Document Library

Key Text Good Governance Rankings: The Art of Measurement

Author: M Besancon
Date: 2003
Size: 47 pages (713 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

Governance is the delivery of political goods. How can governance be measured? Why is it necessary to measure governance? Who would use the information? This paper, by the World Peace Foundation, represents an amalgamation of ideas and opinions from “The Conference on Measuring Governance” at the Kennedy School, Harvard University, in May 2003. Objectively measuring governance could lead prescriptively to improving the welfare of those in the developing world.

Measurements matter where organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, Millennium Challenge Account, the World Bank or the European Union allocate large sums of money to developing nations and base disbursements on good governance. Good measurements can increase the rigour of discussions by policymakers and research communities in the G8 and by civil society. A comparative aggregate rating index may act as a “shaming” mechanism or as an incentive for developing nations to reduce corruption and improve their economies. Alternatively, aggregate governance indicators could constitute political leverage that could be used by elites to mobilise constituents.

The consensus among the conference participants was that better, more explicit measures of governance were possible. Until a single approach is agreed upon, greater coordination amongst data compilers and theorists is needed. Other issues brought up at the conference include:

The most comprehensive set of indicators has been compiled by the World Bank, combining both subjective and objective attributes. Qualitative assessments include the Global Governance Initiative and the World Governance Survey.
Whether objective measures can be substituted for subjective ones. Can indicators be developed with broad acceptance so that facts can be substituted for opinion?
Countries with low rankings would disparage low ratings of their states based on mere “opinions”. They would be more likely to respect objective measures if they could be developed.
One of the reasons for using subjective data is the lack of complete cross-country objective data. However, the moral hazard is that subjective data could be geared toward the client.
Governance involves institutions and their relationships with group actions and self-governing actors. Capturing relationships requires the subtlety of a carefully agreed upon theory applied to proportional aggregation.

Although gathered perceptions or surveys of opinion correlate with growth outcomes, they do not necessarily identify policy triggers and do not always measure underlying issues of governance. Social scientists must drive theory and identify measures appropriate to each level of analysis. Other policy factors include:

Robust indicators that have theoretical cohesion and reflect a deep understanding of causal factors are not necessarily the ones that are best deployed by policy makers.
Indicators driven by theory are not incompatible with indicators based on local perceptions. Each is concerned with a different area of policy development.
Aggregate perceptual indicators allow for better comparisons. Disaggregated numbers are useful for structural theory or specific policy recommendations.
In-country indicators could be a policy hazard. Those formulating policy could choose to correct the most easily remedied problems but neglect the more embedded or long-term strategies, to maintain existing levels of aid.
A governance ranking method that is transparent, legitimate and fully informed by relevant theory is required.
A theory for the selection and aggregation of both outcome and selective data, capable of influencing long and short-term policy is needed.

Access full text: available online

Source: Besancon, M., 2003, ‘Good Governance Rankings: The Art of measurement’, World Peace Foundation Report, No. 36, Cambridge, MA
Author: World Peace Foundation, http://www.worldpeacefoundation.org/