In February 2026, Transparency International published the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which measures the structural weaknesses affecting the integrity of public institutions in 182 countries and territories. This index draws on thirteen independent data sources, including the Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Service, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) and the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index,[1] and reflects the views of experts and economic stakeholders on a scale ranging from 0 to 100.[2]
In 2025, for the first time in over a decade, the global average of CPI score fell to 42 out of 100, indicating a lack of control over corruption by participating countries.[3]
The study also reveals a widespread decline in integrity standards, marked by the weakening of checks and balances, the politicization of institutions and the shrinking of civic space. These developments raise questions about the preservation of the rule of law, democracy and respect for fundamental rights.[4]
Based on these findings, Transparency International calls on the governments concerned to strengthen their judicial systems, establish independent oversight of public decisions and expenditure, ensure transparency in the financing of political parties, and protect civic space and democracy.[5]
To this end, the organization recommends that states guarantee the independence, transparency and accessibility of judicial institutions, combat undue influence on political decisions, facilitate access to justice for victims of corruption, and support civic space as well as the reporting of acts of corruption.[6]
Analysis of the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index thus enables to examine, on the one hand, the institutional and political factors underlying the observed setbacks (I) and, on the other hand, the consequences of the weakening of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms on the prevalence of corrupt practices (II).
I. The evolution of the CPI highlights a gradual deterioration in the legal mechanisms for preventing, controlling and punishing corruption
The CPI calculated for 2025 shows a decline in the global average to 42 out of 100, reflecting the fact that the majority of countries are not sufficiently managing the risks of corruption. Indeed, for the first time in over a decade, 122 out of 182 countries scored below 50.[7]
The index also highlights a marked decrease in the number of countries displaying very high levels of public integrity. Indeed, only five countries now score above 80, compared with twelve ten years ago, including Norway (81), Finland (88) and Denmark (89), the latter recording the highest score in the index.[8]
This trend reflects a gradual weakening of oversight institutions, including audit authorities, courts, and anti-corruption bodies. When deprived of independence or sufficient resources, these structures can no longer act as an effective deterrent, thereby facilitating the establishment of entrenched corrupt practices.[9] Transparency International observes that, in several states where the rule of law and democracy are weakened or under threat, corruption goes beyond isolated incidents to become systemic, becoming permanently embedded in the ordinary mechanisms of administrative and political governance.[10]
In this regard, situations of armed conflict logically exacerbate corrupt practices. The case of South Sudan illustrates how civil war has enabled public funds to be used to finance militias or enrich certain individuals, in the absence of effective budgetary control and accountability. The reform commitments set out in peace agreements thus remain often unfulfilled, contributing to the perpetuation of corruption.[11]
Conversely, some democratic states that have historically ranked highly have recently seen a decline, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and New Zealand. In these countries, corruption does not result from institutional collapse but from a gradual weakening of existing legal safeguards.[12]
In France, for example, corruption remains a cause for concern within political life. Several recent cases, such as the conviction of former President Nicolas Sarkozy for illegal campaign financing, the misappropriation of European funds by the “Rassemblement national” party, and the government’s criticized handling of the mineral water scandal involving Nestlé, highlight the limits of the authorities’ capacity and willingness to implement “ambitious” anti-corruption measures, particularly regarding lobbying and political financing.[13]
These cases have also highlighted failings in public integrity, fueling doubts about the authorities’ ability to guarantee impartiality in the face of major economic interests.[14]
Furthermore, the criminal convictions of high-profile politicians illustrate both the persistence of risks at the highest levels of government and the judicial system’s ability to enforce the principle of accountability among those in power.[15] These political vulnerabilities, as noted by Florent Couet, Executive Director of Transparency International France, are fueling a “social anger capable of producing either a democratic surge or a liberal shift ”.[16]
Thus, the findings do not stem from a regulatory vacuum but from shortcomings in the implementation, oversight and strategic coordination of public anti-corruption policy. The fight against corruption appears to be given insufficient priority on the government’s agenda, thereby undermining the credibility and coherence of public action.[17]
This analysis is even more significant given that, over the last ten years, France has established dedicated institutional bodies, notably the Financial National Prosecution Office (PNF) and the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life (Haute Autorité pour la transparence de la vie publique – HATVP). Nevertheless, Transparency International France highlights that these bodies face a mismatch between the scope of their missions and the human and budgetary resources allocated to them. PNF, specialized investigative services such as Central Office for the Fight against Corruption and Financial and Tax Offences (Office central de lutte contre la corruption et les infractions financières et fiscales – OCLCIFF), and preventive authorities such as HATVP remain under-resourced given the scale and growing complexity of the cases they must handle.[18]
Similar observations are also included in the addendum to the second compliance report published by Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in 2025 as part of the 5th evaluation cycle of France. While GRECO notes certain progress, particularly regarding cooperation between the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) and the HATVP, it nevertheless highlights persistent shortcomings in the strategic organization of corruption prevention and oversight within law enforcement agencies and more broadly.[19]
