(Transparency; 03-02; p.2)

Reasons for this are less to be found in better work conditions for political economists who that way would come closer to the ideal of markets without different levels of information. - Such markets are preferred because they do not allow collecting extra rents stemming from an advantage in information which in turn decreases the efficiency of markets. The main reason for transparency is to be found in the underlying supposition of market based systems that they are just.

 

The German case

If one asked an average German whether he sees a difference between say any Latin American state and the federal republic, the answer would probably be clear: Germany would be considered less intransparent.

But how about a comparison between EU members? - The latest findings of Transparency International give information about this (cf. for the following: Transparency International: Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2002. Press release. Berlin 2002). On a scale from 1 to 10 people could judge about the regularity of government bodies' decisions; the higher the figure, the more regular. "Corruption" - i.e. a rather low figure - in this respect has been defined as abuse of state's power for personal advantage. The main share of people asked were business-men.

For the fifteen EU member states, the following picture is derived after some editorial work:
• on a simplified one-digit scale the states are valued between 4 and 10;
• Finland and Denmark are perceived as virtually free of corruption, both reaching a 10; above average are Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the UK with a 9;
• the average is 8 and has been reached by Austria; Germany, Belgium, Spain and Ireland are below average with a 7;
• out of standard deviation of 2 fall only Italy with a 5 and Greece with a 4, which may be interpreted such that these states are prone to corruption. (read on here)