Evaluating the Quality of Corruption Surveys for Comparative Research and Sustainable Development

Abstract

Reliable and accurate corruption measurement is crucial for effective governance, evidence-based policymaking, and the monitoring of global goals such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While perception-based corruption metrics are widely used, they face criticism due to conceptual ambiguities and vulnerability to societal biases. Experience-based corruption surveys offer a promising alternative, yet their methodological quality remains underexplored. To address this issue, this study evaluates 58 national and cross-national corruption surveys using a comprehensive framework based on six quality dimensions developed by the United Nations: relevance, accuracy, reliability, periodicity, accessibility, and comparability. Findings reveal that cross-national surveys excel in comparability and reliability, whereas national surveys face challenges in accessibility and periodicity. Specialized surveys generally outperform non-specialized ones. Regional disparities also emerge: European and Latin American surveys score highest in relevance and comparability, while Asian and African surveys struggle with accessibility and periodicity. By using this framework, academics and policy makers can promote input and output harmonization and thus enhance corruption survey methodologies and ensure better data reliability for anti-corruption policy.