Malito D. V. (2015). The Difficulty of Measuring Governance and Stateness (original) (raw)
Related papers
Measuring the goodness of governance : macro, intermediate and micro perspectives
2012
Governance comprises a network of interdependent connections between various actors. The performance of governance institutions should be measured, both quantitatively (efficiency, effectiveness and economy dimensions) and qualitatively (outcomes and impact on society). Such measuring endeavours should occur against the background of globally-accepted principles of ‘good’ and ‘outcomes-based’ governance. It should further be facilitated by the design and establishment of comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems. The question may be asked as to what extent the South African Government complies with international best practices to measure the goodness of its policy, strategy, programme and project interventions. The focus of this article is thus to critique the system utilised by the South African Government to measure the goodness of government (institutional perspectives) as well as the goodness of governance (network, ‘joined-up’, societal perspectives). A macro, intermediat...
Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?
The World Bank Research Observer, 2007
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Policy ReseaRch WoRking PaPeR 4370 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 This paper-a joint product of the Global Governance Group, World Bank Institute, and the Macroeconomics and Growth Team, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the Bank to study governance.
Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for
1996
Six dimensions of governance are estimated covering 199 countries and territories for four periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. The indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance drawn from 25 data sources constructed by 18 organizations. These individual measures are assigned to categories capturing key dimensions of governance. An unobserved-components model is used to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. Point esti-mates of the dimensions of governance are provided as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. Methodological issues are also addressed, including tests for potential biases, and the interpretation and use of the data, given the estimated margins of errors for the indicators. The data and a Web-based graphical interface are available online at www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata2002/index.html. This article presents estimates of six dimensions of gov...
Governance Indicators: Some Proposals
Governance Challenges and Innovations, 2013
Good governance extends beyond narrow questions of efficiency and of control of corruption, restrictively defined as the use of public office for private gain. Nevertheless, many governance indicators focus on narrow issues, in particular individual malfeasance, to the exclusion of broader questions about effective governance understood as the precondition for the delivery of the most welfare to stakeholders at the least cost. Broader measures of governance, on the other hand, often conflate governance with outcomes such as national income-a problematic construction given that researchers often wish to investigate the effect of governance on economic outcomes. We suggest that understanding the how (or how well) of governance requires also understanding questions about in whose interest a government governs. This chapter broadens the definition of misgovernance to include those often fully legal activities, structures and decisions that reduce the utility of a broader set of legitimate stakeholders to the benefit of smaller sets of individuals and organizations. We propose a set of novel governance indicators that operationalizes two missing aspects of extant measures: organizational capture and the capacity for governance innovation.
Evaluating Governance. Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood
SFB-Governance Working Paper Series Nr. 26, Berlin.
While it is widely acknowledged that effectiveness and legitimacy both play an important role in the evaluation of governance, the causal relationship between these two concepts is far from clear. While some theorists hold that there is an inevitable trade-off between the demands of effectiveness and legitimacy, others argue that both qualities are mutually reinforcing. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the relationship between these two standards under conditions of limited statehood. The paper is organized into three sections: In the first section I will define the central concepts of effectiveness and legitimacy. While the main features of the concept of effectiveness are straightforward, the concept of legitimacy is notoriously opaque. In the second section, I will argue that the causal relationship between effectiveness and legitimacy is far more complex than usually assumed. Most scholars describe the connection as a virtuous circle: The more effective a political order or institution is, the more legitimate it is, and the more legitimate it is, the more effective it becomes. While the causal pathway from legitimacy to effectiveness is well understood, this does not hold true for the reverse connection from effectiveness to legitimacy. I will therefore identify four necessary conditions which have to be met in order to make the virtuous circle argument compelling.
Response to ‘What do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?’
European Journal of Development Research, 2010
dismisses the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) as an "elaborate and unsupported hypothesis" because of the failure to demonstrate the "construct validity" of these indicators. We argue that "construct validity" is not a useful tool to assess the merits of the WGI, and even if it were, Thomas provides no evidence of any practical consequences of failure to meet the criteria of construct validity.
Governance: What Do We Know, and How Do We Know It?
