Guyana
Capital
Georgetown
Territory
196,850km²
Population (2020)
786,559
GDP Total (2020)
5.471B USD
GDP Per Capita (2020)
6,956 USD
Icome Group
Upper middle income
Convention Implementation
Corruption Resilience
Convention Implementation
Score by thematic sections and measures
Anti-corruption conventions timeline
| 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 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
Guyana signed the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) on March 29, 1996, and ratified it on December 11, 2000. 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 16, 2008. Accordingly, Guyana has undergone five rounds of review under MESICIC, and one round of review under the UNCAC review mechanism.
Guyana’s record in implementing its commitments to IACAC and UNCAC exhibits a large number of failures and a few successes, with almost half of all measures committed to found to be deficient at core or unimplemented. With an overall score of 49.1, the measures adopted place the country squarely in the lower level of compliance with international norms, surrounded by Dominica (38.4), Saint Vincent (46.7), Grenada (50.8), and Trinidad and Tobago (51.1). Although the country evidences a gradual increase in the rate success from one section of measures to the other, the difference is not enough to bring special attention to the distribution of efforts. Yet, as is the case throughout the region, the prevention of corruption receives a lower score (32.0) than both criminalization and law enforcement (48.8) and international cooperation (60.9). Overall, it may be said that Guyana’s efforts are generally lacking across the range of measures required by the conventions.
The prevention of corruption is significantly deficient, classified as “core-deficient” and with over three quarters of all measures in this section found to be deficient or unimplemented. Deficient measures include the state of oversight bodies (18.8), initiatives to encourage the participation of civil society (28.9), and the standards of conduct (35.9) and their enforcement (43.8), among others. Concerning the oversight bodies in the country, the report of the fourth round of review of MESICIC (adopted in 2014) highlights severe problems within the Judicial Service Commission (“the President and the Leader of the Opposition have not been able to agree on the appointment of the Chancellor of the Judiciary for almost ten years” and “other two or three members… have not been appointed either”), the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (it “does not have investigative powers”), and the Audit Office (its budget “only represents approximately 0.2% of the national budget” and it relies on international grants). Furthermore, the training of public officials and the study of preventive measures related to equitable compensation are considered to be fully missing. Within this section, only two measures reach the classification of “in progress”: actions to deter domestic and foreign bribery related to accounting regulations, and the elimination of favorable tax treatment for corrupt expenditure.
In terms of criminalization and law enforcement, Guyana shows better results than those regarding prevention—yet, significant deficiencies remain, with almost half of all of measures within this section classified as core-deficient or not implemented. The country is found to have successfully implemented several key commitments—including the criminalization of illicit enrichment. Whereas significant measures are found completely lacking—the criminalization of active and passive bribery of foreign officials and bribery in the private sector. Other measures are found deficient at core, including the protection of those who report acts of corruption (i.e., whistleblower protection) (12.5) and those pertaining to active and passive bribery in the public sector (both scoring 31.3) and the illicit acquisition of a benefit (i.e., influence trading) (35.9), among others.
Among the severe problems identified in connection with criminalization and law enforcement, the country’s limited jurisdiction over the offenses covered by the conventions deserves special attention, as Guyana has not established jurisdiction over offenses committed in its territory or by a national, or when the offender is present in its territory, and it does not extradite them. Guyana’s record in promoting and engaging with international cooperation is also lackluster, yet it receives a general classification of “in progress.” Among the bigger issues reported by the UNCAC review mechanism are the findings that “extradition is limited to Commonwealth countries” and the United States of America (the sole country with which Guyana has concluded an extradition treaty); and that the two-years-minimum threshold for extraditable offenses “means that not all Convention offenses are extraditable offenses.”
Corruption Resilience
Score by indicator
Corruption Resilience score over the time
Analysis
Guyana's social context indicator declined in 2020 by 0.90 points from the previous year, resulting in a score of 65.44 which surpasses the Western Hemisphere regional average of 64.89 by 0.55 points. Since 2010, the country's score has been declining by approximately 0.05 and 1.5 points. Over the decade, the mini-max range for Guyana fluctuated between 65.44 (2020) and 70.43 (2010), with a range of 4.99 points. Guyana's social context indicator score within South American countries is a moderate performer (6/12), with Uruguay being a top performer for South America. The country's social context indicator has been consistently high to moderate mainly because civil liberties and political rights have largely been respected. However, according to Reporters Without Borders, press freedoms are restricted when journalist investigations or reports disagree with the narratives produced by the political party in power.
The country's quality of government indicator declined in 2020 by 0.75 points from the previous year, resulting in a score of 50.39, which falls below the Western Hemisphere regional average of 50.63 by 0.24 points. However, the country’s score has steadily improved over the last decade. Guyana achieved its highest social context score of 52.32 in 2018 and its lowest score of 45.76 in 2012. Guyana is ranked within the top 5 performing countries in the South American region, with Uruguay holding the highest rank within the subregion. The country's quality of government score is primarily attributed to corruption and government inefficiencies.
With regard to the rule of law indicator, Guyana's 2020 score declined by 1.03 points from the previous year. The indicator's Western Hemisphere regional 2020 average was 51.15, and Guyana's score was 2.11 points above the regional average. Like the social context indicator, Guyana’s scores across the rule of law indicator placed the country within the top performing countries in the South American region, with Chile holding the highest rank for the subregion. Over the last decade, the mini-max range for Guyana was 42.07 (2011) and 54.29 (2019), with a range of 7.81 points. During this time, the country has consistently held an average score for the indicator, which has been largely shaped by political disputes that destabilize the efficiency of the judiciary.
The country's business stability indicator for 2020 increased by 1.33 points from the previous year resulting in a score of 47.66, which fails to meet the Western Hemisphere average of 50.53 by 2.87 points for 2020. Since 2010, the country's score has varied, where its highest score was of 47.66 was attained in 2020 and its lowest score of 42.21 was reached in 2015. The country's score is mainly influenced by complex and ineffective regulations which impact the private sector disproportionally and remain unevenly enforced.
With respect to the violence and security indicator, Guyana's 2020 score rose by 11.22 points from the previous year. The country's indicator score surpassed the Western Hemisphere average of 55.04 by 12.55 points. Over the last ten years Guyana’s indicator score range between its highest score of 56.37 in 2019 and 67.59 in 2020. While the country has witnessed improvements in its score during this period, the score remains impacted by serious challenges posed by organized crime.