In various articles (summarized and documented in the FIRSTonline post located here) we argued that the indicators of corruption usually used concern the perception of the phenomenon, and overestimate its seriousness in Italy in comparison with other countries. In essence, Italians are comparatively less corrupt than they perceive themselves to be. It is a counter-current thesis and it is not surprising that, together with some appreciation, critical reactions or even just disbelief have arrived. For all of them, it seems useful to refer to those expressed in this post by Senator Lucrezia Ricchiuti who reproaches us for underestimating the problem of corruption and, more specifically, for having neglected various scientific works on the subject. We answer that almost all the sources cited are stories of important episodes of corruption that occurred in Italy and in other countries - or opinions of authoritative magistrates. We have not considered these sources because, if there was a convincing and comparable narrative between countries (e.g. number of convictions for corruption or the amount of bribes paid), they would have already been used by international organizations studying the phenomenon, such as Transparency, World Bank, OECD etc. The reason why surveys are used is that it is believed that comparisons based on objective data is not possible.
Among those reported by Sen. Packed there is a however a job in particular on which we deem it useful to dwell, that of Prof. Lucio Picci of the University of Bologna. According to the senator, this work "would measure – we quote – the differential between the costs of corruption in Italy and those in Germany at 586 billion a year". In the senator's post, this statement has no other qualification and leads the reader to think that the reference is to the cost of corruption for the PA. Of course this is impossible, given that the total public expenditure is 826 billion, including interest and salaries. The two areas of spending exposed to corruption (public investment and purchases of goods and services) add up to about 200 billion. It is therefore obvious – but it should be clarified! – that the 586 billion do not concern the cost for the PA: reading the article by prof. Picci, in fact, it turns out that we are talking about the distorting effects of corruption on the GDP, which is quite another thing.
But even so it doesn't add up. In fact, 586 billion correspond to a difference of almost 10.000 euros per capita. This implies, as again stated by Picci himself, that "if the level of corruption in Italy were equal to the German one, the Italian per capita income would go (2014 data) from 26.600 euros to approximately 36.300, or even higher than the German per capita product which in 2014 barely reached 36 thousand euros”.
This is an absolutely fantastic figure. So much so that, as a serious scholar as Picci undoubtedly is, he himself asks himself: “Is this result realistic? Obviously it is legitimate to doubt. Moreover, he argues, like all scholars of the phenomenon, that measuring corruption is an almost impossible exercise, to the point of having to affirm: "let's suppose we magically solve the problem of measuring corruption...". These sentences clarify that the author is doing what is often done in scientific research, i.e. a methodologically useful exercise, albeit heroic and, above all, still looking for an author - i.e. someone who can solve the basic problem of measurement . To try to orient ourselves in the numbers we made the following calculation. We applied the same methodology used by Picci to Afghanistan, one of the countries that according to the CCI index (Corruption Control Indicator) of the World Bank is among the most corrupt in the world, achieving an even more surprising result. If corruption in Afghanistan were to fall to Germany's level, the country's per capita GDP would rise by more than $35, outpacing not only Italy's but Germany's as well. A similar result holds for almost all developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America – which is, to say the least, highly curious. Probably, as the GDP grows, corruption tends to decrease: rich countries tend to have less corruption. But that doesn't mean that it's enough to fight corruption to get rich. Corruption is an obstacle to economic development, but it is certainly not the only one.
We add that Prof. Picci also refers to a measure of corruption of a certain interest which deserves to be analyzed more thoroughly. This measure, called PACI (see here), uses data on cases of corruption involving multinational companies that actually occurred abroad. According to this ranking (see column 3 of table 4) the least corrupt countries are the advanced countries with modern market economies: Canada, Switzerland, Australia and almost all the countries of Western Europe. The most corrupt are the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Germany is in eleventh place and Italy in nineteenth out of 152 countries: we are not very well, therefore, but we are more or less at the level of countries such as Norway, the United States and Austria. We stand above all former Eastern European countries as well as all emerging or developing countries. It seems to us that even these data tend to confirm our thesis.
