Executive Summary

• Transparency International released the Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 on 2026-02-10, covering 182 countries and territories.
• Egypt recorded 30/100 and rank 130/182, based on 8 sources; the published standard error was 3.27.
• Compared with 2024, Egypt’s score was unchanged (0 points); rank unchanged (rank movement is secondary to score).
• Within the official MENA group, Egypt stood at 12 of 18 by score; the regional average was 39.
• The index expanded to 182 countries and territories. Denmark led for an eighth consecutive year with 89; Somalia and South Sudan scored 9.
• The global average fell to 42. The report identified 31 countries improving, 50 declining and 100 staying unchanged over the long-term comparison.
• The Middle East and North Africa average was 39; the United Arab Emirates scored 69 and Libya and Yemen scored 13. The issuer stressed stronger institutions and freer civic space.
• ENCC’s reading: Close the leadership and implementation gap through independent institutions, transparent public finance, open civic oversight and enforceable integrity rules.

Release Snapshot

What This Release Is

The Corruption Perceptions Index is Transparency International’s annual comparative measure of perceived corruption in the public sector. It synthesises multiple expert and business assessments into a country score and a rank. The 2025 edition’s analytical theme is Leadership, institutional independence, civic space and public accountability.

What It Measures and Why It Matters

Public-sector integrity affects the predictability of regulation, the fairness of procurement, the credibility of public finance and the cost of doing business. For competitiveness, the relevance lies less in a league-table position than in the institutional conditions that influence investment confidence, market entry, resource allocation and service quality.

ENCC therefore reads CPI evidence as a diagnostic and monitoring input. It should be combined with administrative data on procurement, audit follow-up, case processing, beneficial ownership, service delivery and public access to information.

Methodology in Brief

• The CPI measures perceived public-sector corruption among country experts and businesspeople; it does not count proven corruption incidents.
• Scores run from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The 2025 edition covers 182 countries and territories.
• Transparency International aggregates qualifying external sources; the broader methodology draws on up to 13 sources from reputable institutions.
• A country needs at least three sources for inclusion. Egypt was assessed using 8 sources in this edition.
• Source values are standardised to the 0–100 CPI scale using the 2012 baseline parameters, then averaged and rounded to whole-number scores.
• The standard error and confidence interval express variation among the available sources; Egypt’s published standard error is 3.27.
• Scores since 2012 are designed for comparison, but source mix, uncertainty, ties and coverage still require caution.
• CPI evidence supports institutional diagnosis and monitoring; it cannot by itself identify a cause, sector, transaction or individual actor.

Global Highlights and Key Signals

• The index expanded to 182 countries and territories. Denmark led for an eighth consecutive year with 89; Somalia and South Sudan scored 9.
• The global average fell to 42. The report identified 31 countries improving, 50 declining and 100 staying unchanged over the long-term comparison.
• The Middle East and North Africa average was 39; the United Arab Emirates scored 69 and Libya and Yemen scored 13. The issuer stressed stronger institutions and freer civic space.

Safe interpretation: the global pattern supports attention to institutional independence, civic checks, transparent finance and enforceable controls. It does not prove that any single reform caused an annual score movement.

Regional / MENA Lens

The official country dataset places Egypt within the MENA grouping. The regional average was 39, compared with Egypt’s 30. Egypt’s score-based position was 12 of 18 by score. The table below is a compact, source-defined comparison rather than an analyst-created peer ranking.

Egypt Lens

The direct observation is limited but clear: Egypt’s score changed from 30 to 30. The policy diagnosis cannot be inferred from that movement alone. ENCC’s interpretation is that sustained progress requires measurable improvements in preventive controls, public-finance transparency, enforcement credibility, institutional independence and safe public scrutiny.

Track-Specific Deep Dive: Reading the Index Safely

• Lead with score movement because the score is designed for comparison; use rank as contextual information.
• Keep the denominator visible. Coverage was not constant across all editions and rose to 182 in 2025.
• Treat one-year movements cautiously, especially where standard errors and confidence intervals overlap.
• Do not interpret “perceptions” as mere opinion: the CPI aggregates structured assessments, but it remains an indirect measure.
• Do not equate a better score with fewer prosecutions or a worse score with more detected cases; enforcement can initially reveal more wrongdoing.
• Link policy recommendations to institutional evidence, not to the CPI number alone.

Comparative Evidence

The edition-native workbook contains a time series beginning in 2012. The table below stops at 2025; it does not use later editions.

Policy Brief — Integrated

Policy question. How can Egypt convert a perception-based integrity signal into a limited set of observable institutional reforms that improve trust, investment conditions, fair competition and public-service value?

• Make public procurement open by default across the full contracting cycle, with justified and reviewable exceptions.
• Use risk-based conflict-of-interest, asset-declaration and beneficial-ownership verification where legally applicable.
• Strengthen the independence, resources, due process and publication practices of audit, justice and oversight functions.
• Protect whistleblowers, journalists, researchers and professional bodies acting within the law, and provide safe reporting and feedback.
• Publish implementation evidence: not only laws adopted, but coverage, timeliness, exceptions, remedial actions and independently verified results.
• Close the leadership and implementation gap through independent institutions, transparent public finance, open civic oversight and enforceable integrity rules.

ENCC Positioning

• ENCC can state that Egypt scored 30 and ranked 130 of 182 in CPI 2025, using 8 sources.
• ENCC can use the CPI as an entry point for dialogue on institutions, public finance, investment confidence and fair competition.
• ENCC should prioritise score trends and implementation evidence over reputational narratives based on rank alone.
• ENCC can convene government, business, research and civil-society stakeholders around measurable integrity actions.
• ENCC cannot claim that the CPI measures actual corruption incidence, proves causality, evaluates every form of corruption or assigns responsibility to specific actors.

Roadmap, 6–24 Months

Risks and Mitigation

Monitoring and KPIs

• Coverage of machine-readable procurement notices, awards, contracts, amendments and completion records — baseline: Not available.
• Share of high-risk procurement subject to documented ex ante or concurrent integrity review — baseline: Not available.
• Coverage and verification rate of conflict-of-interest, asset-declaration and beneficial-ownership controls where legally applicable — baseline: Not available.
• Median time to route and resolve protected reports, with due-process safeguards — baseline: Not available.
• Share of priority audit findings closed within the agreed period — baseline: Not available.
• Public-service transactions with traceable service standards and complaint outcomes — baseline: Not available.
• CPI score, rank, denominator, source count and standard error tracked together — annual.
• Publication of an independent annual integrity implementation report — yes/no.

Data Notes and Limitations

• The CPI measures perceptions of public-sector corruption; it is not an incidence, enforcement or victimisation survey.
• Egypt’s 30 score is based on 8 sources and has a published standard error of 3.27; uncertainty must remain visible.
• Ranks are affected by ties, changes in other countries and changes in the denominator. Cross-year analysis should begin with scores.
• The source mix can vary by country and year. The index’s standardisation supports comparison since 2012 but does not eliminate all interpretive limits.
• The selected MENA comparison uses Transparency International’s official region coding; it is not a claim of identical legal, economic or political conditions.
• Policy recommendations are ENCC analysis informed by the release; they are not findings or endorsements attributed to Transparency International.

Official Links

• Official landing page
• Official report
• Official methodology package
• Official results data

Conclusion

CPI 2025 provides a disciplined warning signal, not a complete diagnosis. Egypt’s competitiveness interest lies in translating integrity commitments into transparent procedures, credible enforcement and measurable outcomes. The next assessment should therefore ask not only whether the score moved, but whether procurement became more open, oversight more independent, reporting safer and remedial action more visible.