Control of Corruption in Mauritius
Mauritius: Control of Corruption was 0.1776 standard error in 2011. ▼ Falling
Control of Corruption in Mauritius, 1996–2011
Source: World Bank Institute. Measured in standard error.
Analysis
The most recent figure for control of corruption in Mauritius is 0.1776 standard error, measured in 2011.
Compared with earlier readings it is down 2.4% on the previous year and down 27.5% over ten years.
Over the whole period, control of corruption in Mauritius peaked at 0.3588 standard error in 1996 and was at its lowest, 0.1626 standard error, in 2006.
Mauritius ranks 20th of 53 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 13 years of available data.
Control of Corruption in Mauritius, year by year
| Year | standard error | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0.3588 standard error | — |
| 1998 | 0.2153 standard error | -40.0% |
| 2000 | 0.245 standard error | +13.8% |
| 2002 | 0.1837 standard error | -25.0% |
| 2003 | 0.1973 standard error | +7.4% |
| 2004 | 0.1855 standard error | -5.9% |
| 2005 | 0.1861 standard error | +0.3% |
| 2006 | 0.1626 standard error | -12.7% |
| 2007 | 0.1656 standard error | +1.9% |
| 2008 | 0.1644 standard error | -0.7% |
| 2009 | 0.1802 standard error | +9.6% |
| 2010 | 0.1821 standard error | +1.0% |
| 2011 | 0.1776 standard error | -2.4% |
Mauritius compared with similar countries
- Mauritius's 0.1776 standard error is below the median for upper middle income countries, which is 0.1842 standard error, 96% of the median. (8 countries reporting)
- Mauritius's 0.1776 standard error is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 0.1749 standard error, 1.0× the median. (47 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0.2871 standard error | 0.2153 standard error | 0.3588 standard error | 2 |
| 2000s | 0.1856 standard error | 0.1626 standard error | 0.245 standard error | 9 |
| 2010s | 0.1799 standard error | 0.1776 standard error | 0.1821 standard error | 2 |
Countries ranked near Mauritius
More reference data data for Mauritius
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0102 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0409 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.0513 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0002 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.0513 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0343 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.0167 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.2303 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.2885 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0008 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is control of corruption in Mauritius?
- Control of corruption in Mauritius was 0.1776 standard error in 2011, according to World Bank Institute.
- What is the highest control of corruption recorded in Mauritius?
- The highest recorded value was 0.3588 standard error in 1996.
- What is the lowest control of corruption recorded in Mauritius?
- The lowest recorded value was 0.1626 standard error in 2006.
- How does Mauritius rank for control of corruption?
- Mauritius ranks 20th out of 53 countries with data for 2011.
- Is control of corruption rising or falling in Mauritius?
- Over the last ten years it is down 27.5%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Mauritius data come from?
- The figures come from World Bank Institute, published as part of Control of Corruption (standard error). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 13 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
See definition GV.CONT.CO.ES. Inherent to all Governance Indicators is a margin of error, which might vary from country to country, normally attributable to two factors: (i) cross-country differences in the number of sources in which a country appears, and (ii) differences in the precision of the sources in which each country appears.