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.
The main GI report is a tool that governments, armed forces, civil society and citizens can use to guide reform in this sector.
Our newest report focuses on 19 questions from the GI report to examine what legislatures are doing to address corruption in defence establishments. The report shows what legislatures, state executives, audit offices, and civil society can do to improve oversight of defence.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.