These findings are also in line with the observations made by the Court of auditors (Cour des comptes) in its report published on 9 December 2025 on the anti-corruption policy pursued since 2015, which highlighted insufficient awareness of corruption risks, a lack of consolidated and reliable indicators, and a lack of strategic coordination between the relevant actors. The Court notes persistent shortcomings in the public sector, where certain legal obligations remain inadequately implemented and where disciplinary sanctions remain rare.[20]
Finally, the Transparency International report published to mark the CPI 2025 reminds us that corruption is a transnational phenomenon, fueled by illicit financial flows, money laundering and insufficient international cooperation.[21]
In this regard, the report echoes the OECD analysis on the need to strengthen the means of detecting and reporting corruption abroad and to improve cooperation between agencies.[22]
In this perspective, the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index can be used (among other tools) by compliance teams as a tool for building and updating risk maps, rather than simply as a reputational indicator. A significant deterioration in a country’s score warrants a review of internal classifications, third-party due diligence procedures and the control thresholds applicable to sensitive transactions.[23]
Transparency International points out that the fight against corruption is not limited to formal compliance with rules but involves strengthening transparency and oversight of public services, large-scale prevention, detection and punishment, as well as ensuring the accessibility of judicial institutions to give victims of corruption access to justice.[24]
II. The weakening of the rule of law and violations of fundamental rights encourage the spread of corruption
The CPI 2025 identifies several institutional factors that contribute to the worsening of corruption, foremost among which is the failure of public decision-makers. When authorities vested with legislative or executive power act in a biased manner or abuse their mandate, the entire public decision-making chain is thereby affected.[25]
In this regard, Transparency International emphasizes the institutional dimension of the rule of law. Corruption tends to take root when judicial systems lose their independence, when the appointment of judges is subject to political pressure, or when law enforcement becomes selective. Inequality before the law contributes to the normalization of corruption and the erosion of public trust.[26]
Countries that have sustainably improved their CPI score are those that have undertaken coherent legal and institutional reforms. The example of the Seychelles, which has significantly improved its score since 2012, illustrates the decisive role of a more structured judiciary and a strengthened anti-corruption body.[27]
Thus, the improvement of 16 points for the Seychelles since 2012 (score of 68 in 2025) stems from concrete reforms such as the strengthening of the judicial system, an increase in prosecutions for corruption offences, improved cooperation between law enforcement agencies, and the consolidation of the national anti-corruption body.[28]
Conversely, states with low scores exhibit recurring institutional characteristics, notably the limitation of parliamentary checks and balances, the politicization of the judicial system, the capture of the legislative process by vested interests, and the restriction of civic space.[29] In these contexts, corruption is no longer a matter of isolated acts but of a systemic failure of governance.
Transparency International cites, in particular, countries such as Venezuela (10), Syria (15) and South Sudan (9), where the sustained erosion of oversight institutions, combined with conflicts or an extreme concentration of executive power, has enabled the entrenchment of clientelist networks and public resources to be massively misappropriated, thereby creating an environment conducive to corruption.[30]
Furthermore, access to justice is presented as being correlated with lower levels of corruption. In other words, when justice becomes inaccessible, costly or ineffective, individuals may be tempted to resort to intermediaries or informal payments.[31]
Transparency International highlights the close link between corruption and democratic decline, particularly when checks and balances are weakened and civic space is restricted.[32] From this perspective, the need to enhance transparency in political financing and to introduce effective caps on donations and election spending is emphasized, in order to prevent influence peddling and conflicts of interest. The regulation of lobbying and the obligation to declare interests are also essential preventive tools.[33]
These recommendations are in line with international standards, in particular those of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which requires States Parties to adopt effective measures for prevention, detection and punishment.[34] The Convention provides, in particular, for the strengthening of integrity in the public service, the establishment of specialized independent bodies responsible for preventing and combating corruption, as well as the protection of whistleblowers.[35]
Furthermore, it appears consistent that nearly two-thirds of countries with a low CPI score also show a trend towards worsening restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly, with South Sudan (9), Syria (15), Venezuela (10) and Somalia (11) among the lowest-ranked states.[36]
Consequently, at an initial stage, citizens, organizations and journalists can no longer expose acts of corruption, document abuses or exercise external scrutiny over public action. When civic space is restricted, the frequency of reports and revelations automatically decreases, thereby fostering impunity.[37]
Furthermore, journalists investigating corruption may be subjected to violence and threats. Transparency International points out that between 2012 and 2024, more than 800 journalists were killed whilst carrying out their duties, a significant number of whom were investigating cases of corruption or economic and financial crime.[38]
This situation is reflected in certain countries by legislation restricting the activities of independent media and civil society organizations. For example, in Russia, several laws adopted since 2012 on “foreign agents” have strengthened state control over NGOs and the media outlets, leading to the closure or exile of many investigative journalists.[39] These cases demonstrate that the restriction on civic space constitutes a factor conducive to corruption by weakening independent oversight mechanisms.
Finally, Transparency International observes that corruption tends to develop in contexts of poor public financial management and insufficient budgetary oversight, exacerbating inequalities. This situation creates a vicious circle: corruption thus becomes both the cause and the consequence of the weakening of the rule of law.[40]
