Georgia’s score in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has slightly improved.
 
In the 2016 CPI, released by the anti-corruption watchdog on January 25, Georgia’s score is 57 and is ranked 44th among 176 countries. Georgia remains ahead of other former Soviet states, except of the Baltic States.
 
CPI ranks countries based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be and it scores countries on a scale from 0 – perceived to be highly corrupt, to 100 – perceived to be very clean.
 
Georgia’s CPI score was 52 in 2012, 49 in 2013 and 52 again in 2014 and 2015.
 
“Improvement of Georgia’s corruption index in comparison to last year (57 instead of 52) points at some (albeit minimal) progress,” Transparency International Georgia, Tbilisi-based member of Transparency International’s network, said, adding that moving up in the ranking “is less important, as it may be the result of changes in other countries.”  
 
“The fact that in 2012-2016 Georgia’s index was changing slightly, indicates at the absence of a significant progress in the country in terms of its anti-corruption policy,” TI Georgia said.
 
The organization notes “positive steps” taken in Georgia’s anti-corruption policy and points at “important” legislative amendments on verification of asset declarations of public officials and on strengthening legal protection of whistleblowers.
 
It, however, said that a number of important issues still need to be addressed to achieve “further progress” in fighting corruption. 
 

Among them, the watchdog group named:

• elimination of “informal influence” on public institutions, effective division of public and private sectors;
• establishment of an independent anti-corruption body that will have the necessary powers and resources for the prevention of complex types of corruption, including among high-ranking officials;
• ensuring independence and political impartiality of judiciary and law enforcement agencies;
• establishment of an effective and transparent system for recruitment and dismissal in the civil service that will exclude the possibility of politically motivated decisions and nepotism;
• safeguarding of institutional independence of the supervisory and regulatory institutions and prevention of political interference in their operations;
• creation of effective anti-corruption mechanisms in state enterprises;
• reduction of the excessively big share of simplified procurement in public purchases;
• supporting journalists, who disclose the facts of corruption, and responding adequately to the information disseminated by them;
• effective protection of whistleblowers in practice.