Sustainable Governance Indicators
description
Transcript of Sustainable Governance Indicators
![Page 1: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
comparative politics 1
Sustainable Governance Indicators
Keryn Paviour-SmithWednesday 6 June, 2012
![Page 2: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
comparative politics 2
Agenda
• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index• Social Justice Index• Conclusions
![Page 3: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
comparative politics 3
Introduction - starting point for SGI
• All developed industrial countries face several major reform challenges in 21st century:
Economic globalization; Climate change; Resource depletion; Aging societies; Immigration; Security threats.
![Page 4: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
comparative politics 4
Introduction - history of SGI
• Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI)
• Started in 2009
• Updated every 2 or 3 years
• Ranks SGI in 31 member states in the OECD
• Ranks on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)
• Ranks along two main indices: Status Index Management Index
![Page 5: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
comparative politics 5
Agenda
• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index • Social Justice Index• Conclusions
![Page 6: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
comparative politics 6
Approach and methodology – combines empirical and qualitative data
• SGI are based on sound data capture and aggregation methods.
• SGI comprise a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.
• Pairs “objective” quantitative data with “highly context-sensitive”, qualitative expert assessments.
![Page 7: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
comparative politics 7
SGI Methodology
![Page 8: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
comparative politics 8
Approach and methodology - SGI incorporates a two tiered system of measuring reform.....
Status Index Management IndexDimensions 2 2Categories 4 6Criteria 19 13Indicators/Items 100 47Of which: expert assessments 29 36Quantitative Indicators 71 11
![Page 9: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
comparative politics 9
Status Index
![Page 10: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
comparative politics 10
Management Index
![Page 11: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
comparative politics 11
Approach and methodology
• Each policy area is evaluated by experts for each country.
• Have selected performance indicators that: Are not ambiguous; Are available for all OECD countries.
• Tries to avoid including model-specific indicators that might be seen as being biased in favour of particular types of economies.
• SGI tries to provide a composite image of a country’s performance across various policy areas.
• Status Index also includes a few indicators that describe changes over time rather than levels (e.g. inflation rate).
![Page 12: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
comparative politics 12
Agenda
• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index • Management Index• Social Justice Index• Conclusions
![Page 13: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
comparative politics 13
Distribution of OECD Countries surveyed
![Page 14: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
comparative politics 14
SGI Ranking 2011
![Page 15: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
comparative politics 15
Overview of the findings
• Top rankings of the Status Index are dominated by northern European countries.
• However leading group also includes New Zealand and Switzerland, two nations with different political and state welfare traditions.
• The group of mid-range scorers (Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, USA, Ireland, Great Britain, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Portugal, Japan, Chile, Spain, and Poland) and the lowest-ranking group (South Korea, Italy, Slovakia, Mexico, Greece, and Turkey) are geographically and culturally just as heterogeneous as the top group.
![Page 16: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
comparative politics 16
Agenda
• Introduction• Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index • Social Index• Conclusions
![Page 17: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
comparative politics 17
Status Index - approach
• The Status Index aims to compare : Quality of Democracy; Policy Performance.
• Presumed that a high quality of democracy is necessary for the long-term stability of a political system and sustainable policies.
![Page 18: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
comparative politics 18
Quality of Democracy vs. Policy Performance
![Page 19: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
comparative politics 19
Quality of Democracy - findings
• Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Finland receive top scores on quality of democracy.
• Membership in the European Union seems to exert a positive influence on the protection of civil rights: Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and Greece score better here than South Korea, Mexico and Turkey.
• The main shortcomings of Turkish policy are restrictions on freedom of assembly and opinion.
• But also in Hungary and Italy the civil rights of ethnic minorities are inadequately protected.
• Among the lower ranking countries, there is a real deficit in the rule of law (e.g. Mexico and Greece).
• Preventing and fighting corruption – especially within the legal system – is among the central challenges for all countries in the lower ranking group.
![Page 20: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
comparative politics 20
Policy Performance - findings
• The largest financial and economic crisis seen in the post-war period left none of the surveyed countries unscathed.
• Following the banking crisis policy has been shaped more by short-term crisis management than by structural reforms.
• In addition to large economic stimulus programs and the stabilization of the banking sector, the political response included state intervention in the economy.
• Countries that set the right priorities and decisively implemented necessary reforms have been able to stabilize trust in politics and the economy.
• Policymakers must not lose sight of the long-term horizon.
![Page 21: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
comparative politics 21
Economy and Employment - findings
• Ireland and Iceland were especially hard hit by the economic and financial crisis.
• On employment indicators the picture is mixed: Canada, Australia and the Netherlands still have relatively low unemployment rates despite the crisis.
