This post is a summary of three articles. The first with the title above was published at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/democraticgovernance/oslo_governance_centre/governance_assessments/ . The second was published at http://cityindicators.org/Deliverables/Measuring%20Governance_1-2-2007-836890.pdf.The third was published http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/wpf36governan
Through the Global Programme on Democratic Governance Assessments, UNDP seeks to assist developing countries in producing desaggregated and non-ranking governance indicators to enable national stakeholders to better monitor performance toward democratic governance reforms. The aim of the programme is to develop the capacities of governments, national statistical offices and civil society in the collection, maintenance and analysis of governance-related data and to assist development of an inclusive, consultative framework for systematic assessment and monitoring of democratic governance goals and targets expressed in national devlopment plans.
Since the 1990s, development researches have focused on "good governance" as both a means of achieving development and a development in itself. The World Bank has defined "good governance" as "epitomized by predictable, open and enlightened policy making; a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; an executive arm of government accountable for its actions; and a strong civil society participating in public affairs. In response to the growing demand for maeasures of the quality of governance, a number of aggregate governance indicators have been produced, such as the World Bank`s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). The WGI rank countries with respect to six aspects of good governance: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. Since the 1950s, public evidence of construct validity has been required for proposed measurements of abstract constructs. Developing a meaningful measurement of a construct is an iterative process that involves a theoretical specification of the construct and its relationship to observable variables, model testing as against predictions, and refinement. The process of accumulating evidence to support a hypothetical measure is one that involves the scientific community, and as such, an investigator must provide evidence of construct validity and make available the raw data, models and results that would allow the community to make independent judgments.
Good governance results when nation-states provide a decentralized method of delivering public goods to persons. When nation-states perform effectively and well on behalf of their inhabitants. The social contract between ruler and ruled embodies effectively delivery of these public goods. The hierarchy of political (public) goods begins with the supply of security, rule of law, political and civil freedoms, health care, educational instructions, roads, railways, communications networks, money system, fiscal and institutional context within which citizens can prosper, support for civil society, and regulating the sharing of the environmental commons. Together these goods constitutes governance, and the extent to which nation-states do not or do so perform can, at least in theory, be measured. The most comprehensive set of global governance indicators has been compiled by the World Bank and combines subjective and objective attributes. Qualitative global governance assessments have neen compiled through the World Economic Forum`s Global Governance Initiative, and the United Nations`s World Governance Survey. Various regional governance assessment are listed as well as the subjective and qualitative democracy measures. Tackling the issue of measuring governance was the premise of a meeting of scholars, data experts, clients, donors, and policy makers at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University in May 2003. The conferees at the meeting stated that objectively measuring governance could lead prescriptively both to improving the welfare of the peoples of the developing world, and to increase in the rigor with which governance in Africa, Asia and Latin America is discussed by the policy making and research communities in the G8, and by civil society in the countries concerned with improving their governance. In this era, nation-states are responsible for the task of governing and providing public goods to those who reside within their borders. Many of these nation-states have corrupt leaders who drain the country`s treasures and provide little or no security, education, infrastructure, or any other public good to their constituents. Measurements of governance could set standards for improvements and achievements as well as indicate where funds could best be of use and where policy might prove most effective. Some policy makers propose that comparative aggregate rating index would act as a "shaming" nechanism or as an incentive for developing nations to improve the lot of their inhabitants, to reduce corruption, and to improve their economies. For instance, Transparency International`s Corruption Index has influenced elections outcomes in Nigeria and has "galvanized" other countries such as Pakistan to address corruption. Although Nigeria`s low rating on the Corruption Index has not necessarily altered corrupt practices, it has encouraged open debate about the harmful practices of corruption. And strengthens the best instincts of civil society.
