Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026

1. Overview

The integrity advantage

Integrity is a strategic asset for governments and businesses. When well designed and effectively implemented, public integrity systems protect democracies from corruption, strengthen trust in public institutions, and support the conditions for growth and fair competition. Countries that seize this integrity advantage are better positioned to attract investment, manage risks and respond credibly to citizens’ expectations.

To generate this integrity advantage, governments must remain mindful of the evolving threat which corruption poses. Corruption hurts economic growth by decreasing levels of foreign direct investment. The now outdated view that corruption “greases the wheels” of the economy by circumventing inefficient regulations has little empirical backing. Rather, the evidence shows that corruption stifles innovation and investment, adds cost and inefficiency, and diverts resources away from intended uses, particularly in countries with low-quality governance (U4, 2017[1]; Damijan, 2023[2]; United States Trade Representative, 2025[3]). Integrity pays off as companies prefer to invest in stable and predictable political and regulatory environments. An uneven playing field adds uncertainty and potential costs, stifles entrepreneurship and distorts competition. Businesses view corruption as a significant challenge, with 1 in 4 firms worldwide singling out corruption as “a major or very severe constraint” according to the World Bank Enterprise Surveys (The World Bank, n.d.[4]). In the European Union, more than three quarters think that over-close links between business and politics lead to corruption (77%) and around two-thirds that favouritism and corruption undermine business competition (65%) (European Union, 2025[5]).

On the expenditures side, weak integrity systems generate substantial fiscal losses. Countries lose a significant share of GDP to fraud, corruption and waste, with public, private and not-for-profit organisations estimated to lose 5% of revenue to occupational fraud each year globally (approximately USD 5 trillion in losses) and between 8-25% of global public investment may be lost to mismanagement of fraud in procurement operations (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), 2024[6]; Fazekas, Sberna and Vannucci, 2022[7]). This loss happens both at the stage of tax collection (countries at the same level of economic development but with lower levels of corruption are estimated by the IMF to collect around 4% more of their GDP in tax) and service provision. In several countries, fraud has become the most prevalent and fastest growing of all crime types in recent years. In addition, increasingly powerful and transnational organised crime networks are emerging, which use corruption as a tool to divert public resources away from their intended use by targeting public procurement, grants, licencing and planning processes. Technological developments, including artificial intelligence, are increasingly used by individuals and criminal organisations to commit fraud and increase the efficiency of their own operations at the public expense.

Corruption also distorts public policies, deepens inequalities and erodes public trust. According to the OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, the number of people with low or no trust in the national government now exceeds those who express trust. Balancing the interests of different groups in society for the public interest is among the most important tasks of parliaments and governments, and among the best levers for improving trust in national governments and legislative institutions, along with improved checks and balances within institutions and transparent, verifiable decision-making. However, fewer than one in three people find it likely that the government would refuse a corporation’s demand if it went against the public interest. Nearly half doubt that a high-level political official would refuse to grant a political favour in return for a well-paid private sector job (OECD, 2024[8]). These trends have corresponded with a decline in engagement with politics and a growing scepticism about governments’ ability to reliably address societal challenges.

In short, citizens and businesses want governments to uphold and prioritise integrity. Governments must table bold action and invest in risk-based, results-oriented integrity reforms that address the challenges raised by investors, consumers and voters, use new technologies for greater impact, and be able to showcase the benefits and work together across jurisdictions. However, the accumulation of burdensome and inefficient governance processes, as well as their often rigid implementation, has taken a toll on government capacity and efficiency to deliver reforms. Overly rules-based and process-heavy approaches to public integrity are outdated, introducing too much check and not enough balance into the business of government. Instead, as in other policy areas, governments must continue to adapt their integrity frameworks to ensure they are efficient, targeted and adding value for businesses and citizens.

