Control of corruption vs. Employment in agriculture
Fades after adjusting for income
Across 177 countries, Control of corruption and Employment in agriculture rise and fall together at r = -0.61 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to -0.02, which could easily be chance (q = 0.89, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike). So the first figure mostly shows richer countries differing from poorer ones, not a link between these two things. Caution: sign flips when a single country is removed.
Comparing countries across the middle half of employment in agriculture, 4.11% to 34.6% of employment, control of corruption is worse by 0.909 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.0444 points.
Link before adjusting (r)-0.615p = 9.1e-20 · 177 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.024p = 0.749 · likely range [-0.17, +0.12]
p, allowing for regions0.813standard error 0.098 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.892across 12,497 pairs
How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.
Control of corruption · index (approx. -2.5 to 2.5)link with income +0.73 · high
Employment in agriculture · % of employmentlink with income -0.86 · proxy
Both of these rise and fall closely with national income, so a strong link between them before adjusting was close to certain. Read the adjusted figure, not the first one.
“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.
Every country as a dot
best-fit line line after adjusting
Four ways to measure the link
| Method | r | p | Countries |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard (Pearson), not adjusted | -0.615 | 9.1e-20 | 177 |
| By rank (Spearman), not adjusted | -0.702 | 1.4e-27 | 177 |
| Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income | -0.024 | 0.749 | 177 |
| By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income | -0.186 | 0.014 | 177 |
The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 177 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: +0.590 (a minus sign means it grew).
How solid is it?
Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.050 (without BTN) to +0.007 (without GNQ). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: GNQ (+0.031).
Fragile: this link may not hold up.
- sign flips when a single country is removed
Within each region
Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.
| n | r | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| East Asia & Pacific | 25 | -0.40 | |
| Europe & Central Asia | 48 | +0.02 | |
| Latin America & Caribbean | 29 | -0.52 | |
| Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan | 22 | +0.03 | |
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 45 | -0.34 |
By income third
If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.
| n | r | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Poorest third | 59 | -0.10 | |
| Middle third | 59 | -0.09 | |
| Richest third | 59 | -0.38 |
By largest religious group
Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.
| n | r | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Christians | 106 | -0.11 | |
| Muslims | 49 | +0.08 |
By last european coloniser
Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.
| n | r | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| France | 25 | +0.08 | |
| Never a European colony | 21 | -0.00 | |
| Spain | 19 | -0.41 | |
| United Kingdom | 55 | +0.03 |
Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = -0.030 after dropping 1 countries.
Two series, one country
Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.
Loading…
Over time, within countries
Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 29years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.
The link shows up within countries over time (r = -0.146) but mostly disappears in year-to-year changes (r = -0.026). That points to slow trends particular to each country, not the two measures moving together from year to year.
Across countries (adjusted)-0.024for comparison
Within countries-0.077each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.146q = 0.038 · 184 countries
Year-on-year changes-0.026q = 0.276
Read with care.
- Almost all of this indicator's variation is between countries, not within them, so the within-country estimate rests on a small part of the data.
4,735 country-years (one country in one year), 184 countries, 1996–2024, about 26 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 4% for Control of corruption, 5% for Employment in agriculture. The margins of error allow for each country appearing many times, and for each year’s value being close to the year before.
Year-to-year changes are a cautious test, not a final answer. Looking only at changes from one year to the next removes each country’s own trends. But it also makes measurement mistakes louder, which pulls the results toward zero. A near-zero result here is weak evidence of no link, not proof.
With one measure years behind the other
Same year (lag 0): -0.146. A peak away from zero does not show which comes first. These series change slowly — this year’s value is close to last year’s. That makes the curve smooth and nearly symmetric, whatever produced the data. Even a sharp peak at one lag (a gap of some years) would not prove that one measure changes the other.
The largest value on this curve (-0.21 at lag +9) is higher than the same-year one by 0.06. That gap is not a finding. It is the largest of 21 closely related estimates, and picking the biggest of many tests always makes it look bigger. That is exactly why nothing on this site is ranked or chosen by lag.
The data
index (approx. -2.5 to 2.5) | % of employment | Years | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denmark DNK | 2.29 | 1.62% | 2024, 2025 |
| Finland FIN | 2.19 | 3.49% | 2024, 2025 |
| Luxembourg LUX | 2.02 | 0.878% | 2024, 2025 |
| Switzerland CHE | 2.01 | 2.24% | 2024, 2025 |
| Singapore SGP | 1.97 | 0.0954% | 2024, 2025 |
| Sweden SWE | 1.97 | 1.77% | 2024, 2025 |
| Norway NOR | 1.96 | 2.5% | 2024, 2025 |
| New Zealand NZL | 1.93 | 5.42% | 2024, 2025 |
| Netherlands NLD | 1.91 | 1.7% | 2024, 2025 |
| Australia AUS | 1.85 | 2.18% | 2024, 2025 |
| Iceland ISL | 1.83 | 3.61% | 2024, 2025 |
| Germany DEU | 1.77 | 1.07% | 2024, 2025 |
| Estonia EST | 1.67 | 2.96% | 2024, 2025 |
| Canada CAN | 1.63 | 1.1% | 2024, 2025 |
| Ireland IRL | 1.57 | 3.85% | 2024, 2025 |
Kaufmann, D. and A. Kraay, Worldwide Governance Indicators, World Bank
World Bank, World Development Indicators
Sources
Control of corruption
Control of Corruption (estimate)
World Bank · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual
Measures how much people believe public power is used for private gain. It is based on perceptions: it does not count corrupt acts. And perceptions themselves shift with press freedom and with prosecutions.
Employment in agriculture
Employment in agriculture (% of total employment)
International Labour Organization · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly
Estimated with a model by the ILO. The classic measure of a country moving from farming to industry and services. It is one of the measures most closely linked to income on the site. No "better" direction is set, because a farming country is not doing badly by farming.
How this was computed
Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2021–2025. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Control of corruption and Employment in agriculture
This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Control of corruption changes Employment in agriculture, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.
More links with Control of corruption or Employment in agriculture
- Control of corruption vs Political stability before +0.73 → after adjusting +0.55
- Control of corruption vs Participatory democracy before +0.66 → after adjusting +0.52
- Control of corruption vs Electoral democracy before +0.65 → after adjusting +0.51
- Control of corruption vs Regime type before +0.62 → after adjusting +0.46
- Control of corruption vs Women's political empowerment before +0.60 → after adjusting +0.45
- Control of corruption vs Wellbeing score before +0.75 → after adjusting +0.44
- Basic water access vs Employment in agriculture before -0.79 → after adjusting -0.40
- Child stunting vs Employment in agriculture before +0.78 → after adjusting +0.40