Azerbaijan in Corruption Perceptions Index: Same Problems

The international movement Transparency International published its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. Compared with last year, Azerbaijan has somewhat improved the performance, getting 29 points and sharing the 119th place with Russia, Guyana and Sierra Leone in the list of 168 countries.

Last year Azerbaijan took the 126th place among 175 countries.

The research carried out for the 21st time reflects the degree of corruption in the public sector on a scale from 0 (the highest level of perceived corruption) to 100 (lowest). So the figure of Azerbaijan is far below average.

The first three places are occupied by Denmark, Finland and Sweden. On the last places are Somalia, North Korea, and Afghanistan.

Among the countries of the former Soviet Union the best results are for Estonia - 23th place, Lithuania (32), Latvia (40), and Georgia (48), while the worst are for Turkmenistan (154), Uzbekistan (153), Tajikistan (136) and Ukraine - 130.

The Azerbaijani branch of Transparency International notes that almost all the indicators for 2014 remained the same. A positive effect was achieved due to the single window system – ASAN Service. However, the Freedom House report on the countries in the transaction period pushed Azerbaijan to the rear position. It is also affected by decline in economic performance due to falling prices of oil, incorrect devaluation of the manat, and the banking sector’s opacity, which caused damage to the welfare of the population.

According to the founder of the Economic Research Center Gubad Ibadoglu, the lack of progress in the country's position on the Corruption Perceptions Index reflects negative tendencies with a corruption component. "Ongoing surveys show that almost 85% of the local population believes that corruption is the main obstacle for development. Over 80% of the respondents of the local polls are for the ratification of Article 20 of the UN Convention on the fight against corruption, Illicit Enrichment, which provides for the introduction of criminal penalties, if an official could not explain the origin of the funds spent on the purchase of his property. -0--

Leave a review

Politics

Follow us on social networks

News Line