What Can Be Learned from Country-Based Rankings Conducted by Various International Institutions
1 like294 views
The document discusses the importance of country-based rankings in assessing public service delivery and combating corruption. It outlines creation and meaning, modern trends toward objective standards, and offers actionable recommendations for countries to improve their rankings. Key suggestions include passing freedom of information laws, enhancing civil society, and targeting petty bribery within public services to attract international investment.
What Can Be Learned from Country-Based Rankings Conducted by Various International Institutions
- 1. Public Service Delivery of the Future – Combating Corruption, Streamlining Performance What Can Be Learned from Country-Based Rankings Conducted by Various International Institutions Scott W. Lyons Democracy Specialist/ Anticorruption Advisor U.S. Agency for International Development Batumi, September 22-24, 2011 1
- 2. Summary Country-Based Rankings: Creation & Meaning Modern Trends: Objective Standards & Local Initiatives International Expectations & Usage of Rankings What Can Countries Do To Improve Their Rankings 2
- 3. Country-Based Rankings: Creation & Meaning + - Often Created from Aggregate Subjective Perception Surveys & (often <10 surveys) Not for Cross-Comparison Views from Business, Experts, and Not all Countries are Ranked in Public Opinion Each Index Survey For Awareness Raising – Influenced by Political/Economic Encouragement to Improve Cycles like Stability and Recession Perception Government is Making Despite Caveats, can Influence a Difference can Reflect Reality Donor Aid and Foreign Investment Can Sometimes Help Identify Uncertain Causal Linkages Public Service Sectoral Targeting between Scores and Specific Factors – Not Diagnostic 3
- 4. Modern Trends: Objective Standards & Local Initiatives LOCAL OBJECTIVE www.ipaidabribe.com (India) Doing Business Survey www.transparencyreporting.net (World Bank) New Open Government (The Philippines) - Pera Natin ’to Look Partnership www.mipanamatransparente.com (Multilateral Initiative) (Panama) www.bribespot.com Objective Standards (Worldwide) Provide Good Guidance, but can have irregular results Local projects can lead to internal snapshots, but questions of bias, impact, and follow-up 4
- 5. International Expectations & Usage of Rankings (usually shame and blame, except examples from) 1. Millennium Challenge Corporation 2. Open Government Partnership of Rankings Uses Worldwide Governance Objective indicators: laws for Indicator’s (WGI) “Control of budgets, information access, Corruption” to assess every year disclosures, civil liberties Corruption is the only “Hard Hurdle” Laws demonstrating commitment in – only factor that failure to be the four areas is the key criteria for above median precludes funding eligibility Low income countries compared to Inconsistent results: each other and low/middle income Pakistan, El Salvador, Russia (in) compared to each other Argentina (out) Country with “Compact” can be Once pass eligibility criteria, deliver dropped if fall below median due to action plan and commit to reporting serious changes in policy So far only drops for democratic Just started this week backsliding 5
- 6. What Can Countries Do To Improve Their Rankings For Objective Rankings and Surveys: • Pass relevant Freedom of Information laws, asset disclosure, civil law criminalization of corrupt acts, whistle-blower protections • Improvement in Public Service Sector Business Reforms such as easing permitting and business/property registry For Subjective Rankings and Surveys: • Highly visible actions like prosecution of corrupt officials • Civil Society Strengthening • Improvement at point of access of public service delivery – reduction in petty bribery within police, registry and permitting services, and tax administration – where citizens and businesses frequently interact with the government Tangible Benefit: Increased International Investment 6
- 7. Thank You! 7