• Iceland, Ireland, Great Britain and the USA have enjoyed above-average labour market performance but have seen a spike in unemployment during the crisis.
![Page 22: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
comparative politics 22
Economy and Employment – findings (cont’d)
• Germany is a special case, since its previously high unemployment numbers fell continuously even during the crisis.
• In most countries, unemployment remains at a relatively high level, with Turkey experiencing the most severe unemployment among the 31 OECD nations
![Page 23: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
comparative politics 23
Social Affairs - findings
• Again the Northern European countries take the lead in social inclusion and child care facilities.
• However they are characterized by above-average tax burdens.
• So far the Scandanavian countries have managed to defend their prosperity despite their extensive welfare states and high taxes.
![Page 24: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
comparative politics 24
Internal and External Security - findings
• Again the Scandanavian countries score well here with the exception of Denmark......
• On security policy the USA score is low due to its above average crime rate and military involvement in Iraq & Afghanistan
• Mexico also has some internal security problems due to a high crime rate and unreliable police forces
![Page 25: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
comparative politics 25
Resources - findings
• Overall Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany and Japan lead this category.
• In particular Germany and Great Britain have established themselves as pioneers in new environmental instruments.
• In terms of environmental sustainability the USA is at the bottom of the rankings, although it leads the OECD nations in research and development.
![Page 26: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
comparative politics 26
Research & Innovation
![Page 27: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
comparative politics 27
Status Index – learning from the best
• Significant strengths and weaknesses of OECD countries.
• Countries with strong quality of democracy score better than the rest of the OECD countries on most areas of policy.
• Close relationship between the two dimensions can be observed: the better the quality of a country’s democratic structures, the more likely it is to achieve sustainable reform policies.
• Focus on similar policy areas in recent years: Pension reform towards strengthening private pensions and increasing working life; Improving compatibility of family and career.
•Still need improvement in: Research and development; Sustainability in environmental and education policy; Integration policy; Fiscal policy.
![Page 28: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
comparative politics 28
Agenda
• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index • Management Index • Social Justice Index• Conclusions
![Page 29: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
comparative politics 29
Executive Capacity and Executive Accountability - approach
• Executive Capacity looks at strategic planning, consultation and communication as well as capacity for implementation and learning.
• Executive Accountability looks at the capacity of citizens, legislatures, special interest groups and media participation in the political process.
![Page 30: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
comparative politics 30
Executive Capacity vs. Executive Accountability
![Page 31: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
comparative politics 31
Executive Capacity and Executive Accountability - findings
• Again the Management indicators are lead by Norway and Sweden.....followed by Demark, Finland, New Zealand and Australia.
• Again no particular system type is favoured.
• Bringing up the rear are Greece and Slovakia. Both countries trail Italy (in 29th position) by almost a point.
• New member Chile stands out positively, already scoring higher than some established OECD countries.
![Page 32: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
comparative politics 32
Executive Capacity and Executive Accountability - findings (cont’d)
• A closer look at both Executive Capacity and Executive Accountability is necessary in order to understand what’s really going on in a country.......
• Certain countries obtain almost identical scores on the two dimensions (Australia, Ireland, Japan)
• But others show wide discrepancies between the two.....(Canada, France, Mexico stand out here)
![Page 33: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
comparative politics 33
Steering Capability
![Page 34: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
comparative politics 34
Management Index - learning from the best
• Quality of political steering varies widely among OECD nations.
• There are pronounced differences between strategic steering capability as well as the capacity to include the knowledge and demands of citizens.
• Top ranking countries show some similarities in the style of governing:
Countries that review their structures and processes and adjust them are better at strategic action and implementation of reform;
Countries that do not seek to improve by changing their institutions score low.
![Page 35: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
comparative politics 35
Agenda
• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index• Social Justice Index• Conclusions
![Page 36: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
comparative politics 37
Social Justice in the OECD
![Page 37: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
comparative politics 38
Social Justice Index - findings
• Northern Europe again leads the way.
• Despite it’s overall high average Sweden is facing high youth unemployment, which is 3 times the average unemployment rate.
• Most central, north-western, and east-central European countries are in the mid-range.
• Poland lags behind the others due to pronounced deficits in access to the labour market.
• Southern European countries all rank significantly below the OECD average.
![Page 38: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
comparative politics 39
Agenda
• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index • Management Index • Social Justice Index• Conclusions
![Page 39: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
comparative politics 40
Conclusion
• The SGI is the most thorough cross-national survey of governance in the OECD.
• The project identifies reform needs and highlights forward-looking practices.
• It tries to encourage debate on “good governance”.....and to help us “learn from the world”.
![Page 40: Sustainable Governance Indicators](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070423/568166e0550346895ddb155f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
comparative politics 41
Thank you
Any questions?