Do Political corruption and Researchers go together across countries?

Across 127 countries the link before adjusting for anything is r = -0.69, on a scale from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). A version that uses only each country's rank gives -0.67.

Does the link hold within countries over time, not just across countries?

Comparing each country only with itself across 1996-2024, and setting aside what happened worldwide in each year, the link is +0.139 (101 countries, 1,846 country-years). Using year-to-year changes, it is +0.021.

Does Political corruption cause Researchers?

This analysis cannot answer that. It shows only that the two go together. A link between two country measures, adjusted or not, does not show that either one changes the other. Country figures also say nothing about individual people.

Political corruption vs. Researchers

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 127 countries, Political corruption and Researchers rise and fall together at r = -0.69 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to -0.41, which could easily be chance (q = 0.056, 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.

Comparing countries across the middle half of political corruption, 0.157 to 0.684 points, researchers is worse by 3,068 per million people at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 1,770 per million people.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.689p = 3.3e-19 · 127 countries

After adjusting for national income-0.408p = 2.1e-6 · likely range [-0.54, -0.25]

p, allowing for regions0.006standard error 0.099 · 7 regions

Check for luck (q)0.056across 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.

Political corruption · index (0-1)link with income -0.68 · high

Researchers · per million peoplelink with income +0.85 · 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	-0.689	3.3e-19	127
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted	-0.673	4.5e-18	127
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income	-0.408	2.1e-6	127
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income	-0.110	0.220	127

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 127 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: +0.281 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.424 (without TTO) to -0.396 (without KAZ). 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: TTO (-0.017).

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	16	-0.39
Europe & Central Asia	45	-0.37
Latin America & Caribbean	16	-0.37
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan	16	-0.14
Sub-Saharan Africa	29	-0.12

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	43	-0.17
Middle third	42	+0.24
Richest third	42	-0.59

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	79	-0.41
Muslims	30	+0.08

By last european coloniser

	n	r
France	13	-0.36
Never a European colony	15	-0.41
Spain	16	-0.39
United Kingdom	35	-0.31

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 = -0.399 after dropping 5 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.

Within countries over time, there is no link that is clearly more than chance (r = +0.139, comparing each country only with itself over the years, and each year only with the same year elsewhere). Whatever the cross-country picture shows, countries whose political corruption moved did not tend to see their researchers move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)-0.408for comparison

Within countries-0.001each country vs itself

…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.139q = 0.064 · 101 countries

Year-on-year changes+0.021q = 0.538

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.

1,846 country-years (one country in one year), 101 countries, 1996–2024, about 18 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 4% for Political corruption, 14% for Researchers. 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): +0.139. 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 data

	index (0-1)	per million people	Years
Chad TCD	0.952	56.7	2025, 2016
Cambodia KHM	0.904	30.4	2025, 2015
Iraq IRQ	0.892	164	2025, 2021
Azerbaijan AZE	0.89	1,663	2025, 2024
Uganda UGA	0.889	81.3	2025, 2023
Congo, Dem. Rep. COD	0.886	10.1	2025, 2015
Madagascar MDG	0.882	32.9	2025, 2018
Myanmar MMR	0.859	28	2025, 2023
Zimbabwe ZWE	0.852	95.1	2025, 2012
Burundi BDI	0.845	22.5	2025, 2018
Philippines PHL	0.841	320	2025, 2020
Congo, Rep. COG	0.841	127	2025, 2022
Nigeria NGA	0.834	22.1	2025, 2019
Uzbekistan UZB	0.823	640	2025, 2024
Turkiye TUR	0.804	2,645	2025, 2023

Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project
World Bank, World Development Indicators

Sources

Political corruption

Political corruption index

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

Expert ratings of corruption across the government, parliament, courts and public sector. It runs the opposite way to the Corruption Perceptions Index, where higher means cleaner. So the two should move strongly in opposite directions. V-Dem is also one of the datasets Transparency International combines into that index.

Researchers

Researchers in R&D (per million people)

UNESCO Institute for Statistics · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

Researchers counted as full-time equivalents (two half-time researchers count as one), from national research surveys that many countries run only now and then. So coverage is thin outside the OECD.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2010–2025. 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 Political corruption and Researchers

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Political corruption changes Researchers, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.