For businesses, while compliance remains a legal and ethical obligation, compliance functions must increasingly demonstrate how their activity contributes to business objectives, beyond avoiding sanctions or reputational damage. New models are enabling companies to assess the “return on compliance”, and effective and efficient compliance can explain 15–18% of the variance in business performance (OECD, 2025[9]). Companies should pursue this shift to viewing integrity as a strategic capability, embedded in decision making and adaptable to business change, while also reinforcing the importance of a strong tone from the top to legitimise and sustain compliance efforts.

In taking this approach, governments and businesses can benefit from the ‘integrity advantage’, where integrity frameworks become a key enabler of prosperous economies and dignified societies in which people feel connected to their representatives.

Countries continue to invest in integrity, but reforms are not always improving quality and the implementation gap persists

Governments across the world continue to reform their laws, institutions and practices to reduce corruption risks and gain advantages to society at large. The decline witnessed in, for example, the rule of law has not materialised in the public integrity area (WJP, 2025[10]). This Outlook shows that, for example, the number of countries that have adopted their first-ever anti-corruption and integrity strategy or lobbying law has risen. A provisional political agreement on the EU Directive on combating corruption was reached in December 2025, also illustrating that countries want to step up the fight against corruption as a key component of their growth and security agendas and in response to multiple ongoing crises. However, the quality of new laws is often not better than existing ones, and – most importantly – implementation is lagging.

The implementation gap persists and remains the key challenge for governments in 2026. For OECD Members, the gap is largest for disciplinary systems in the civil service (44 percentage points) and conflict-of-interest management (35 percentage points). Implementation-related values are lowest for strategic frameworks (32%) and disciplinary systems (22%). However, for strategy and lobbying in particular, even the formal, de jure values could improve, indicating that the quality of regulations could also be strengthened (Figure ‎1.1).

Figure ‎1.1. State of play for public integrity across all OECD Member countries and 25 OECD partner countries – the implementation gap is the key challenge

How to read: OECD Member country averages are represented by the blue bars, and OECD partner country averages are represented by the pink dashes. The averages are calculated by taking an average of the criteria fulfilled by both member and partner countries relating to the strength of regulations and practices in all areas presented. The implementation gap is calculated as the difference between criteria fulfilled on regulations and criteria fulfilled on practice.

Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).

Statlink

The average implementation gap across all areas1 for OECD Member countries now stands at 19 percentage points. For the areas of strategy, lobbying, conflict of interest, political financing and transparency of public information (the areas covered in both the 2024 and 2026 editions of the Outlook), the average implementation gap has risen from 14 to 15 percentage points. There is a difference in the number of countries covered between this edition of the Outlook and the last, but this slight change in implementation gap is partly a result of regulations incrementally improving on average, mainly for transparency of public information (from 60% to 62%), whereas average practice has remained the same (at 47%). Comparing the current datasets with those presented in the last edition, conflict of interest continues to be the area with the largest implementation gap, and transparency of public information continues to show the best practice-related values across all areas (Figure ‎1.2). Comparison over time is not yet possible for OECD partner countries.

Figure ‎1.2. The implementation gap persists over time across the OECD

Note: Strategy data was first published in 2021 and updated in 2023 and 2025. Data on conflict of interest, lobbying and political finance was first published in 2022 and updated in 2025. Data on judicial integrity, prosecutorial integrity and the disciplinary system was published in 2026 and no time trend is available. Data on corruption risk management included in the 2024 Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook has not been updated for this edition and is therefore not shown. Data for 2020-2023 are an update of the data presented in Figure 1.1 in the 2024 Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook: additional countries and a regulation criterion for political finance was re-categorised as lobbying.

Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).

Statlink

Focusing on the implementation gap should not preclude improving the quality of regulations. Many countries which have high practice values also have very high-quality regulations. In fact, Latvia and Lithuania, which have the highest average across all areas on practice-related indicators (78% and 76% respectively) also have the highest average value of all countries on strengths of regulations (89 and 86%). Box ‎1.1 presents possible causes of the implementation gap.

Box ‎1.1. Possible causes of the implementation gap

The Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook measures the implementation gap in the following ways:

1. Across thematic areas: comparing all OECD Public Integrity Indicators criteria fulfilled for regulations and implementation across countries’ integrity systems.

