The scale of perceived corruption goes from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).

Luxembourg earned a score of 81 points (same as in 2015) and shared its 10th place ranking with Germany and the UK.

As Transparency Luxembourg states: “even though these results are good, it should not be forgotten that Denmark, who ranks first, has a score of 90. Luxembourg can and must make progress”.

The lowest ranks are occupied by Somalia (10 points), South Sudan (11 points) and North Korea (12 points).

The methodology of the CPI has long been contested, as Dan Hough, the director of the Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption explained: the definition of corruption is challenging; and survey respondents may interpret the concept widely. Measuring the perception of corruption is problematic as well, as perception and reality may differ considerably.

“A further limitation is that the CPI focuses on perceptions of public sector corruption. In other words, the corruption that takes place in and around governments and public servants. It says nothing about corruption in private business,” he said.

Transparency International has been very open about its methodological shortcomings and has developed other indices such as the Bribe Payers Index.

As Hough wrote, one shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is such a tricky thing to measure illegal activities on a global scale.

Hough argued: “The CPI has done one indisputable thing; it has put the issues of corruption and anti-corruption well and truly on the policy map. (…) The CPI, for all its sins, has a constructive role to play in helping us think just a little more about how we can better measure corruption and how the battle against corruption can subsequently be taken forward.”