From Conceptual Stretching to Measurement Gaps: Evaluating the Fitness-For-Purpose of “Ready-To-Use” Corruption Indicators

Existing “ready-to-use” corruption indicators are widely employed in comparative research and policy-oriented analysis, yet persistent concerns remain regarding their conceptual coherence, validity, and analytical fitness. This paper critically examines how dominant corruption measures translate underlying concepts of corruption into operational indicators, and where systematic mismatches emerge between conceptual definitions, data production practices, and intended research uses. Building on the premise that measurement challenges are inseparable from conceptual ones, the paper proposes an analytical framework to assess corruption indicators along three dimensions: (1) conceptual alignment (clarity and consistency between definitions and indicators), (2) measurement properties (validity, comparability, temporal stability), and (3) use-context sensitivity (appropriateness for explanatory, descriptive, or policy-oriented purposes). The framework is applied to a selected set of widely used “ready-to-use” corruption measures, including perception-based and expert-coded indicators, to identify recurring strengths, blind spots, and structural gaps. The analysis highlights how aggregation practices, reliance on elite perceptions, and limited transparency in data management affect cross-context comparability and policy relevance. The paper concludes by outlining concrete directions for improving the use and development of corruption indicators, emphasizing targeted measurement strategies and clearer links between conceptual choices and empirical tools.