The Corruption Perception index, although extremely scientific, is not very accurate in my opinion. It doesn’t completely encapsulate what corruption entails, and could not possibly fully uncover all the corruption in a country.

Since the turn of the millennium, the Transparency international has published the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) annually ranking countries “by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.” Corruption can be hard to define, and in the perspective of the CPI, corruption is defined as the “misuse of public power for private benefit” and ranks 177 countries “on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). The way they measure or test corruption in a country is through a series of 13 surveys, from 12 different institutions, which include the World Bank and Freedom House. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts. Early CPIs also used public opinion surveys.

This system has been greatly criticized for its validity due to it being a ‘percieved’ level of corruption, instead of an actual level of corruption.  Due to the fact that corruption is largely hidden, getting accurate results is impossible. The results of these also have a strong correlation between a countries gross domestic product and corruption in a country, which is unfair to relate. The Corruption Perception Index is also susceptable to perceptual biases, making it gravely inaccurate.

Alex Cobham in a Foreign Policy article in 2013 stated “CPI should be dropped for the good of Transparency International.It argues that the CPI embeds a powerful and misleading elite bias in popular perceptions of corruption, potentially contributing to a vicious cycle and at the same time incentivizing inappropriate policy responses. Cobham resumes: “the index corrupts perceptions to the extent that it’s hard to see a justification for its continuing publication.”

Transparency International attempted to create a less ‘elite’ based survey for corruption, and called the scale The Global Corruption Barometer. This surveyed 114,000 people within 107 different countries for their opinion, and ranked countries according to the result. Although this may seem more accurate as it consults public opinion, it is still swayed by bias, and the lack of awareness towards how corrupt a government could actual be.

In my opinion, no amount of surveying could ever fully expose how corrupt a country is, especially considering the hidden aspects of corruption and the biases that lie with it.

After 50 years of separation, South Korea and North Korea should remain two sovereign states. The gap in culture, economy and way of life has widened beyond reunification, and all attempts to reunify are futile, despite them once being the same country and stemming from the same values.

From 1910 till the closing days of World War 2, Korea was a colony of Japan. In 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and occupied the Northern part of Korea on the 38^th Parallel. In 1948, two separate governments had been set up (North and South), and in 1950, when conflict escalated, the Korean War began. The UN force led by the US, fought for the South and China assisted by the Soviet Union, supported the North. In 1953, after stalemate and attrition warfare, the armistice between North and South was signed, and a demilitarized zone was created between them.

50 years down the road, South and North Korea, which started as a united country, remains separated, and it seems are not as similar as they used to be. North Korea has completely different political views, economy, and cultural way of life. North Korea has an extremely repressive dictatorial regime, where as South Korea works on a democratic government. It is highly unlikely that either country would want to accept and function through the political values of the other, especially after 50 long years living the way that they have.

The North Korean economy is also mediocre compared to the vastness of the South Korean trading system alone. More is traded in South Korea in two days, than North Korea trades in a whole year! This too contributes to another factor of why they shouldn’t reunite; North and South Koreans over the years have also grown apart in physical features. North Koreans are 4.5 inches shorter than South Koreans, due to their lack of resources and trade, leading to food shortages throughout long periods during the year.

Also, as fellow Korean classmates have pointed out, it is not in the interests of Koreans to reunite anymore. Most of the older generations were in favour of the reunification of the two countries because families were split during the separation, and a united Korea was all that they knew. As this generation (put in the most respectful of ways) is dying out, the demand to reunite is slowly dying with them. For the younger generations, the South and North Koreas as separate states is all that they have ever experienced, and find no problem in the way things are. Thinking about what Korea would look like if they did reunite, it would be hard to distinguish where their alliances lie (the UN and US etc.. vs China), which political system to follow, and which economy to uphold.

Although many argue that North Korea is a failing state, and through war or other means, Korea will reunite, I strongly disagree, and truly believe that they are better off as separate states