Arab Region | Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (Arab countries,2005–2022)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. Accountability is generally enhanced by transparency in decision-making, access to relevant and timely information, public and media scrutiny, and by institutional checks (e.g., inspector general, ombudsman, or independent audit) on the authority of the chief executive. The criterion covers four dimensions: (a) the accountability of the executive and other top officials to effective oversight institutions; (b) access of civil society to timely and reliable information on public affairs and public policies, including fiscal information (on public expenditures, revenues, and large contract awards); (c) state capture by narrow vested interests; and (d) integrity in the management of public resources, including aid and natural resource revenues. Each of four dimensions should be rated separately and national and sub-national government’s issues appropriately discussed. This indicator is from Expert Assessment
Publisher
Arab Development Portal
Origin
Arab Region
Records
178
Source
Arab Region | Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (Arab countries,2005–2022)
| Year | Location |
value
Min
Max
|
|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2008 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2010 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2012 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2015 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2016 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2017 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2018 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2019 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2005 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2006 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2008 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2010 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2011 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2014 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2016 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2019 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2005 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2006 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2008 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2010 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2011 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2012 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2013 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2015 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2016 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2018 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2019 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2020 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2005 | Sudan | 2 |
| 2006 | Sudan | 2 |
| 2009 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2010 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2012 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2013 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2016 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2017 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2018 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2020 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2006 | Yemen | 3 |
| 2007 | Yemen | 3 |
| 2009 | Yemen | 3 |
| 2012 | Yemen | 2 |
| 2014 | Yemen | 2 |
| 2016 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2017 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2019 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2019 | Somalia | 2 |
| 2020 | Somalia | 2 |
| 2011 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2012 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2013 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2014 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2015 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2016 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2017 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2018 | Comoros | 2.5 |
| 2021 | Comoros | 2 |
| 2022 | Comoros | 2 |
| 2007 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2008 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2009 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2010 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2011 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2012 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2013 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2019 | Djibouti | 2.5 |
| 2022 | Djibouti | 3 |
| 2008 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2009 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2010 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2011 | Mauritania | 2.5 |
| 2014 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2015 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2016 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2017 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2018 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2022 | Mauritania | 3 |
| 2020 | Somalia | 2 |
| 2021 | Somalia | 1.5 |
| 2022 | Somalia | 1.5 |
| 2005 | Sudan | 2 |
| 2008 | Sudan | 2 |
| 2010 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2011 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2014 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2017 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2019 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2021 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2022 | Sudan | 1.5 |
| 2005 | Yemen | 3 |
| 2009 | Yemen | 3 |
| 2011 | Yemen | 2.5 |
| 2012 | Yemen | 2 |
| 2013 | Yemen | 2 |
| 2017 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2018 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2019 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2020 | Yemen | 1.5 |
| 2022 | Yemen | 1.5 |
Arab Region | Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (Arab countries,2005–2022)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. Accountability is generally enhanced by transparency in decision-making, access to relevant and timely information, public and media scrutiny, and by institutional checks (e.g., inspector general, ombudsman, or independent audit) on the authority of the chief executive. The criterion covers four dimensions: (a) the accountability of the executive and other top officials to effective oversight institutions; (b) access of civil society to timely and reliable information on public affairs and public policies, including fiscal information (on public expenditures, revenues, and large contract awards); (c) state capture by narrow vested interests; and (d) integrity in the management of public resources, including aid and natural resource revenues. Each of four dimensions should be rated separately and national and sub-national government’s issues appropriately discussed. This indicator is from Expert Assessment
Publisher
Arab Development Portal
Origin
Arab Region
Records
178
Source