>
> On Dec 2, 2006, at 4:56 PM, tfast wrote:
>
> > If you all would just read the methodology used you would see that the
> > rankings were created using how nationals rank their own government
> > in terms
> > of corruption. So all it really tells us is how each country's own
> > perception of corruption about its state. Comparison therefore
> > must be in
> > the form that x nationals perceive corruption in their country as
> > +/- a
> > problem than do y nationals in their country. It is a trivial poll.
>
> Not necessarily. It's a measure of trust. That's not unimportant.
>
> Doug
Sort of. But lets just say you are correct. Then it should be called "the trust rankings" and the corruption index. Now to why you might be wrong. The whole of 1990s the universla message coming out of the media and the right in Canada was about how politics and poiticians were corrupt. It is hardly surprising that when polled people would indicate that they thought their government was corrupt. But then all this reflects is that an individual's perceptions follow their "shaped" expectations. We know this is the case with perceptions about crime. So you are right in the end I suppose, very interesting. But then I already knew that advertising worked.
tfast