Index 2009. http://media.transparency.org/imaps/cpi2009/
I read from hs.fi, that Finland is sixth on the list of least corrupted countries. A year before Finland was number one on the same list. The hulabaloo about election money impacted the placement.
ReplyDeleteDespite the hulabaloo I don't feel that Finland is any more corrupted than it was before.
Ah, the point is that the CPI is an index of PERCEIVED corruption, not necessarily an indication of the level of corruption that exists. Personally I think that in the West corruption is institutionalized in a manner that disguises it's true nature. Money talks, just not as visibly as elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteLike your last comment, Maija :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing this for me, Maija! And I also agree that now days money talks. Everywhere. I just haven't ever thought about it as a corruption..
ReplyDelete