sustainable governance indicators

comparative politics 1

Sustainable Governance Indicators

Keryn Paviour-SmithWednesday 6 June, 2012


Agenda

• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index• Social Justice Index• Conclusions


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.


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


Agenda

• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index • Social Justice Index• Conclusions


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.


SGI Methodology


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


Status Index


Management Index


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).


Agenda

• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index • Management Index• Social Justice Index• Conclusions


Distribution of OECD Countries surveyed


SGI Ranking 2011


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.


Agenda

• Introduction• Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index • Social Index• Conclusions


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.


Quality of Democracy vs. Policy Performance


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


Research & Innovation


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.


Agenda

• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index • Management Index • Social Justice Index• Conclusions


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.


Executive Capacity vs. Executive Accountability


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.


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)


Steering Capability


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.


Agenda

• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index• Management Index• Social Justice Index• Conclusions


Social Justice in the OECD


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.


Agenda

• Introduction• Approach and Methodology• SGI Ranking 2011• Status Index • Management Index • Social Justice Index• Conclusions


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”.


Thank you

Any questions?

sustainable governance indicators

Documents