Public integrity indicators

The OECD Public Integrity Indicators (PIIs) are the OECD’s first-ever standard indicators on public integrity and anti-corruption. Developed for and with governments, they are based on the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity (2017) and other international legal instruments from bodies.

The PIIs rely on primary data rather than expert assessments or proxies and focus on actionable criteria and numerical rates. This allows to document the availability and quality of data in each OECD Member country, and where on average the OECD is facing a data gap.

With the technical support of the OECD Secretariat, the PIIs were developed by a Task Force consisting of nine members of the OECD Working Party on Public Integrity and Anti-Corruption (PIAC) in 2019 to support countries in implementing the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity.

The members of the first Task Force came from Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and the United Kingdom. The design of the OECD collated existing key performance indicators from national authorities, established standard definitions to harmonise approaches and enabled cross-country comparison.

The PIIs were approved by all OECD member countries represented in PIAC. A second Task Force consisting of members from Chile, Finland, France, Greece, and the United States has since been convened to oversee the rollout of the indicators.

Each PII dataset is composed of indicators, that are either criteria-based or numerical. Across the three published datasets, there are 22 criteria-based indicators and 12 numerical indicators. These have been defined to express what constitutes effective laws, regulations, procedures and institutions in public integrity.

Criteria-based indicators measure the extent to which specific standards or conditions are met. When expressed as percentages, the criteria-based indicators present the share of criteria fulfilled. For example, if the criteria-based indicator “Coverage” within the Strategy dataset shows a country value of 57%, this means that 4 out of the 7 criteria composing the “Coverage” indicator are fulfilled. Criteria are binary (i.e., fulfilled or not fulfilled) and based on qualitative and/or quantitative data. They serve as a basis for benchmarking to prompt peer learning as well as taking concrete steps to further improve a country’s anti-corruption and integrity system.

Numerical indicators are quantitative measures, expressed as percentages. They are standalone values presenting the share of a given variable (e.g., the share of strategic objectives that have been implemented). Compared to criteria-based indicators, they are more outcome-oriented indicators drawing on administrative data and surveys.

A key design feature of the PIIs is the distinction across criteria between (a) the strength of laws, regulations, procedures and institutional mandates (de jure); and (b) the implementation of these policies in practice and achievement of outcomes (de facto). By measuring both de jure and de facto criteria, the PIIs can document if implementation is lagging, or cases where practice works well even without strong regulations. The criteria are also categorised according to thematic areas (e.g., conflict-of-interest or lobbying). The PIIs therefore present country values across multiple cross-cutting dimensions and categories:

• At the criteria level (fulfilled/not fulfilled)
• At the regulation/practice level (de jure/de facto)
• At the thematic level (conflict-of-interest, lobbying, etc.)
• At the indicator level (e.g., coverage of strategic framework)

A list of indicators and criteria is available for each published dataset:

1. Quality of strategic framework (published in 2021 and updated in 2024)
2. Accountability of public policy making (published in 2022)
3. Effectiveness of internal control and risk management (published in 2023)
4. Integrity of the justice and disciplinary systems (to be published in 2025)
5. Strength of oversight and control (to be published in 2026)
6. Meritocracy of the public sector (to be published in 2026)

The data production process for each dataset consists of seven steps:

1. Design
   With the technical support of the OECD Secretariat, the Task Force designs the list of indicators and criteria, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. The indicators and criteria are mostly derived from the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity and the OECD Public Integrity Handbook, but also from other OECD recommendations and other relevant international instruments and policy guidelines, such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
   
   
2. Launch
   For each country, a focal point (identified by PIAC delegates for OECD member countries) is invited to respond to a questionnaire.
   
   
3. Data collection
   The country focal point responds to the questionnaire and may invite other public officials with specific expertise to provide relevant information.
   
   
4. Analysis
   The OECD Secretariat analyses the information provided by the country focal point via the questionnaire, to assess whether the country fulfils each criterion and to calculate the numerical indicators.
   
   
5. Review
   The country focal point reviews the analysis provided by the OECD Secretariat. Multiple exchanges between the country focal point and the OECD Secretariat are often required to collect missing information and finalise the analysis.
   
   
6. Validation
   The country focal point validates the analysis to confirm all country values for each criterion and each numerical indicator.
   
   
7. Publication
   The country values are published on the OECD OECD Public Integrity Indicators Portal and the OECD Data Explorer.

Fulfilled or Yes: The criterion is fulfilled, as all conditions required to meet the criterion are met.

Not fulfilled or No: The criterion is not fulfilled, as at least one condition required to meet the criterion is not met.

Data pending or Data not available: The data production process is at the data collection, analysis, or review phase; or the country could not share the required information because it is not available or because no response was provided in the questionnaire.