2. At the criteria level: comparing a criterion related to a regulatory requirement and the matching criterion related to its implementation in practice

3. Numerical indicators: making a direct measurement of implementation rates (e.g. the implementation rate of activities committed to in a strategic framework).

Several possible causes of the implementation gap are explored further throughout this report:

• Lack of resourcing / financing, e.g. regulations may require all asset and interest declarations to be verified by a responsible authority, but that authority may not necessarily have the human or financial resources to undertake the required verifications.

• Challenges with oversight, monitoring or centralisation of data, e.g. not tracking what office holders do upon leaving their public roles makes it impossible to implement rules on revolving door, such as prohibitions on certain types of work or work in certain sectors.

• Lack of political backing, e.g. the legislature or parliamentary committees not engaging with oversight bodies’ annual reports in a timely way undermines oversight bodies’ role in supporting implementation through identifying gaps and risks and proposing mitigations.

• Skills or knowledge deficit, e.g. countries not certifying public sector auditors can lead to weaker implementation of audit rules and standards.

• Design / reality gap (or unimplementable policies), e.g. a regulatory or strategic commitment to digitalise asset and interest declarations when the basic administrative, institutional and infrastructure arrangements are not already in place.

• Not reaping the benefits of digitalisation, e.g. not enabling electronic submission of asset and/or interest declarations which improves submission rates, verification, analysis, and inter-agency collaboration.

Source: OECD elaboration

A culture of integrity benefits from effective rule of law, a system of checks and balances, civic engagement and strong law enforcement. The global rule of law recession documented by the World Justice Project, with shrinking civic space and weakening checks and balances, makes strong public integrity systems even more essential, across all branches of government, to resist pressures of undue influence (WJP, 2025[10]). Weak enforcement of foreign bribery is symptomatic of this challenging environment, which makes the job of integrity champions more difficult (Box ‎1.2). In this context, the global stagnation in the state of public integrity looks more encouraging. Integrity standards are not being dismantled and anti-corruption and integrity institutions continue to work.

Box ‎1.2. Enforcement of foreign bribery must be stepped up

Amid mounting pressure on the rule of law worldwide, the enforcement of anti-bribery laws across members of the OECD Working Group on Bribery remains steady, but uneven, according to national data recently collected by the OECD Working Group on Bribery. The data provide a snapshot of how governments have been enforcing anti-bribery laws – since 1999 through 2024 – as obligated under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which targets the supply side of bribery in international business transactions. According to the data:

• Enforcement has continued steadily since 1999 and companies are increasingly the focus, with corporate sanctions and convictions picking up since 2021.

• At the same time, the annual rate of new criminal sanctions against individuals has slowed in recent years.

• Beyond overall trends, enforcement is uneven across countries: sixteen Parties to the Convention have yet to report a single conviction or sanction for foreign bribery.

The data underscore the need for decisive government leadership to accelerate enforcement and commit the political attention and resources required to fight foreign bribery effectively. Companies have a critical role to play: Robust corporate compliance programmes are essential to preventing bribery before it occurs, and to ensuring that integrity is embedded in decision making.

In 2025, the OECD Working Group on Bribery launched the pilot OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Country Monitoring Dashboard to monitor implementation of 47 Parties to the Convention. The Dashboard points to systemic implementation challenges:

• More than half of Parties are currently subject to additional measures, and eight have been subject to additional measures for over five years.

• Over the past five years, the Working Group has applied 166 additional measures to 33 Parties, with no discernible downward trend during that period.

• Particularly concerning are deficiencies related to the very definition of the foreign bribery offence, which currently affect one quarter of Parties, including four that have failed to enact expected reforms for more than five years.

• Additional monitoring measures have also been imposed on Parties regarding a wide range of other issues, notably weak or ineffective enforcement, gaps in corporate liability regimes, inadequate sanctions, and concerns regarding the independence of investigations, prosecutions, or the judiciary.

