Some comments on WGI indicators

 

Jean-François Sattin

IAE de Valenciennes

Internal consistency The identifying assumption in the unobserved components model is that

any observed correlation between two measures of corruption, for example, is due to their common, but unobserved, signal of corruption. (Kaufman, Kraay, 2007)

How to cope with the sources of common errors in measurement ? Halo effect Contaminations between sources Western bias

How to manage missing data ? Two steps estimation “Representative” database really representative ?

Risk-Western biased (e.g. Vries, 2007)

Contamination between sources: An exemple

Freedom House’s Index of Economic Freedom and Economist Intelligence Unit are two distinct sources in WGI.

But Freedom House assess property right protection by relying on the Economist Intelligence Unit reports.

What means a high correlation score?

Implications Practical ground: For a country improving WGI

ranking seems quite difficult Multiple dimensions to be improved Biases in the « representative » database (e.g. Vries,

2007) Worldwide trends

Ethical ground: Allocating aid for LDCs WGI as a new tool of imperialism ?

Still the Western bias Margins of error management

Conclusion

Methodological ground: (Brousseau & al., 2007) Need for new, independent datasets of governance

assessment (Brousseau & al., 2007). Need for triangulation

Practical ground: All institutional indicator need to be used carefully. Need for achievable targets for LDCs

References Brousseau, Harnay & Sattin, 2007, Measuring Law and Institutions:

A critical survey of current practices and some recommendations to build indicators, University of Paris X, Mimeo

Kaufman, Kraay, 2007, Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper

Vries, 2007, How Does Your Country Rank? The Discussion about International Data on Good Governance, Proceedings from the International Conference on Government Performance Management