A Benford Reveal of Who Is Who: The Cross Validation of Transparency for Covid-19 Reports

Creative Commons License

Değerli H., Tutar Y. N., Ankara H. G.

İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, cilt.15, sa.3, ss.908-923, 2026 (TRDizin)

Özet

This study examines epidemiological data reported by European Union member states during the COVID-19 pandemic using Benford’s Law, aiming to provide empirical insights into data transparency during extraordinary periods. The main objective is assessing the reliability of data reporting practices in crisis situations by analyzing the conformity of daily reported COVID-19 cases and deaths with the Benford distribution. The study uses publicly available datasets allowing international comparison, covering the period from each country’s first reported case until the end of 2021. Data was collected daily from the World Health Organization's official database. To identify statistical irregularities, the Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) and unit-square area measures were calculated, alongside comparative cross-country analyses. Additionally, Benford conformity results were compared with Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) scores to examine the relationship between normatively perceived transparency and actual reporting practices. Finally, bootstrap linear regression in a hierarchical design was employed to examine the link between data transparency and institutional governance. Findings indicate that countries with higher institutional reputation and perceived transparency exhibit greater potential for statistical irregularities in daily case reporting during the pandemic. Conversely, countries with lower CPI scores tend to show better conformity with the Benford distribution. Regarding daily death reporting, no statistically significant differences in conformity were found among countries with varying index scores. This suggests data production under crisis conditions—except for absolute situations like death—may be influenced by political pressures, testing strategies, reporting schedules, and institutional capacity differences. In conclusion, the study emphasises that transparency cannot be explained solely by institutional capacity; normative commitment, political will, crisis management culture, and data governance practices play a decisive role. These findings contribute comparative empirical evidence to the health management literature, providing an evidence-based evaluation framework for policymakers and essential guidance for preparedness during future crises.