The Dashboard’s findings will inform the Working Group’s preparations for its next phase of country evaluations, which are expected to start in late 2026.

Source: OECD elaboration

High-performing countries move from a rules-based to a risk-based, results-oriented and digital approach

Countries that take a risk-based and results-oriented approach are better positioned to close the implementation gap, protect public funds and institutions, and promote economic growth and trust. As explored throughout this report, governments have created rules (laws and regulations) but are not implementing them adequately and achieving the expected results. Rules that are not implemented, not enforced, or do not lead to results, can also lead to a sense of impunity and may lower public trust. Traditional approaches based on the creation of more rules and stricter compliance have been of limited effectiveness. In line with the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity (OECD, 2017[11]), moving towards a risk-based approach emphasises the most cost-efficient mitigation of the most harmful corruption risks. The 2024 Outlook urged countries to close the implementation gap by clarifying institutional responsibilities, monitoring implementation through reliable data, building office holders’ understanding and buy-in, and enforcing appropriate sanctions. In a world of scarce resources, governments will have most success if they find the regulatory sweet spot and strengthen their efforts to address the integrity risks where institutions are most vulnerable.

OECD Member countries have transitioned from a rules-based and compliance-focused approach towards a risk-based and results-oriented one for the past decade, prompted by the adoption of the 2017 Recommendation. While this journey is not complete, there are useful lessons to share with other countries. The PII values set a baseline for OECD partner countries when aligning with OECD legal instruments on public integrity. The implementation gap is generally larger for the 25 countries included in the Public Integrity Indicators (PIIs) that are non-Members (OECD partner countries), in particular in the areas of conflict-of-interest, political finance, judicial integrity and disciplinary systems where the distance between the strength of regulations and implementation capacities and results in practice is wider (Figure ‎1.1). This group of countries includes all 9 countries seeking accession to the OECD and other advanced and developing economies around the world. There is also a variation at regional level, and this Outlook explores how trends in regions compare to the global, OECD member and partner country averages throughout.

Greater uptake of technology and better-quality data can help government “do more with less”

To close the implementation gap, all countries must further leverage technology and data in support of public integrity functions by integrating digital tools into their day-to-day operations. Data is a strategic asset, and high data quality, interoperability and effective data governance are prerequisites for reaping the integrity advantage. The use of artificial intelligence is becoming more widespread, but from a low base. Machine learning techniques for data analysis and natural language processing for text analysis are delivering efficiency gains by, for instance, supporting corruption risk assessment, detecting patterns in large datasets to assist anti-fraud efforts or in internal and external audit, or the processing of large volumes of information such as in the verification of interest and asset disclosures. However, while efforts to broaden digital and analytical skills across the workforce are under way, skills gaps persist and continue to limit the full potential of data-driven approaches, particularly in functions of oversight, enforcement and accountability. At the same time, challenges related to explainability, transparency and accountability of algorithmic outputs remain significant and, rightly, continue to temper the pace of adoption, reflecting the need to ensure compatibility with quality assurance and legal certainty.

National integrity systems can be strengthened to better withstand corruption risks

Chapters 2-8 of the Outlook analyse the strength of national integrity systems across seven thematic areas: anti-corruption and integrity strategies, lobbying, conflict of interest, political finance, transparency of public information, disciplinary systems for civil servants, and integrity of the justice systems.

Anti-corruption strategies continue to be a key means for countries to facilitate a ‘system approach’ to integrity which is risk-based, prioritised and coherent. As Chapter 2 shows, more countries are adopting such a strategic approach for the first time. However, many other countries are allowing gaps to open up between the reporting periods of their strategies, leading to strategic vacuums which can undermine the effectiveness of their anti-corruption efforts. Where countries have retained an active strategic approach, its quality and implementation have generally improved in recent years, but for other countries there remains scope to strengthen both the design and implementation of their strategic approach. One key area for improvement in strategy design remains that countries’ strategies still rarely target high-risk areas, including the private sector. Well-designed strategies tend to include measures for tracking implementation, but less than half of countries track implementation rates in practice and therefore remain unable to check whether strategies are supporting the desired outcomes. Many countries could also make better use of outcome-level indicators and evaluation techniques to gauge implementation and strengthen future strategies.

