Physically smaller countries vs physically larger countries... (Canada, ratings, states)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just eyeballing it, it appears that the larger countries are more corrupt.
it's hard to say, though.. size doesn't appear to be the primary determining factor. Canada and Australia are both fairly large countries with low corruption -- however, their populations live clustered in certain areas, with huge expanses of wilderness inbetween.
To me you have a northwest european model of governance -- including the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, UK, Norway, Iceland
And countries which mimic this style of governance (the US, Australia, New Zealand, Chile) seem to have low corruption ratings.
I don't believe corruption depends on size of country. It depends on the attitude of the country's citizens to corruption and the ability, wherewithal, and respect for the nation's judicial and penal systems.
I don't believe corruption depends on size of country. It depends on the attitude of the country's citizens to corruption and the ability, wherewithal, and respect for the nation's judicial and penal systems.
Don't forget the freedom of its press. The ability to expose corruption is directly tied to the ability to stop it.
just eyeballing it, it appears that the larger countries are more corrupt.
it's hard to say, though.. size doesn't appear to be the primary determining factor. Canada and Australia are both fairly large countries with low corruption -- however, their populations live clustered in certain areas, with huge expanses of wilderness inbetween.
To me you have a northwest european model of governance -- including the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, UK, Norway, Iceland
And countries which mimic this style of governance (the US, Australia, New Zealand, Chile) seem to have low corruption ratings.
What sticks out to me is that on continents full of corruption, the less corrupt ones seem a bit smaller.
Smaller countries tend to be less corrupt, but I feel this is more due to population distributions than anything else. It is very easy to set policies in a country like Norway, where 90% of the population makes up almost an identical demographic than it would be in the United States, where policy has to be incredibly complex to reach the same effectiveness as a small, homogeneous country. The larger the complexity of policy, the easier it will be to exploit the system.
Europe could be a country if it wanted to. Too much responsibility to shoulder too provincial to move forward?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
