placestats

Corruption Perceptions Index vs. Interpersonal trust

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 104 countries, Corruption Perceptions Index and Interpersonal trust rise and fall together at r = +0.70 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.51 (q = 0.035, allowing for the many pairs tested). Much of the first figure is that both measures rise with national income, but a moderate positive link remains.

Comparing countries across the middle half of corruption perceptions index, 33 to 63 points, interpersonal trust is better by 17.9% of respondents at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 16.1% of respondents.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.704p = 7.7e-17 · 104 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.510p = 3.7e-8 · likely range [+0.35, +0.64]
p, allowing for regions0.003standard error 0.103 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.035across 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.

Corruption Perceptions Index · index (0-100, higher = cleaner)link with income +0.72 · high
Interpersonal trust · % of respondentslink with income +0.66 · high

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

Corruption Perceptions Index · index (0-100, higher = cleaner) →Interpersonal trust · % of respondents →13902.14%73.9%Albania: 42 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 2.77% of respondentsArgentina: 37 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 19.2% of respondentsArmenia: 47 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 17.5% of respondentsAustralia: 77 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 48.5% of respondentsAustria: 67 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 49.8% of respondentsAzerbaijan: 22 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 26.3% of respondentsBelgium: 69 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 35.7% of respondentsBurkina Faso: 41 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 13.8% of respondentsBangladesh: 23 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 12.9% of respondentsBulgaria: 43 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 17.1% of respondentsBosnia and Herzegovina: 33 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 9.64% of respondentsBelarus: 33 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 40% of respondentsBolivia: 28 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 8.51% of respondentsBrazil: 34 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 6.52% of respondentsCanada: 75 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 46.7% of respondentsSwitzerland: 81 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 58.5% of respondentsChile: 63 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 12.9% of respondentsChina: 43 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 63.5% of respondentsColombia: 39 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 4.54% of respondentsCyprus: 56 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 6.6% of respondentsCzechia: 56 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 27.3% of respondentsGermany: 75 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 41.6% of respondentsDenmark: 90 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 73.9% of respondentsAlgeria: 34 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 17.2% of respondentsEcuador: 32 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 5.75% of respondentsEgypt, Arab Rep.: 30 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 7.33% of respondentsSpain: 56 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 41% of respondentsEstonia: 76 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 33.9% of respondentsEthiopia: 37 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 11.9% of respondentsFinland: 88 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 68.4% of respondentsFrance: 67 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 26.3% of respondentsUnited Kingdom: 71 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 43.3% of respondentsGeorgia: 53 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 9.02% of respondentsGhana: 42 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 5.03% of respondentsGreece: 49 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 8.45% of respondentsGuatemala: 25 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 18% of respondentsHong Kong SAR, China: 74 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 36.4% of respondentsCroatia: 47 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 13.6% of respondentsHaiti: 16 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 21.3% of respondentsHungary: 41 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 27.2% of respondentsIndonesia: 37 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 4.64% of respondentsIndia: 38 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 16.9% of respondentsIreland: 77 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 37.3% of respondentsIran, Islamic Rep.: 23 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 14.8% of respondentsIraq: 26 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 11% of respondentsIceland: 77 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 62.3% of respondentsItaly: 54 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 26.6% of respondentsJordan: 49 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 15.9% of respondentsJapan: 71 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 33.7% of respondentsKazakhstan: 40 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 22.8% of respondentsKenya: 32 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 9.48% of respondentsKyrgyz Republic: 25 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 12.8% of respondentsKorea, Rep.: 64 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 32.9% of respondentsKuwait: 46 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 28.5% of respondentsLebanon: 22 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 9.92% of respondentsLibya: 13 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 9.11% of respondentsLithuania: 63 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 31.7% of respondentsLuxembourg: 81 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 31.4% of respondentsLatvia: 59 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 22.2% of respondentsMorocco: 37 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 16.5% of respondentsMoldova: 43 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 14.1% of respondentsMaldives: 38 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 21.1% of respondentsMexico: 26 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 10.5% of respondentsNorth Macedonia: 40 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 15.1% of respondentsMali: 27 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 14.9% of respondentsMalta: 46 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 21.3% of respondentsMyanmar: 16 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 15.1% of respondentsMontenegro: 46 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 21.7% of respondentsMongolia: 33 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 26% of respondentsMalaysia: 50 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 19.6% of respondentsNigeria: 26 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 13% of respondentsNicaragua: 14 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 4.25% of respondentsNetherlands: 78 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 57% of respondentsNorway: 81 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 72.1% of respondentsNew Zealand: 83 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 56.6% of respondentsPakistan: 27 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 23.3% of respondentsPeru: 31 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 4.16% of respondentsPhilippines: 33 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 5.33% of respondentsPoland: 53 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 24.1% of respondentsPuerto Rico (US): 63 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 17.7% of respondentsPortugal: 57 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 16.9% of respondentsQatar: 59 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 21.4% of respondentsRomania: 46 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 12.1% of respondentsRussian Federation: 22 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 22.9% of respondentsRwanda: 57 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 16.6% of respondentsSingapore: 84 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 34.4% of respondentsSerbia: 35 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 16.3% of respondentsSlovak Republic: 49 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 21.6% of respondentsSlovenia: 60 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 25.3% of respondentsSweden: 80 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 62.8% of respondentsThailand: 34 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 28.9% of respondentsTajikistan: 19 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 20.6% of respondentsTrinidad and Tobago: 41 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 3.2% of respondentsTunisia: 39 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 13.8% of respondentsTurkiye: 34 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 14% of respondentsUkraine: 35 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 28.3% of respondentsUruguay: 76 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 14.5% of respondentsUnited States: 65 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 37% of respondentsUzbekistan: 32 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 33.6% of respondentsViet Nam: 40 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 27.7% of respondentsKosovo: 44 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 10.5% of respondentsSouth Africa: 41 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 23.3% of respondentsZambia: 39 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 10.8% of respondentsZimbabwe: 21 index (0-100, higher = cleaner), 2.14% of respondentsBLRCHLCHNCYPDNKFINHTILBYNICNORURYZWE