Lobbying safeguards prevent asymmetric or undue influence over policymaking, and help to ensure that knowledge, expertise and interests continue to inform policymaking in a way which supports the public interest and stable, competitive markets. However, as Chapter 3 shows, despite wider adoption of regulatory frameworks in recent years, the quality of lobbying regulations remains among the lowest in OECD Member and partner countries’ integrity systems. In large part this is due to declining beneficial ownership transparency. In practice, measures to enhance the transparency of lobbying activities, including lobbying registers, could improve. And while countries with lobbying registers in place generally maintain appropriate enforcement and compliance mechanisms, measures to monitor lobbying activities could be strengthened. If not, the quality and stability of policymaking and market competition are at risk.

Measures for managing conflicts of interest in the public service ensure office holders continue to serve citizens and businesses’ interests. Chapter 4 shows, however, that in recent years the implementation gap has persisted in OECD Member countries. The authorities responsible for receiving and overseeing declarations of interest are not adequately monitoring whether at-risk officials are disclosing their interests and/or assets. Authorities therefore do not know whether safeguards are working in practice. This monitoring gap also applies to the ‘revolving door’, where many countries still do not track office holders’ movement in and out of public entities. Improving the management of conflicts of interest is not just a case of layering process over existing mechanisms. Many countries could introduce a risk-based approach to managing interests and assets, which focus efforts on those office holders most exposed to the highest corruption risks. In addition, countries could enhance institutional capacity, improve verification procedures, make recommendations for resolving conflicts before they cause harm, and use appropriate sanctions for breaches.

Political financing allows individuals and entities to channel support to the candidates and parties which best represent them, and enhances competition and greater choice in elections. But not maintaining effective safeguards around political financing can produce harmful policy outcomes, biased and burdensome regulation, and the overrepresentation of certain interests in society and markets. However, as explored in Chapter 5, although both OECD Member and partner countries’ political financing regulations are generally strong, a significant implementation gap in their political financing systems persists. Political parties in many countries do not uphold reporting and transparency rules, also exposing them to the risk that prohibited sources of funding and malign influences over policymaking remain undetected. Supervisory bodies could make better use of in-house certified auditors to enhance their oversight of parties’ financial accounts. And although digitalisation and globalisation are rapidly changing the risks around political financing, many countries’ laws are not adapting to the new risks and continue to omit key safeguards.

Improving the transparency of public information can build citizens’ and businesses’ trust that governments are working in their interests, and can offer governments the opportunity to demonstrate the integrity and effectiveness of their work. Chapter 6 finds that in recent years, government transparency has remained consistently high, though there is still scope to improve, particularly in OECD partner countries. For example, although countries’ transparency regulations contain many standard requirements, for many countries data are still not open by default. Key data which could enhance public sector automation and efficiency, and support market entry, innovation and competition is therefore not available. In addition, data related to integrity are commonly not published. To help implement the transparency rules which countries have in place, supervisory bodies could carry out inspections, issue sanctions where appropriate, and report on their activities.

Maintaining effective disciplinary systems is essential for building and maintaining a strong, values-based culture of public integrity in the civil service. Appropriate disciplinary procedures help civil servants uphold standards of conduct and continue to act with integrity. As explored in chapter 7, while most OECD Member and partner countries have clear regulations on disciplinary procedures for civil servants, they could be better supported through stronger fairness guarantees. In addition, improved training on disciplinary investigations and use of digital tools could strengthen implementation of disciplinary measures in practice.

Upholding the integrity of the judiciary is essential to enable judges and prosecutors to perform their role in enforcing laws and regulations and ensuring accountability for corruption crimes and breaches of anti-corruption policies. As Chapter 8 shows, most countries have the basic safeguards for judicial and prosecutorial integrity in place, but there is scope to improve merit-based procedures for the selection, appointment and promotion of judges and prosecutors to protect judicial independence and prosecutorial integrity. Likewise, standards of conduct for judges and prosecutors are common, but implementation could be improved, especially around conflicts of interest. Whistleblowing mechanisms for reporting cases of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct are generally being implemented but could be improved through strengthened public awareness raising of existing reporting procedures, as well as training for staff on handling reports.

