At first glance, the existing comparative indices seem to agree with those who, like the M5S, represent Italy as a country devastated by corruption: for example, according to Transparency International, Italy ranks 167st out of 1 countries, and in last place among the advanced countries. However, this index, like all the others available, uses a measure of "perceived corruption" which necessarily reflects subjective evaluations and can also be very distant from reality. Recourse to subjective perception is necessary since real data (for example, number of convictions for corruption) do not allow for comparisons between countries with very different political regimes and legislations. Perceived corruption is then measured on the basis of rather general questions, such as "from 10 to XNUMX, how much corruption do you think there is in your country?".
A recent Bank of Italy study (by Lucia Rizzica and Marco Tonello, November 2015) analytically demonstrates how day by day, province by province, the answers to questions of this type are strongly influenced by how much and how the media reports episodes or news on corruption. It is therefore possible to trigger a vicious circle between reality and perception that feeds on itself, especially when the investigations of the judiciary become decisive for the political balance and therefore have a strong media amplification.
The problem is that the perceived corruption it is a similar measure to those of perceived inflation or the perceived immigration rate. Without real inflation data and relying on perceptions, we would have experienced near-hyperinflation since the inception of the euro. Similarly, if we didn't have the real data on immigration, judging by the perception we would end up with a real invasion today. And this despite the fact that in these cases the real data certainly have some calming effect on the perception data.
If theIstat measures very low inflation every month and if the media spotlights turn on this, even those who perceived 100% inflation (the famous doubling of the price level that would have occurred in the early XNUMXs) after a while he is forced to moderate his assessments. Instead, in the case of perceived corruption, there is no real data that can tell us how serious the problem is.
If Transparency and other international organizations existed and were reliable, they would not use data on perceived corruption. Nor is there any real data that can tell us whether the situation is improving or worsening over time. So one can say, without too much fear of being contradicted, phrases such as "today is worse than at the time of Tangentopoli", despite the fact that, for example, today, unlike then, bribes finance some individuals and not entire party apparatuses.
In this vacuum of real information, it happens that real inventions take on the dignity of news, such as the one according to Italy, corruption is worth 60 billion, half that of the whole of Europe. As he explained Michele Polo on Lavoce.info, it is a fake.
We add that in economics i are often used survey results, but with one key difference from corruption surveys. For example, to measure household trust, people are asked to formulate opinions on the general, current and prospective situation of the country, but also on their own personal situation. Usually the answers to this second set of questions are more positive.
In short, thenational economy it is bad, but individuals are relatively optimistic about their economic situation. In the case of Perceived Corruption Indices, it would make little sense to ask people about their personal experience of corruption. If these questions could be asked – or rather, if honest answers could be counted on – we would almost certainly get a different picture.
Those with political responsibilities certainly cannot underestimate the phenomenon, because perhaps it is really serious and because in any case perception also has real consequences, and must ask the judiciary to do its job and to do it quickly. However, it could perhaps add the reflection that corruption is not contrasted with new rules, new controls and more bureaucracy: quite the opposite is true.
Indeed, it is well known that there is a close link between corruption and variables such as the size of the PA, the inefficiency of the bureaucracy or the complexity and comprehensibility of the rules. It would be useful if the sensitivity of public opinion on corruption strengthened the reasons for a good reform of the public administration and a streamlining of the bureaucracy.
It would also be a success if it were possible to remove the credibility of those who unscrupulously embrace the issue of the fight against corruption and at the same time propose to broaden the perimeter of the public administration and make the jungle of rules which are the most fertile breeding ground of corruption.
