You are using an outdated browser which may lead to issues with this website. Click here to update your browser
The official SDG indicators for target SDG 16.5 are:
Indicator 16.5.1: Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months
Indicator 16.5.2:Proportion of businesses that had at least one contact with a public official and that paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials during the previous 12 months
To the extent that data is available for these two indicators, it is hosted on the Global SDG Indicators Database or the SDG tracker.
Given the narrow scope of these official indicators - and in many countries the lack of available data to measure progress towards them - Transparency International’s assessments draw on a wider range of alternative data sources to scrutinise the often uncritical assessments of national progress presented in governments’ own Voluntary National Reviews.
By going beyond the narrow understanding of corruption captured by the official global indicators, our spotlight reports thus provide a more comprehensive assessment of the underlying conditions and drivers of corruption at national level.
Transparency Internationals’ assessments
The graph above demonstrates the aggregated score for the indicators grouped under SDG 16.5 for each country selected. You can change the country selection and even select multiple countries using the blue filter button in the bottom right of your screen.
Each policy area listed on the right of this page has been assessed according to three types of indicator: legal and institutional framework, implementation and compliance, and third party assessments.
You can explore the detailed responses and underlying data for each indicator by selecting a specific policy area.
Please note that the aggregate scores in the graph above relate solely to the legislative and institutional framework. Implementation and compliance are not scored, but rather assessed qualitatively.