Fraud prevention efforts, integrity controls in public procurement and protecting public bodies from organised crime should be stepped up

The focus chapters of this edition of the Outlook explore tools to mitigate evolving corruption risks related to fraud, public procurement and organised crime.

Countries are strengthening their anti-fraud functions at the strategic, institutional and operational level in the realisation that existing integrity safeguards are no longer adequate to stem the rising tide of fraudulent activity. Estimates across several OECD Member countries suggest that public sector fraud is increasing, with one estimate from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office indicating that fraud and other crimes against the EU budget increased by around 22% between 2023-2024, with more than half of the estimated damage linked to the systematic perpetration of cross-border fraud by criminal organisations. The first focus chapter, Chapter 9, shows that while many governments have basic safeguards in place, such as embedding anti-fraud and corruption in internal control and risk management, most countries lack a systemic approach for improving the coherence, targeting and effectiveness of their anti-fraud efforts. There is increasing recognition of the potential of emerging technologies to fight increasingly complex and transnational fraud schemes. For instance, some governments are leveraging AI to enhance their use of statistical techniques to identify outliers, patterns, transactions and behaviours which deviate from norms and that warrant human investigation. Overall, as governments seek public sector efficiencies, investing in fraud prevention will be more cost-effective than dealing with its consequences – a key example of the integrity advantage at work.

Public procurement accounts for approximately 13% of GDP in OECD Member countries (OECD, 2025[12]). The complexity of procurement processes and transactions, the sums involved, the close interactions between the public and private sectors, and the global and fragmented nature of procurement supply chains increase the risk of corruption. Estimates suggest that between 8-25% of global public investment may be lost to mismanagement and corruption (Fazekas, Sberna and Vannucci, 2022[7]). As the second focus chapter, Chapter 10 shows, OECD Member countries generally have legal provisions in place for upholding integrity in public procurements. However, efforts to promote integrity beyond the public sector to suppliers, including enhancing supply chain transparency or integrity certifications, could be advanced. Developing a risk-based approach to integrity in public procurement can increase the efficiency and impact of interventions and reduce the burden of implementing integrity regulations on public entities. And digital technologies, particularly better data governance and interoperability, could be better used to manage integrity risks.

Organised crime presents a significant threat to the global economy and societies across the world, with recent estimates suggesting that its global costs amount to as much as 5% of annual global GDP (UNODC, 2025[13]). The last focus chapter, Chapter 11, explores how organised criminals are increasingly seeking to gain undue advantage by using corruption to infiltrate the legal economy and public services, and fraud to appropriate public funds. In response, countries must introduce coherent strategic frameworks which account for the connections between corruption and organised crime, address gaps, weaknesses and inefficiencies which organised criminals can exploit, and improve cross-government and international co-operation. As part of this upgraded, more strategic approach, countries should build upstream resilience against organised crime by improving prevention tools and enhancing the integrity of public institutions, particularly in vulnerable sectors like licencing, borders, planning and procurement.

How to read the 2026 OECD Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook

The 2026 Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook provides insights on the strengths and weaknesses of countries’ integrity systems, identifies characteristics of good performers, and indicates steps that countries can take to strengthen their laws, regulations, institutions and practices. It does so by comparing integrity policies, regulations and practices. The cross-country analysis in the first seven chapters is accompanied by country notes which help explain the context of specific countries and place the global, thematic and regional findings into perspective.

These first chapters present the state of play for public integrity across 37 OECD Member and 25 partner countries for each of the thematic areas covered by the PIIs. The three focus chapters are not covered by the PIIs but focus on areas where the cost of corruption and integrity risks are high and increasing: fraud prevention, integrity in public procurement and organised crime.

