Irrespective of the criticism that global statistical reports such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index attract from some quarters of both academia and the media, there is no

question they do help put the issues they deal with in some perspective.

This is especially so given the absence of other such tools for assaying, analysing and comparing countries along set guides and parameters—however subjective or even flawed in their methodologies critics think some of them may be.

And when you compare other such worldwide reports—even cursorily—across a single country or a group of similar countries, interesting patterns emerge. These patterns not only help put some sort of quantification on the lay perceptions that people might have about these countries in regard to the issues in question, but they also throw light on a number of related factors and perhaps even may show a way forward. It’s like joining the dots to get the big picture -but one which we have a pretty good sense of.

Let me explain. But before I do so, let me also state that this is no scholarly dissertation on the reports: just interesting observations that seem to fit our general understanding of the state of affairs in the countries of interest to us --in our case, the countries in our neck of the woods.

We saw three significant global reports published last month. One of these was Transparency International’s cited above and the other two were the United Nations’ progress report on countries’ performance on the various parameters of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the World Bank’s index of the ease of doing business across 181 countries.

Let’s start by comparing the top performing countries across the reports. In the Asia Pacific region, New Zealand and Singapore come up at the very top of the charts on both the ease of doing business and the perception of corruption indices.

Of course, both being developed nations, the MDG progress report does not apply to them—for that they would be compared on a different scale using different yardsticks and parameters with other countries of the OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) group.

Just as Singapore and New Zealand share the top honours on both indices, so do other nations compare with one another across the two indices. This throws up an interesting correlation: countries where it’s easiest to do business also tend to be the most transparent. The pattern tends to by and large hold good as you work your way down the tables.

(It is important for me to add here that I have compared rankings for the sake of keeping this simple—it is better to go by the points given to each nation for the purposes of any serious analysis because rankings may change simply because of the better performance of other nations, which is not necessarily a reflection on a particular nation being studied.)

Transparency automatically denotes a more open administrative and bureaucratic regime with smoother, quicker delivery of services from the government’s side. This is clearly reflected in the case of both Singapore and New Zealand where one can set up businesses the quickest and do most of the compliance related tasks related to the business—from registration to taxation—remotely, using the internet.

Less of interfacing with bureaucrats, fewer and unambiguous, straightforward laws and fewer levels of bureaucracy also means fewer avenues of possible corrupt practices. Clearly, therefore, a correlation is not difficult to notice between the degree of transparency of a regime and the ease of doing business there.

The pattern of correlation between the rankings on the two indices holds good across developing countries as well. But in this instance, it is even more interesting when you also factor in the United Nations’ MDG progress report.

Signed by 147 heads of nations and 189 countries in the year 2000, the MDGs aim to bring the benefits of development for all and free the world from want within the agreed timeframe.

The path to achievement of these goals is structured and among the main aims is the eradication of poverty or halving the number of people in the world who live on less than US$1 a day.

The effort involves finding solutions to hunger, malnutrition and disease, promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women, guaranteeing a basic education for everyone, and supporting the principles of sustainable development. The target for the achievement of these daunting tasks is the year 2015.

This year’s progress report has revealed that most Pacific Island nations have slipped in their goal achievement schedules (with some notable exceptions). This is despite several aid programmes that specifically target the achievement of these goals in these countries.

By inference, this implies that a quantum of the aid received does not trickle down to the required project level thereby pointing a finger at corruption in the implementing agencies as well as the government (in several cases in the islands context both would be the same).

This is consistent with these countries’ lower ranking in the corruption perception index as also the ease of doing business index, which we saw is so closely linked to the question of transparency.

This observation is amply backed by anecdotal evidence as well as regular media stories that report the systematic rort in public funded projects that has been taking place across the region—notably in Papua New Guinea. Report after indicting report has documented funds that have vanished mysteriously, abandoned projects and diversion of specific project funds to other purposes.

On the flip side, the notable exceptions that have shown slight improvements in the ease of doing business index—especially Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu—by virtue of a slew of both legislative and administrative reforms in recent years—also, by and large, happen to be the better performers on the MDG progress card over the past few years with a couple of them even being ahead of schedule on some parameters.

The message from all this is quite straightforward: transparency, a facilitative business environment, the progress of developmental goals and, of course, economic progress and well-being are all inextricably linked.

And the glue that not only binds them together but provides the fertile soil for them to flower and bear fruit for all citizens to share are the two words that have been all too often used merely to pay lipservice by most developing world politicians and bureaucrats including those of the islands: good governance.