(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:
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
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)