Document Library

Key Text Assessing Governance: Methodological Challenges

Author: J Court, G Hyden and K Mease
Date: 2002
Size: 23 pages (578 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How can governance be assessed? What are the methodological challenges? Who is best placed to provide insights as to the quality of governance in a particular country? Without advances being made on these critical issues, it will not be possible to assess how governance varies across the world or what role governance plays in development. This discussion paper, produced by the United Nations University, contributes to the wider discussion on ways to address such challenges.

If governance matters, so does the need for reliable and valid data. It is, however, extremely difficult to find and agree upon indicators of a political macro phenomenon like governance. There exists very little objective data for most countries, however, there is a growing interest in linking perceptions of governance with development outcomes. This survey was conducted in 2000 and 2001 in 22 countries that can be described as having transitional societies.

The approach decided upon for this study was to interview a cross-section of well-informed persons (WIPs) in each country. The premise of the approach was that they would be able to provide the most knowledgeable ratings about governance as well as qualitative comments to back up assessments. Issues arising out of this approach, and comparisons with other measures of governance include:

WIPs were a balance of the following: civil servants, parliamentarians, business persons, judges and lawyers, academics or policy advisors and editors or reporters.
The World Governance Survey (WGS) questionnaire was comprised of 30 indicators from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and OECD countries.
Considering World Bank measures, there is a large overlap of focus issues. Comparing WGS aggregates finds a relatively robust .77 correlation, reassuringly similar to the only other comprehensive rating of governance.
Freedom House Index (FHI) uses ratings for political rights and civil liberties. Corresponding indices were created by including WGS questions.
Comparing WGS with freedom house using the correlation coefficient found civil liberties indicators were .63 and political rights still significant at .53.
As compared to the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG), correlations are strong using military and law indicators. Polity 1V and WGS appear to be capturing similar issues but in different ways.

The WGS approach works. The project has established its viability. Policy implications justifying the use of such a measure include:

WGS is model for comparative work. It draws assessments for a cross-section of local experts within each of the survey countries, rather than from outside experts or from secondary data.
Using WIPs’ ratings and qualitative comments, the approach generates quantitative and qualitative data. Local WIPs are particularly well suited to evaluate the nature of governance in their countries.
For the first time, there is an ability to generate data that includes the voices of local WIPs, despite the contested nature of the governance concept and the methodological problems of data collection.
Asking people about governance issues was politically feasible in the countries chosen. However, there are places where such interviews would be impossible.
Unlike other measures which use the concept of governance to fit specific programme interests, the WGS, utilising a human rights based approach, offers a broader, more complete view of governance.

Access full text: available online

Source: Court, J., Hyden, G. and Mease, K., 2002, ‘Assessing Governance: Methodological Challenges’, World Governance Discussion paper 2, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.
Author: Julius Court , j.court@odi.org.uk ; Goran Hyden , ghyden@polisci.ufl.edu
United Nations University, http://www.unu.edu/