I think Amir is correct in this. Social studies are often highly subjective and have agendas. In many cases this is blatantly obvious, in others more subtle and only apparent if you have a detailed knowledge of a particular subject. Transparency for example, a few months ago I read a transparency international report in full because it considered something I was very familiar with and it was quite shocking that the report displayed a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject and was very selective in its analysis yet when published it was accepted by many at face value (after all, it was a report so it must be right). As a general observation my advice is to be careful about reports and technical papers in general as unless you read them in full and also understand the analysis it is very easy to be led up a wrong path, some authors are very adept at using the abstract/executive summary in ways which might be described as disingenuous. And in terms of impressions of other societies, corruption etc I think experience is important. I've travelled widely and am under no illusions as to the nature of corruption (as I alluded to early my employer is part of an international anti-corruption initiative so see all sorts of raw reports and notifications) but there are so many variables and sensitivities that I find many reports on the subject hopelessly simplistic and/or tendentious.
@JJB70 , I never imagined a brief comment in passing on corruption in America - which both of the two past presidents have made a topic in their speeches - would get as much pushback as it has from
@amirm. I thought countrymen of "the indispensable nation" would be more robust; it seems like people are easily offended these days despite the fact that academic training is about making one robust when confronted with a statement one doesn't like. My initial post on rigged Grammys was meant to be fun facts for music interested people by pointing to something fishy about the 2L coin; why doesn't the nominations of 2L and the picking of a Grammy winner seem to be decided by the same coin (in a coin-flip)? So I am sorry for these lengthy defence comments after being accused of having an agenda and worse (and please have in mind that some of my comments are not necessarily aimed at you,
@JJB70 ).
You write that "social studies are often highly subjective and have agendas". While this is obviously true, you haven't shown that this is true in the case of the Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (CPI). The CPI is based on averaging 13 data sources:
1. African Development Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2016
2. Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators 2018
3. Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index 2017-2018
4. Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Service 2018
5. Freedom House Nations in Transit 2018
6. Global Insight Business Conditions and Risk Indicators 2017
7. IMD World Competitiveness Center World Competitiveness Yearbook Executive Opinion Survey 2018
8. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Asian Intelligence 2018
9. The PRS Group International Country Risk Guide 2018
10. World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2017
11. World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey 2018
12. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index Expert Survey 2017-2018
13. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) 2018
Source:
Source Description (
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018)
Statistical comment (see page 24 for a short summary):
https://www.transparency.org/files/content/pages/2018_CPI_2017_StatisticalAssessment.pdf
Is it probable that these 13 sources are all biased and tilted towards subjectivity and a certain agenda? If so, why would these biases push America down, not up on the lists? Who would you generally trust: A meta study, followed yearly by a broad base of academics, based on 13 sources, or one self-proclaimed expert on the subject?
In analyses one often distinguishes between soft and hard data. Hard data are factual data, like observed new orders in a company. Soft data are surveys like purchasing managers indexes. It's obviously better to use soft data in combination with hard data as a means of diversification of input. Still, soft data are very popular in financial markets where there's skin in the game, because they are more readily available than hard data and sometimes are leading compared to hard data. Soft data is based on "wisdom of crowds", a methodology that often works far better than stubborn experts thought possible (cfr. the ox story and Francis Galton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds).
In matters of social capital - like corruption, trust, freedom etc. - one has to deal with what is called the theorization and commensurability problem. If you cannot define or measure in a standardized way, one cannot be certain that a quantitative approach, a quantitative and seemingly objective treatment of the subject will be fruitful.
For this reason, it's easy to write off social science because definitions and measurements aren't as easily standardized in an adequate way as in the hard sciences. That's one of the reasons why people say "I can predict the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people". And Max Planck said he avoided economics because the math was too difficult; it would have taken him a week to master the math of 19th century economics, but a really good, robust, final mathematical solution to social science is probably not attainable.
So is social science just fluff? Method without content, or content without method? I think Isaac Asimov's text on "The relativity of wrong" (
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) comes into play here (too). There's no doubt that social sciences are wrong. Remember, even the statement that the earth is spherical is wrong. Let me quote Asimov:
"The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong."
@amirm and many others are of the opinion that social science is wrong because it's not as right as the hard sciences. This line of thinking forgets about the relativity of wrong: Can social science help us to understand the world a bit better than without social science? I believe that despite some of the flaws of social sciences - like the theorization and commensurability problem - social sciences can be of value. Social sciences are wrong, but don't forget about the relativity of wrong.
By averaging 13 surveys - with the ability to follow the scores over time - I believe one is able to get a bit closer to the truth (the statistical assessment of the CPI in the link above says the same). Especially if the result of this meta study of a social phenomenon is supported by other surveys on social capital.
Now, take a look at this quote from the 2013 edition (long before last presidential election) Global Corruption Barometer by Transparency International:
"Looking only at OECD countries, which as the world’s largest economies ought to be strong performers on governance and anti-corruption, the wide range of people’s perceptions as to the extent of government capture by special interests is striking (Figure 6). While only five per cent of Norwegians see their government captured by special interests, this goes up to more than two-thirds in countries where the economic crisis highlighted deep-rooted failures of governance, such as Greece, Italy and Spain, but also includes Belgium and Israel. This suggests that there are important lessons to be learned within the group of OECD countries from Norway and other Scandinavian countries about how to run one’s government so that it is seen by most to serve the overall public good."
I am not making up these data to fit an agenda or my subjective view. Isn't it intriguing that 13 times as many Americans as Norwegians complained about rigged politics in this poll? Should we censor this data? Am I against the American people if I point to statistics like this? Or is it the other way round: Is it in the interest of the American people to focus more on corruption in America?
Above, I wrote that it's interesting if "the result of this meta study of a social phenomenon is supported by other surveys on social capital". So let me present another survey, with the danger of being accused of linking to a survey that is "highly subjective and have agendas". Take a look at the press freedom index of Reporters without Borders (which has been criticized of being biased in favour of Europe and America):
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
On place 45, America is once again second or third tier when it comes to a function in society that has to do with transparency in society. Norway is number one, just ahead of Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland.
Before I finish, let me point to another anecdotal set of data that casts light on both the past and the present in America. The theme is very controversial, but important nonetheless. It has to do with admission politics of American elite universities, The Ivy League. The two articles below (one short popular article to provide some colour, while the other more interesting one contains lots of data and text not advised for fragile readers) provide facts that support the hypothesis that admissions to the Ivy League have been and still are rigged based on race, so called race quotas (Jewish quotas in the 1920s and Asian quotas in modern times):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/
So my point is: Do we see a pattern here across surveys, methodologies, data collection and input, academics, experts etc.? Does it pass the duck test? Is it proved beyond doubt that America is a second tier country when it comes to corruption, rigged play? (And please don't accuse me of saying that all Americans are corrupt even if their elite is).
I am frankly irritated when I am accused of being anti the American people when I point out patterns that indicate that the American people have to live under a "a few big interests looking out for themselves". Accusations by
@amirm of being a child for pointing to broad patterns in a diverse set of data on America is disappointing. And being criticized for reading books on a site with "science" in its name is totally unexpected. My experience with books is that you can sometimes learn things that it would take decades or even life-times to know through personal experience. Especially in matters that are complex, like differences in habits across countries.