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.7047.7e-17104
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.6144.2e-12104
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.5103.7e-8104
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.1920.052104

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 104 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: +0.194 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.482 (without FIN) to +0.544 (without CHN). 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: CHN (+0.033).

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.

nr
East Asia & Pacific14+0.24
Europe & Central Asia48+0.56
Latin America & Caribbean14+0.41
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan13+0.48

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.

nr
Poorest third35+0.14
Middle third34-0.05
Richest third35+0.79

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.

nr
Christians62+0.61
Muslims28+0.07

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.

nr
Never a European colony15+0.07
Spain12+0.09
United Kingdom25+0.63

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 = +0.443 after dropping 6 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 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.

The data


index (0-100, higher = cleaner)
% of respondents		Years
Denmark DNK9073.9%2024, 2022
Finland FIN8868.4%2024, 2022
Singapore SGP8434.4%2024, 2022
New Zealand NZL8356.6%2024, 2022
Norway NOR8172.1%2024, 2022
Luxembourg LUX8131.4%2024, 2010
Switzerland CHE8158.5%2024, 2022
Sweden SWE8062.8%2024, 2022
Netherlands NLD7857%2024, 2022
Iceland ISL7762.3%2024, 2022
Ireland IRL7737.3%2024, 2010
Australia AUS7748.5%2024, 2022
Uruguay URY7614.5%2024, 2022
Estonia EST7633.9%2024, 2022
Germany DEU7541.6%2024, 2022

Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index
Haerpfer, C. et al., World Values Survey; EVS, European Values Study
One of these measures is published under a licence that forbids changes. Values are shown exactly as published and must not be republished in a changed or rescaled form.

Sources

Corruption Perceptions Index

Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International · via Our World in Data · CC BY-ND 4.0 · updated annual · comparable from 2012 only

Measures how corrupt the public sector is believed to be, based on 13 surveys of experts and business people. Some of the same surveys feed the Worldwide Governance Indicators' Control of Corruption measure, so the two share ingredients.

Interpersonal trust

Share agreeing that most people can be trusted

World Values Survey Association and European Values Study · via Our World in Data · Free for non-commercial use with attribution · updated irregular (survey waves, roughly every 5 years)

The share who answer "most people can be trusted" rather than "you can't be too careful". Trust in other people is the classic measure of social ties (social capital). It is only loosely linked to national income. That makes it one of the few measures here where adjusting for GDP is a real test, not a foregone result. The survey runs in waves, not every year. So data for each country are sparse and uneven, and two readings for a country may be five or more years apart.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2010–2024. 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 Corruption Perceptions Index and Interpersonal trust

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Corruption Perceptions Index changes Interpersonal trust, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Corruption Perceptions Index or Interpersonal trust