Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Sustainable Governance Indicators Comparative Politics June 5, 2013 Tatiana Strovegli Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) 1.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Sustainable Governance Indicators Comparative Politics June 5, 2013 Tatiana Strovegli Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Sustainable Governance Indicators Comparative Politics June 5, 2013 Tatiana Strovegli Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) 1

2 SGI subjects the highly developed industrialized countries of the OECD to a detailed comparison of their performance.. BTI assesses the fundamental development of 128 countries in transition to democracy and a market economy 2 The Bertelsmann Stiftung Indexs The Bertelsmann Stiftungs Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), first published in 2009 (, form a valuable counterpart to the Transformation Index (BTI), which has appeared since 2004. The SGI project closes a significant gap, subjecting the highly developed industrialized countries of the OECD to a detailed comparison of their performance.. BTISGI

3 3 SGI – the structure The SGI is a cross-national survey of governance in the OECD that identifies reform needs, forward-looking practices. THE MANAGEMENT INDEX The Management Index focuses on governance capacities in terms of steering capability and accountability THE STATUS INDEX The Status Index examines states reform needs in terms of the quality of democracy and performance in policy fields THE SOCIAL JUSTICE INDEX The Social Justice Index focuses on how polices and welfare take in account a fair social distribution Two Pillars And a Special Study

4 4 SGI – facts and figures Started in 2009 Updated every 2 or 3 years Ranks SGI in 31 member states in the OECD on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high) Ranks along two main indices: Status Index Management Index

5 5 SGI are based on sound data capture, fully transparent data and statistical analysis methods. SGI comprise a combination of qualitative and quantitative data, avoiding weaknesses of one data type only. Coupling objective quantitative data with highly context-sensitive, qualitative expert assessments delivers high-resolution outcomes. SGI – Approach and methodology

6 6 Select performance indicators that: Are not ambiguous Are available for all OECD countries. Try to avoid including model-specific indicators that might be seen as being biased in favor of particular types of economies. SGI try to provide a composite image of a countrys performance across various policy areas. Each policy area is evaluated by experts for each country. Status Index also includes a few indicators that describe changes over time rather than levels (e.g. inflation rate).

7 7 SGI – Approach and methodology

8 8

9 9

10 10 SGI – Approach and methodology

11 11 SGI Ranking 2011

12 SGI Ranking 2011 Distribution of OECD Countries surveyed 12

13 13 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.

14 14 Quality of Democracy vs. Policy Performance

15 15 Overview of the Status Index 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) ) are geographically and culturally just as heterogeneous as the top group The lowest-ranking group (South Korea, Italy, Slovakia, Mexico, Greece, and Turkey) are not more homogeneous.

16 16 Quality of Democracy - findings Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Finland receive top scores on quality of democracy, Denmark and Switzerland follow albeit lower than the leading group. 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. Turkish policy suffer restrictions on freedom of assembly and opinion, 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.

17 17 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.

18 18 Status Index – learning from the best 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 countrys 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 pension and increasing working life; Improving compatiblity of family and career. Still need improvement in: Research and development; Sustainability in environmental and education policy; Integration policy; Fiscal policy.

19 19 Management Index - 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.

20 20 Executive Capacity vs. Executive Accountability

21 21 Overview of the Management Index 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.

22 22 Overview of the Management Index findings A closer look at both Executive Capacity and Executive Accountability is necessary in order to understand whats 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)

23 23 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.

24 24 Social Justice Index

25 Social Justice in the OECD 25

26 26 Social Justice Index - findings Northern Europe again leads by a significant margin with very good scores across all dimensions Despite its 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 and Ireland lags behind the others, Poland due to pronounced deficits in access to the labour market. Southern European countries all rank significantly below the OECD average. United States scores very low compared with the Country international status Turkey Greece Mexico end Chile are the most problematic Countries for Social Justice

27 27 Final considerations Among cross-national survey of governance in the OECD, SGI appears the most accurate. The Project aim to promote more ample debate on good governance and learning from benchmarking across the world The systematic comparison of sustainable governance is an helpful tool for individual and organization that care about improvement of governance in the world Countries. For instance UNESCO on 25-26th of March in Paris organized a Workshop on Measuring Social Public Policies: Inclusiveness and Impact using, as preparation material, to promote brainstorming, a presentation done by Sabine Donner of Bertelsmann Stiftung regarding the BTI and SGI

28 28 Thank you for your attention

Download ppt "Sustainable Governance Indicators Comparative Politics June 5, 2013 Tatiana Strovegli Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) 1."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google