Pakistan's score on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has improved by one point, but an examination of the data and methodology behind the ranking raises questions about how the score is produced, how much of it can be independently verified and how closely international perceptions correspond with the live experience of ordinary Pakistanis. The questions matter beyond the ranking itself. Corruption and governance indicators form part of the wider information available to foreign investors, businesses, lenders and international institutions when assessing country risk.
The CPI is not an investment or credit rating, nor an IMF lending condition, but it can contribute to the broader country-risk picture. The IMF's 2025 Governance and Corruption Diagnostic for Pakistan says corruption and governance weaknesses significantly affect economic growth and investment. Citing research, it said every one-point improvement in the CPI is associated with a four percent increase in a country's investment rate, while stressing that this is an association, not proof of direct causation.
Transparency International's 2025 CPI, released in February 2026, gave Pakistan 28 out of 100, ranking it 136th among 182 countries, compared with 27 and 135th among 180 countries previously. Thus, the score rose by one point while the numerical rank fell by one place. TI says scores are more meaningful than ranks because changes in the number and performance of countries can affect rankings.
What is behind Pakistan's 28 score? Pakistan's 2025 CPI score was not based on a survey of Pakistani citizens. TI uses 13 external data sources globally, with each country assessed using at least three; Pakistan had eight.
The CPI measures perceived public-sector corruption among experts and businesspeople. Five of Pakistan's eight source scores remained unchanged, two declined and only V-Dem increased substantially. Bertelsmann stayed at 21, EIU at 18, Global Insights at 32, PRS ICRG at 33 and World Bank CPIA at 39.
WEF fell from 33 to 32 and WJP from 26 to 25, while V-Dem rose five points from 14 to 19. The published 2025 source scores total 219, giving an average of 27.375, compared with TI's published CPI score of 28. This is not evidence of a mathematical error because TI uses unrounded underlying scores.
The exact calculation therefore cannot be reproduced from the published whole-number figures. The key transparency questions are the exact unrounded average and how close it was to the threshold for a score of 28, particularly because V-Dem accounts for the visible improvement. Why did V-Dem move five points?
The five-point rise in V-Dem's Pakistan score is the only substantial positive movement among the eight CPI sources. V-Dem uses expert assessments and statistical modelling, and its datasets can be revised as new versions are released. The key issue is what changed in Pakistan's assessment: whether the number or composition of experts changed, underlying indicators were revised, historical observations were updated, or the model or methodology changed.
The exact unrounded V-Dem score supplied to TI is also not publicly disclosed in the CPI data. TI referred these questions to V-Dem, which produces the underlying data. With seven of Pakistan's eight published source scores unchanged or lower, the five-point V-Dem increase accounts for the only substantial improvement in the source-level data behind Pakistan's one-point CPI increase.
Eight sources, eight different methods The eight inputs are also not eight identical surveys. The World Economic Forum uses an executive opinion survey. The World Justice Project combines household and expert information.
Bertelsmann relies on expert assessments. V-Dem uses expert coding and statistical modelling. The EIU, Global Insights and PRS use country-risk assessments, while the World Bank CPIA is an institutional assessment.
They therefore involve different respondents, experts, analysts, definitions, time periods and levels of public disclosure. The TI standardises the different source scores and combines them into one country score. Equal treatment after standardisation is a methodological choice.