This Index is the first global analysis of corruption risk in defence establishments worldwide. We aim to give governments, armed forces, civil society and citizens the tools to avoid the dangers and inefficiencies that corruption in defence brings.

Results

70 per cent of governments studied have high to critical levels of corruption vulnerability, scoring in bands D, E, and F. Just two countries are placed in band A, demonstrating strong and institutionalised activity to counter corruption in this sector. 

Reports

On 6 February, we launched a report focusing on the 19 Middle East & North African countries assessed in the index, all of which have been found to be at high or critical risk of corruption in defence. The report is available for download in both English and Arabic.

The main GI report, including each country assessment, is a tool that governments, armed forces, civil society and citizens can use to guide reform in this sector. It provides an in-depth analysis of 82 countries’ corruption risks and vulnerabilities, and provides for detailed comparison between countries and regions.

Actions

  1. Defence Leaders: Conduct a detailed analysis of the corruption risks in your defence sector. Publish policies, budgets, and procurement plans, and encourage and respect public and legislative scrutiny. Make secrecy a legitimate exception, not the norm.
  2. Legislators: ensure a strong committee is in place to monitor and oversee defence, security, and intelligence issues. Establish a sub-committee that can ensure robust questioning of all topics withheld from public oversight in the name of national security.
  3. Civil Society: bring this subject into the national dialogue, and actively monitor and oversee defence policies, budgets, and activities. Act as a conduit between citizens and the defence establishment and demand accountability.

Methodology

Each of the 82 countries was assessed by an independent researcher, using a questionnaire of 77 questions. The assessor scored each question from 0-4, and provided a narrative response to explain that score. These assessments were peer reviewed. We also invited the government to review their assessments and provide further information. Based on these assessments, each country was placed in a band, from A to F, and given scores in five risk areas: political, financial, personnel, operations, and procurement risk.