Dear mhaze,

God strewth you do prattle on quite baselessly.

You sniffle: “When decisions are made based on iffy data or concocted league tables, those decisions are almost invariably wrong.” and bemoan: “Finally, as best I can work out, they run their data (such as it is) through various algorithms to standardise it. Inevitably that means the results have margins of error. But we're never told what those margins of error are. For all we know, the changes in results and therefore positions are merely movements within the error bars.”

Yet even a cursory look at the data would show they list the margins of error you claimed wasn't there.

Australia in 2021 scored 73 out of a possible 100, was ranked 18th with a standard error figure of 1.63.

In 2020 we scored 77, were ranked 11th with a standard error figure of 1.05.

New Zealand on the other hand in 2021 scored 88 out of a possible 100, was ranked equal first with a standard error figure of 1.43.

You do get caught out not doing your homework a lot don't you.

Look, just face it, a well respected organisation has show Australia sliding to its worse figures ever in the well regarded Corruption Perception Index and yet you are working overtime to make erroneous claims about their methods and their data. Why are you protecting the obviously corrupt?

Get off the grass Issy, what about all that "scummy" the Shooters and Hooters get from the Septic Tanks, aka NRA, through the back door. Robin Askin would be proud of ya.

Ps, I forgot, "brown paper bag man" Askin was Australia's most corrupt poly ever, and both a SHOOTER and a HOOTER, he liked to say; "Shoot the bastards, run over the bastards", see a SHOOTER AND HOOTER, You do remember Issy? The Shooters and Hooters keep a picture of Old Robin Askin, on the wall of their 'Marty Bryant' memorial clubhouse, down Killer Lane. Come clean Issy and don't put up ridiculous posts like your last one.

SR,

I know this is gunna get too complicated for you. Standard error isn't the same as margin of error. Standard error is, usually, the value of one standard deviation from the mean, although sometimes it can be more than one standard deviation if that seems valid. We don't know what the standard error here means because the PERCEPTION is that those who fall for this rubbish don't understand or care.

We also don't know what group perceptions make up the number and more importantly what the weighting is or if the weighting changes over time.

Let's face it SR. You like all those who are likely to fall for this stuff, just want a number that looks vaguely 'scientific'.

Frankly, we don't even know what they mean by corruption in regards to Australia and which of the multitude of possible forms of corruption they list, have increased or decreased in Australia or elsewhere.

But it gives you the answer you want, and in the end that's all that matters. Truth...not so much.

Dear mhaze,

I do enjoy these when you try and bluster your way out of an obvious stuff-up.

The margin of error can be derived from the standard error times the critical value which is useful when looking at a single data set. The CPI looks at multiple data sources so the standard error is the appropriate figure to use.

You claim: “We also don't know what group perceptions make up the number”.

Of course we do.

The Australian figures use 9 out of these 13 data sets.

1. African Development Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2020
2. Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators 2020
3. Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index 2022
4. Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Service 2021
5. Freedom House Nations in Transit 2021
6. Global Insight Country Risk Ratings 2020
7. IMD World Competitiveness Center World Competitiveness Yearbook Executive Opinion Survey 2021
8. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Asian Intelligence 2021
9. The PRS Group International Country Risk Guide 2021
10. World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2020
11. World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey 2020
12. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index Expert Survey 2020
13. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem v. 11) 2021

Take number 11 for example:

"World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2020
Type of assessment: Expert assessment

Corruption question(s) Experts are asked to assess: Transparency, accountability and corruption in the public sector. “This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources, administrative decisions, and results obtained.

Each of three dimensions should be rated separately: (a) accountability of the executive to oversight institutions and of public employees for their performance; (b) access of civil society to information on public affairs; and (c) state capture by narrow vested interests.” For the overall rating, these three dimensions receive equal weighting."

Sources explain, weighting explained. What's your next whinge?

Which also addresses Graham's contentions that:

"If a significant proportion of the population runs around saying a country has become more corrupt, then most likely this will be reflected in the index. ... It's also not a measure of anything the federal government has necessarily done, or not done. Why blame the feds when most of the government corruption happens in the states? And a lot of corruption doesn't even happen in the government sector."

The World Bank assessment goes directly to government performance as do many of the other data sets.

Again this isn't a "significant proportion of the population" but experts.

"Experts are asked to assess: Transparency, accountability and corruption in the public sector. “This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources, administrative decisions, and results obtained."