COUNTRY RISK GUIDE
PER CAPITA INCOME
CIVIL SERVICE COMPENSATION INDEX
INCIDENCE OF CORRUPTION
CAREER STABILITY INDEX
PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY
INFORMATION COLLECTION ACCOUNTABILITY
QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE
PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE
RULE OF LAW
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractIncreasing awareness of the importance of governance has been accompanied by an increase in the number of commercial firms and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) producing broad indicators of the quality of governance and public institutions. First generation governance indicators, e.g., International Country Risk Guide, Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, are useful to identify countries with severe corruption and other governance-related problems. However most of them have limited relevance for public sector reform. There is a need for second generation indicators which are expected to be more specific in measuring performance and pay more attention to measuring government processes and institutional arrangements - not just performance.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Governance Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002Kaufmann, Daniel; Kraay, Aart; Mastruzzi, Massimo (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2014-02-24)This article presents estimates of six dimensions of governance for 199 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 developed in the context of an ongoing project to measure governance across countries. Section one describes the data used in developing this round of the governance indicators, which include several new sources. Data sources used in the earlier studies were updated forward to 2002 and backward to 1996, and previously estimated indicators for 1998 and 2000were revised to reflect the new data. The aggregation procedure, described in section two, provides not only estimates of governance for each country but also measures of the precision or reliability of these estimates. Although the new data have improved the precision of the governance indicators, the margins of error remain large relative to the units in which governance is measured, so that comparisons across countries and especially over time should be made with caution.
Growth without GovernanceKraay, Aart; Kaufmann, Daniel (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014-08-01)It is well known that there is a strong positive correlation between per capita incomes and the quality of governance across countries. the authors propose an empirical strategy that allows separation of this correlation into (1) a strong positive causal effect running from better governance to higher per capita incomes, and, perhaps surprisingly at first, (2) a weak and even negative causal effect running in the opposite direction from per capita incomes to governance. The first result confirms existing evidence on the importance of good governance for economic development. The second result is new and suggests the absence of a "virtuous circle" in which higher incomes lead to further improvements in governance. This motivates the authors' choice of title, "Growth Without Governance." They document this evidence using a newly updated set of worldwide governance-indicators covering 175 countries for the period 2000-01, and use the results to interpret the relationship between incomes and governance focusing on the Latin America and Caribbean region-within a worldwide empirical context. Finally, the authors speculate about the potential importance of elite influence and state capture in accounting for the surprising negative effects of per capita incomes on governance, present some evidence on such capture in some Latin American countries, and suggest priorities for actions to improve governance when such pernicious elite influence shapes public policy.
Governance Indicators : Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?Kaufmann, Daniel; Kraay, Aart (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-06-08)Scholars, policymakers, aid donors, and aid recipients acknowledge the importance of good governance for development. This understanding has spurred an intense interest in more refined, nuanced, and policy-relevant indicators of governance. In this paper we review progress to date in the area of measuring governance, using a simple framework of analysis focusing on two key questions: (i) what do we measure? and, (ii) whose views do we rely on? For the former question, we distinguish between indicators measuring formal laws or rules 'on the books', and indicators that measure the practical application or outcomes of these rules 'on the ground', calling attention to the strengths and weaknesses of both types of indicators as well as the complementarities between them. For the latter question, we distinguish between experts and survey respondents on whose views governance assessments are based, again highlighting their advantages, disadvantages, and complementarities. We also review the merits of aggregate as opposed to individual governance indicators. We conclude with some simple principles to guide the refinement of existing governance indicators and the development of future indicators. We emphasize the need to: transparently disclose and account for the margins of error in all indicators; draw from a diversity of indicators and exploit complementarities among them; submit all indicators to rigorous public and academic scrutiny; and, in light of the lessons of over a decade of existing indicators, to be realistic in the expectations of future indicators.