Annual Review of Political Science, 2016
The term governance does not have a settled definition today, and it has at least three main meanings. The first is international cooperation through nonsovereign bodies outside the state system. This concept grew out of the literature on globalization and argued that territorial sovereignty was giving way to more informal types of horizontal cooperation, as well as to supranational bodies such as the European Union. The second meaning treated governance as a synonym for public administration, that is, effective implementation of state policy. Interest in this topic was driven by awareness that global poverty was rooted in corruption and weak state capacity. The third meaning of governance was the regulation of social behavior through networks and other nonhierarchical mechanisms. The first and third of these strands of thought downplay traditional state authority and favor new transnational or civil society actors. These trends, however, raise troubling questions about transparency...
A STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF GOVERNANCE INDICATORS IN
Post genocide Rwanda was faced with enormous challenges to rebuild the social, political and economic fabric of the country. To effect this, wide popular consultations were conducted for nearly two years from 1999, under the chairmanship of the President of the Republic. This participative process came up with, among other perspectives, Rwanda Vision 2020. This policy aimed to foster good governance and an effective State, with the underlying core principles of accountability, transparency and effectiveness. Accountability was stressed as the key determinant in governance initiatives within the State machinery, and between the State and development stakeholders. This study endeavoured to assess the development and use of governance indicators in Rwanda. The importance of this exercise lies in the need to monitor the progress made in the sector, but also to help improve grey areas in governance performance. This was done through an analysis of selected case studies in which governance indicators were scrutinised from their development to their implementation. The role of Government effectiveness, Parliamentary oversight and civil society monitoring were examined. The selected case studies included the African Peer Review Mechanism, a governance assessment mechanism pioneered by Rwanda. This composite mechanism met with disgruntled reaction on the part of Rwandans as a result of the lack of contextualisation of the standard international indicators that were used. A new Joint Government Assessment mechanism (JGA) between Rwanda and her development partners was designed which was received more positively. Its limited scope extended to the rule of law, government effectiveness and corporate governance sectors. It also underscored the need to integrate the plethora of governance assessment mechanisms in Rwanda. The Imihigo performance contract governance mechanism highlighted Rwanda’s particular homegrown solutions to delivery performance. It is used as a planning and implementation tool and serves to boost commitment, performance and competition. It reflects once again the country’s commitment to accountability through self-engagement. 8 Parliamentary oversight of corruption control initiatives was another selected case study. It has been explored to gauge how Parliament holds the various Government sectors accountable. To this effect, it uses information gathered from governance institutions to promote transparency and accountability. Parliament has attempted to control corruption mostly through the reformulation of appropriate legislation and policies. Notwithstanding these corruption control levels, it has been established that corruption is still rampant. The high representation of women in Parliament illustrates the respect of fundamental constitutional principles of gender equality and equal opportunities for all. This is an indication of good governance promotion. Their presence in Parliament renders them accountable to their electorate, and assures a positive impact on the livelihoods of their fellow women through gender sensitive laws, advocacy and education. However, gender mainstreaming indicators show that development was not participative and women parliamentarians have been blamed for some flaws in maternity leave; the public perception was that MPs favoured accountability to their respective parties and political interests over their accountability to fellow women. Finally, the analysis of Parliament seeking interaction and participation in the law-making process showed the lack of legal provisions regulating the role of different stakeholders. The more interactive a Parliament is, the more participative the stakeholders and the more democratic the process. Lack of openness implies lack of accountability of Parliament to citizens. However, in the processing of the law on genocide, it was clear that there had been wide consultation, although many participants complained that their views had not been considered. It is therefore of prime importance to develop indicators of public participation in the legislative process. Generally, it is recognised that governance indicators have to be developed and owned by all stakeholders for them to become binding and for users to feel accountable for them. As international standards often tend to ignore local context, this results in low commitment by users who then disregarding some or all of them. Equally, governance stakeholders need to fully participate in the development of governance indicators to implement them fully.
Conceptual and Methodological Questions on the Changing Paradigms of Governance
Journey for Sustainable Development and Peace Journal
Globally, governance studies have been an emerging paradigm of research and scholarly debate in social sciences. This paper takes this debate as an entry point and aims to analyze its metaphysical construction in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Data and materials used in the paper are based on the sources of secondary literature. The findings reveal that the political construction of governance is now becoming complex in contemporary societies and it has then adjoined with social, economic, and regional issues in particular. The paper concludes that governance is a contested notion that is moving around different concepts, theories, methodologies, and paradigms. The paper, therefore, is expected to contribute to the governance study in particular along with different disciplines of social science research in general.