Governance Indicators: Where are We, Where Should We Be Going?

Daniel A. Kaufmann, Aart C. Kraay
{"title":"Governance Indicators: Where are We, Where Should We Be Going?","authors":"Daniel A. Kaufmann, Aart C. Kraay","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKM012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":348271,"journal":{"name":"World Bank: Rural Development (Topic)","volume":"214 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"525","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Bank: Rural Development (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKM012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 525

Abstract

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.
治理指标:我们在哪里,我们应该去哪里?
学者、政策制定者、援助国和受援国都认识到善治对发展的重要性。这种理解激发了人们对更精细、细致和与政策相关的治理指标的强烈兴趣。在本文中,我们回顾了度量治理领域迄今为止的进展,使用了一个简单的分析框架,重点关注两个关键问题:(i)我们度量什么?(二)我们依赖谁的观点?对于前一个问题,我们将衡量“账面上”的正式法律或规则的指标与衡量这些规则“在实地”的实际应用或结果的指标区分开来,提请注意这两类指标的优缺点以及它们之间的互补性。对于后一个问题,我们区分了专家和调查受访者,他们的观点是治理评估的基础,再次强调了他们的优点、缺点和互补性。我们还回顾了总体治理指标相对于单个治理指标的优点。最后,我们提出了一些简单的原则,以指导改进现有的治理指标和开发未来的指标。我们强调需要:透明地披露和解释所有指标的误差幅度;借鉴各种指标并利用它们之间的互补性;将所有指标提交给严格的公众和学术审查;并且,根据十多年来现有指标的教训,对未来指标的预期要现实一些。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信