The 2024 Outlook set a baseline for OECD country performance on strategy, conflict of interest, lobbying, political finance, transparency of public information and corruption risk management. This edition can track progression or regression over time for OECD Member countries in these areas. In 2024, OECD averages were based on 33 countries participating, whereas in 2026, 37 OECD Member countries participated overall. The Strategy chapter is based on 37 OECD Member countries, whereas the chapters on lobbying, conflict of interest, political finance and transparency of public information are based on 36 OECD Member countries. Judicial integrity and the disciplinary system for civil servants were added as new chapters in 2026, both currently covering 31 OECD Member countries as well as 15 partner countries. The Outlook therefore now covers integrity systems not only in the executive and legislative branches of government, but also the judiciary. No updates were made to the corruption risk management data for this version, and this area is therefore not explored in a data chapter this time.

Besides the trends analysis, this version of the Outlook also has greater country coverage. 25 OECD partner countries have joined the PIIs since 2024, and their data has been included. Broader geographical coverage allows for greater peer learning and new insights into what works and why in curbing corruption. When the data shows substantive differences across OECD Member countries and partner countries, these two groups of countries are compared to explore causes and potentially formulate recommendations to further align with OECD policy and legal instruments. Greater geographical coverage also allows for regional comparison. Understanding how regions compare to the OECD Member and partner country averages and how individual countries compare to their regional averages can provide richer context and facilitate further peer learning and improvement. Regional examples in this report are focus on Europe and the LAC region as PIIs country coverage is representative in those regions. Table ‎1.1 shows the regional classification of the 62 countries participating in the PIIs.

Table ‎1.1. Regional classification: Countries included in the analysis

Asia-Pacific	Europe	Latin America and the Caribbean	Middle East and Africa	North America
OECD Members: Australia, Japan1, Korea, New Zealand OECD partner countries: Armenia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Thailand	OECD Members: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, United Kingdom OECD partner countries: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo*, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine	OECD Members: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico OECD partner countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru	OECD Members: Israel OECD partner countries: Jordan, Morocco, Seychelles, Zambia	OECD Members: Canada, United States

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

1. Japan did not provide data in 2025.

Box ‎1.3. The OECD Public Integrity Indicators

The majority of the data used throughout this Outlook is taken from the following datasets in the Public Integrity Indicators (PIIs) and refers to 2025 or the latest year available:

• Quality of anti-corruption and integrity strategic framework (data first published in 2021 and updated in 2023 and 2025; partner-country data was published in 2024 and 2025).

• Accountability of public policymaking, covering lobbying, conflict of interest, public information and political financing (data first published in 2022 and updated in 2025; partner-country data was published in 2024).

• Integrity of justice and disciplinary systems (data first published in 2026).

All PII data presented in this report was extracted from the OECD Public Integrity Indicators database on 10 March 2026.

Across these datasets, a total of 254 standard criteria and 9 numerical indicators have been defined to measure the effectiveness of laws, regulations, procedures and institutions, along with their alignment with OECD and other international legal instruments. In addition to these checklist-type indicators, the PIIs also include more outcome-oriented indicators drawing on administrative data and surveys, such as levels of trust in parliament or the government.

The PIIs rely on primary administrative data provided and validated by governments rather than perceptions, expert assessments and proxies. They therefore avoid many of the pitfalls of other indexes, including changing attitudes to incumbent governments or the influence of foreign interference over citizens’ perceptions.

The PIIs are available through an online data portal and the OECD Data Explorer:

• Datasets | OECD Public Integrity Indicators

• OECD Data Explorer • Public Integrity Indicators

Overall, these criteria produce objective, actionable data to help decision makers understand the strengths and weaknesses in their integrity systems, offer benchmarks to support improvements, and enable peer learning between OECD Member and partner countries.

Note

← 1.  The average implementation gap across all areas is calculated as the difference between the average of area averages for regulations and the average of area averages for practice in Figure ‎1.1. This is done to give equal weight to each area, as the number of criteria within each area differs.