Bribery statistics show that exposure differs sharply by region, transaction, and country. In the latest waves compiled by the World Bank, just above 10% of firms globally reported at least one bribe payment request. The figures below distinguish reported requests, expectations about informal payments, transaction-specific exposure, historical comparisons, and foreign-bribery enforcement outcomes.
Contents
- Global and regional firm exposure
- Bribery in government procurement
- Public-service transactions
- Country-year comparisons
- Depth and informal-payment burden
- Foreign-bribery enforcement
Global and regional firm exposure
The World Bank Enterprise Surveys measure whether firms reported at least one bribe payment request across six public transactions. The latest waves were compiled in 2024, but the survey years are not synchronized globally, so regional figures should be read as comparisons of available survey waves rather than one simultaneous global poll.
The global average was just above 10% of firms. Regional results varied considerably:
- Europe and Central Asia: 5% of firms.
- Latin America and the Caribbean: 7.5%.
- East Asia and the Pacific: 13.5%.
- South Asia: 13.7%.
- Middle East and North Africa: 14.0%.
- Sub-Saharan Africa: 15.5%.
These results place the reported incidence of at least one request at more than three times the Europe and Central Asia figure in Sub-Saharan Africa. They describe firms reporting a request, not the number of requests, the amount paid, or a finding that a criminal offence was proven. Source: Africa’s Pulse, Fall 2025, Volume 32, using World Bank Enterprise Surveys, latest waves compiled in 2024.
For leaders, the practical implication is that a single organization-wide percentage can hide substantial operating differences. Exposure associated with licensing, inspections, utilities, customs, or other public interactions may be much higher or lower than the regional average.
Bribery in government procurement
Government contracting is a distinct risk area. Among firms that had secured or attempted to secure at least one government contract during the preceding 12 months, 21% globally said that similar firms typically made informal payments or gave gifts to obtain a contract. This is a firm-reported expectation or proxy, not a count of proven offences. The underlying country data uses the latest available wave for each country and was accessed in 2022–2023. Source: Evidence and policy recommendations on public procurement and firm surveys.
The country-level share expected to give gifts for a government contract ranged from 0% in Sweden to 88% in Pakistan. The spread illustrates why procurement controls need local risk assessment rather than relying on a global average.
The World Bank’s regional figures for firms reporting bribery in government contracts were as follows:
| Region | Firms reporting bribery in government contracts |
|---|---|
| Europe and Central Asia | 4.5% |
| Latin America and the Caribbean | 9% |
| Middle East and North Africa | 12.5% |
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 24% |
| East Asia and the Pacific | 26% |
| South Asia | 32% |
Source: Africa’s Pulse, Fall 2025, Volume 32, World Bank Enterprise Surveys, latest waves compiled in 2024. The procurement measure and the broader bribery-incidence measure are related but should not be treated as identical indicators: the former focuses on firms seeking government contracts, while the latter covers at least one request across six public transactions.
Public-service transactions
Transaction-level statistics can reveal where exposure occurs. In a 2010 comparison of Latin American and Caribbean countries, 4% of firms were asked for a bribe for an electrical connection, while 12% were asked for a bribe for a construction permit. Source: Dealing with Government: How Does Latin America and the Caribbean Compare?, Enterprise Surveys, 2010 comparison.
The same source reported mixed movement between 2006 and 2010 among 15 countries with comparable data. Bribery depth fell in 8 countries and rose in 7. Where it rose, increases ranged from under 1 percentage point in Uruguay to 2.5 percentage points in Venezuela. These are changes in the share of interactions involving a bribe among the relevant surveyed transactions; they are not a synchronized regional trend.
The 2013 Yemen figures show how sharply the transaction can matter. The share of firms expected to give gifts was 78.86% for construction permits, 70.84% for electrical connections, and 62.78% for import licenses. Source: The Republic of Yemen: Unlocking the Potential for Economic Growth, 2013.
For a leadership team, these figures point toward control design by process. A general anti-bribery policy may be necessary, but risk testing is more informative when it follows the actual points where employees or intermediaries seek permits, connections, licenses, or contracts.
Country-year comparisons
Country comparisons are useful only when the measurement year and survey context stay visible. The available firm-incidence figures include India at 27.2% in 2022; Mexico at 15.8% in 2023; the Philippines at 8.3% in 2023; and Türkiye at 1.4% in 2019.
Indonesia’s reported figures changed across the available observations: 26.9% in 2009, 30.6% in 2015, and 20.3% in 2023. These observations should not be read as a continuous annual series or as proof that one factor caused the changes. They are country-year survey results with different measurement periods. Source for all figures in this section: Indonesia Economic Prospects, June 2024, which reports the cited Enterprise Survey comparisons.
The figures provide a useful range—from 1.4% in the Türkiye observation to 27.2% in the India observation—but they do not establish a universal ranking of current national conditions today. Survey timing, coverage, and the particular transactions included matter when interpreting the result.
Depth and informal-payment burden
Incidence answers whether firms encountered bribery; depth measures how widespread bribery was across the relevant transactions; and informal-payment burden expresses payments as a share of annual sales. The measures therefore capture different dimensions of exposure.
In Enterprise Survey comparisons covering 2004–2014, Malaysia had 28% bribery incidence, compared with 4% in high-income/OECD economies. Malaysia’s bribery depth was 22%, compared with 3% in high-income/OECD economies. Informal payments in Malaysia equaled 5% of annual sales, compared with 1% in high-income/OECD economies.
The ASEAN comparator group recorded 30% incidence and 26% depth, compared with 11% incidence and 10% depth in China. Informal payments equaled 2% of annual sales in the ASEAN comparator group and 0% in China. The high-income/OECD comparison recorded 4% incidence and 3% depth. Source: Malaysia Economic Monitor, December 2016, Enterprise Surveys, 2004–2014.
The distinction matters for management reporting. Two markets can have similar incidence but different depth, or similar depth but different financial burden. A dashboard that tracks only whether a request occurred can miss the operational and financial concentration of informal payments.
Foreign-bribery enforcement
The OECD’s enforcement series covers foreign bribery and related offences within the Anti-Bribery Convention. It does not cover every domestic or private-to-private bribery case. The period runs from 15 February 1999 through 31 December 2024, and the figures are minimum counts reported in the series.
For foreign bribery, at least 752 natural persons and 315 legal persons were criminally sanctioned. Administrative or civil proceedings sanctioned at least 66 natural persons and 135 legal persons. For related offences, at least 96 natural persons and 128 legal persons were criminally sanctioned, while at least 79 natural persons and 215 legal persons were sanctioned through administrative or civil proceedings.
As of 31 December 2024, 27 parties reported 478 ongoing foreign-bribery investigations. Seventeen parties reported ongoing criminal proceedings against 253 natural persons, and the same number of parties reported ongoing criminal proceedings against 29 legal persons. Germany’s entry reported 370 natural persons sanctioned in criminal foreign-bribery cases through 31 December 2024.
Source for all enforcement figures in this section: Enforcement data of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention 1999–2024.
Together, the enforcement figures show the scale of recorded action under one international framework, while the survey figures show reported exposure in firms and transactions. They answer different questions: surveys indicate where requests or expectations appear in business activity; enforcement data records sanctions and ongoing cases within the OECD Convention’s foreign-bribery scope.