Do Political corruption and Voice and accountability go together across countries?

Across 168 countries the link before adjusting for anything is r = -0.81, on a scale from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). A version that uses only each country's rank gives -0.81.

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 -0.415 (175 countries, 4,526 country-years). Using year-to-year changes, it is -0.259.

Does Political corruption cause Voice and accountability?

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. Voice and accountability

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 168 countries, Political corruption and Voice and accountability rise and fall together at r = -0.81 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). It holds up almost unchanged when only countries with similar income (GDP per person) are compared (r = -0.69, q = 0.0075, allowing for the many pairs tested).

Comparing countries across the middle half of political corruption, 0.19 to 0.754 points, voice and accountability is worse by 1.58 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 1.42 points.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.813p = 9.0e-41 · 168 countries

After adjusting for national income-0.691p = 4.5e-25 · likely range [-0.76, -0.60]

p, allowing for regions0.000standard error 0.083 · 7 regions

Check for luck (q)0.007across 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

Voice and accountability · index (approx. -2.5 to 2.5)link with income +0.58 · moderate

“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	-0.813	9.0e-41	168
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted	-0.805	1.5e-39	168
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income	-0.691	4.5e-25	168
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income	-0.676	1.3e-23	168

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 168 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: +0.121 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.705 (without ARE) to -0.682 (without TKM). 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: ARE (-0.013).

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	21	-0.70
Europe & Central Asia	49	-0.80
Latin America & Caribbean	23	-0.80
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan	21	-0.37
Sub-Saharan Africa	46	-0.64

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	56	-0.65
Middle third	56	-0.62
Richest third	56	-0.73

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	99	-0.72
Muslims	48	-0.42

By last european coloniser

	n	r
France	25	-0.58
Never a European colony	21	-0.56
Spain	19	-0.67
United Kingdom	49	-0.70

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 = -0.691 after dropping 0 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 also shows up within countries over time (r = -0.415). It holds even when looking only at changes from one year to the next (r = -0.259). This is the strongest kind of evidence available here: it holds when each country is compared only with itself, and it is not just a product of shared trends.

Across countries (adjusted)-0.691for comparison

Within countries-0.379each country vs itself

…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.415q = 0.000 · 175 countries

Year-on-year changes-0.259q = 0.000

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.

4,526 country-years (one country in one year), 175 countries, 1996–2024, about 26 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 5% for Political corruption, 5% for Voice and accountability. 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): -0.415. 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)	index (approx. -2.5 to 2.5)	Years
Chad TCD	0.952	-1.52	2025, 2024
Nicaragua NIC	0.942	-1.72	2025, 2024
Cameroon CMR	0.939	-1.24	2025, 2024
Cambodia KHM	0.904	-1.67	2025, 2024
Turkmenistan TKM	0.899	-2.04	2025, 2024
Tajikistan TJK	0.893	-1.64	2025, 2024
Iraq IRQ	0.892	-1.02	2025, 2024
Azerbaijan AZE	0.89	-1.5	2025, 2024
Uganda UGA	0.889	-1.01	2025, 2024
Congo, Dem. Rep. COD	0.886	-1.21	2025, 2024
Madagascar MDG	0.882	-0.725	2025, 2024
Liberia LBR	0.877	-0.112	2025, 2024
Somalia, Fed. Rep. SOM	0.87	-1.58	2025, 2024
Myanmar MMR	0.859	-2.12	2025, 2024
Equatorial Guinea GNQ	0.858	-1.73	2025, 2024

Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project
Kaufmann, D. and A. Kraay, Worldwide Governance Indicators, World Bank

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.

Voice and accountability

Voice and Accountability (estimate)

World Bank · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2024–2025. 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 Voice and accountability

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