《治理指标:我们在哪里，我们应该向哪里去?》丹尼尔·考夫曼(Daniel Kaufmann)和阿特·克雷(art Kraay)的作品

IF 8.7 1区经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

World Bank Research Observer Pub Date : 2007-10-04 DOI:10.1093/WBRO/LKN001

Shanta Devarajan

{"title":"《治理指标:我们在哪里，我们应该向哪里去?》丹尼尔·考夫曼(Daniel Kaufmann)和阿特·克雷(art Kraay)的作品","authors":"Shanta Devarajan","doi":"10.1093/WBRO/LKN001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The World Bank Research Observer publishes balanced surveys of the literature. When the authors of a survey are also the proponents of one of the major indicators being surveyed, it invites comments to ensure that balance is maintained. Kaufmann and Kraay provide a useful taxonomy of governance indicators, distinguishing between those measuring “rules on the books” and “rules on the ground” and those reflecting the views of experts and the results of surveys. While providing a balanced overview of the pros and cons of different methods, they make a strong case in favor of measuring rules on the ground based on an aggregated mix of expert- and survey-based indicators, along the lines of their","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"12 1 1","pages":"31-36"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Comments on “Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?” by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay\",\"authors\":\"Shanta Devarajan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/WBRO/LKN001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The World Bank Research Observer publishes balanced surveys of the literature. When the authors of a survey are also the proponents of one of the major indicators being surveyed, it invites comments to ensure that balance is maintained. Kaufmann and Kraay provide a useful taxonomy of governance indicators, distinguishing between those measuring “rules on the books” and “rules on the ground” and those reflecting the views of experts and the results of surveys. While providing a balanced overview of the pros and cons of different methods, they make a strong case in favor of measuring rules on the ground based on an aggregated mix of expert- and survey-based indicators, along the lines of their\",\"PeriodicalId\":47647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Bank Research Observer\",\"volume\":\"12 1 1\",\"pages\":\"31-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Bank Research Observer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKN001\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Bank Research Observer","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/WBRO/LKN001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 21

摘要

《世界银行研究观察》发表了对相关文献的平衡调查。当一项调查的作者同时也是所调查的一项主要指标的支持者时，它请人提出意见，以确保保持平衡。Kaufmann和Kraay提供了一种有用的治理指标分类，区分了那些衡量“书本上的规则”和“实际的规则”的指标，以及那些反映专家观点和调查结果的指标。虽然对不同方法的利弊进行了平衡的概述，但他们强烈支持基于专家和调查指标的综合组合的实地衡量规则，沿着他们的路线

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Two Comments on “Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?” by Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay

The World Bank Research Observer publishes balanced surveys of the literature. When the authors of a survey are also the proponents of one of the major indicators being surveyed, it invites comments to ensure that balance is maintained. Kaufmann and Kraay provide a useful taxonomy of governance indicators, distinguishing between those measuring “rules on the books” and “rules on the ground” and those reflecting the views of experts and the results of surveys. While providing a balanced overview of the pros and cons of different methods, they make a strong case in favor of measuring rules on the ground based on an aggregated mix of expert- and survey-based indicators, along the lines of their

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

World Bank Research Observer Multiple-

CiteScore

12.60

自引率

1.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： The World Bank Journals, including the Research Observer, boast the largest circulation among economics titles. The Research Observer is distributed freely to over 9,100 subscribers in non-OECD countries. Geared towards informing nonspecialist readers about research within and outside the Bank, it covers areas of economics relevant for development policy. Intended for policymakers, project officers, journalists, and educators, its surveys and overviews require only minimal background in economic analysis. Articles are not sent to referees but are assessed and approved by the Editorial Board, including distinguished economists from outside the Bank. The Observer has around 1,500 subscribers in OECD countries and nearly 10,000 subscribers in developing countries.