Grenada
Capital
Saint George’s
Territory
340km²
Population (2020)
112,519
GDP Total (2020)
1.089B USD
GDP Per Capita (2020)
9,680 USD
Icome Group
Upper middle income
Convention Implementation
Corruption Resilience
Convention Implementation
Score by thematic sections and measures
Anti-corruption conventions timeline
| 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
|---|
Conventions
- IACAC - Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
- UNCAC - United Nations Convention against Corruption
- OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
Key events
- Signed
- Ratifed / acceded
- Review rounds
Convention Implementation Analysis
Grenada ratified the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) on November 15, 2001. It is a State Party to the Follow-Up Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC) since June 4, 2002. The country also acceded to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) on April 1, 2015. Accordingly, Grenada has undergone five rounds of review under MESICIC, and one round of review under the UNCAC review mechanism.
Grenada’s record in implementing its commitments to IACAC and UNCAC exhibits a large number of failures and very few successes, with almost half of all measures committed to found to be deficient at core or unimplemented. With an overall score of 50.8, the measures adopted place the country squarely in the lower level of compliance with international norms, surrounded by Saint Vincent (46.7), Guyana (49.1), Trinidad and Tobago (51.1), and El Salvador (51.5). Despite the low level of implementation and enforcement, some degree of progress is found in all three sections (although leaning towards criminalization and international cooperation rather than prevention, as is the case throughout the region). Conversely, Grenada’s efforts may also be described as generally lacking across the range of measures required by the conventions.
The prevention of corruption is significantly deficient, classified as “core-deficient” and with the majority of measures receiving a failing score, including transparency in government contracting (21.9), the standards of conduct (33.6), the state of oversight bodies (33.6), and the training of public officials (35.9). Furthermore, initiatives to encourage the participation of civil society and the study of preventive measures related to equitable compensation are fully missing. Concerning efforts related to civil society in Grenada, MESICIC reported in its first round of review that “there are no mechanisms for access to information… [or] provisions in law or regulation indicating that the government formally seeks public participation”. The country did not submit information on results either, and it was noted in the final report of the fourth round of review (adopted in 2014) that “[i]n its response, the country under review does not present information with respect to the foregoing recommendation and its measures.” Within the preventive section, only three measures reach the classification of “in progress”: the enforcement of standards of conduct (50.0), the elimination of favorable tax treatment for corrupt expenditure (50.8), and the systems for registering asset and conflict of interests' declarations (62.5).
In terms of criminalization and law enforcement, Grenada shows better results than those regarding prevention—yet, significant deficiencies remain, with one third of all measures within this section classified as core-deficient or not implemented. Two significant measures are found mostly or fully lacking: the criminalization of illicit enrichment and bribery in the private sector. Other measures are found deficient at core, among which those pertaining to the active bribery of foreign officials (18.8) and the protection of those who report acts of corruption (i.e., whistleblower protection) (26.6.) deserve special attention. On the other hand, the country is found to have successfully implemented a number of commitments, including the efforts to control embezzlement in the public and private sectors and the obstruction of justice. Over one third of all measures in this section remain in progress.
Finally, Grenada’s record in promoting and engaging with international cooperation is also lackluster, achieving an average section score only slightly higher than that for criminalization and law enforcement (discussed in the previous paragraph) and receiving a classification of “in progress”. Among the few highlights identified here, the country is found fully compliant in its commitments to establish assistance without criminalization and prosecution without extradition. On the other hand, measures related to other aspects extradition are severely deficient, not least due to Grenada’s highly restrictive list of jurisdictions for which it allows extradition. As the UNCAC review mechanism points out, “outside the Commonwealth, extradition currently only seems to be possible between Grenada and the United States of America and China, where extradition treaties exist.” The issue reflects somewhat mirrors another significant deficit found within the previous section: the country has not established its jurisdiction over offenses committed by, or against, a national.
Corruption Resilience
Score by indicator
Corruption Resilience score over the time
Analysis
Grenada's 2020 social context indicator increased by 1.42 points from the previous year, resulting in a score of 77.69, which exceeds the regional average of 64.89 by 12.80 points. Over the last decade, the country's score has varied in the extent of minor annual decreases but has generally avoided dramatic shifts. Grenada’s highest indicator score of 82.61 was recorded in 2015 and its lowest score of 76.27 was measured in 2019. Of all the indicators listed above, the social context indicator has remained consistently high for Grenada and continues to stay above the Western Hemisphere regional average. The country's social context indicator score remained high because civil liberties and political rights are both respected and guaranteed within the country. In 2012, Grenada decriminalized defamation, which can explain the increase in the country's scores from 2011 to 2016, 79.16 and 81.78, respectively.
With respect to the quality of government and institutions, Grenada’s 2020 score declined by 1.29 points from the previous year. Despite its decrease, Grenada's indicator score is slightly above the Western Hemisphere regional average of 50.63 by 2.02 points. Throughout the decade, the country's score has varied, where the highest score achieved within this indicator was 56.62 in 2016, and its lowest score was 51.39 in 2012. The country's quality of government score is attributed to problems with corruption and government efficiency.
Grenada's rule of law indicator declined in 2020 by a marginal 0.06 points from the previous year. The indicator's Western Hemisphere regional 2020 average was 51.15, and Grenada's score (66.36) was 15.21 points above the regional average. In 2020, out of 11 Caribbean countries assessed by the indicator, Grenada was labeled a top performer. During the decade, the mini-max range for Grenada was 40.08 (2013) and 76.67 (2016). Grenada's 2020 rule of law indicator is mainly affected by constitutional guarantees of judicial independence, which have been respected within the country.
The country's business stability indicator for 2020 increased by 6.34 points from the previous year. Grenada's indicator score is above the Western Hemisphere regional average of 50.53 by 5.51 points for 2020. Throughout the decade, the country's score has varied, where its highest score was recorded in 2010 with 64.01, and its lowest score was in 2019 with 49.70.
Grenada's violence and security indicator for 2020 declined by 2.73 points from the previous year. Regardless of the decline in the country's score, Grenada's indicator score (75.28) exceeded the Western Hemisphere average of 55.04 by 20.24 points. Over the last ten years, the mini-max range for Grenada was 62.89 (2011) and 83.29 (2015).