WGI World Governance Index - Forum for a new World Governance

Prop osal Paper s Series
WGI
World Governance Index
Why Should World Governance Be
Evaluated, and for What Purpose?
Version 2.0
2011 Report
Proposal Papers
The Forum for a new World Governance encourages the development and circulation of new
ideas in several languages and in a large number of countries in the form of Proposal Papers.
The papers present the most relevant proposals for generating the breakthroughs and changes
needed to build a new, fairer and more sustainable world governance.
Published as a series, the Proposal Papers cover five broad categories of world governance:
• Environment and management of the planet
• The economy and globalization
• Politics, state structures, and institutions
• Peace, security, and armed conflicts
• Knowledge, science, education, and the information and communication society
Forum for a new World Governance
June 2010
www.world-governance.org
Translation: Marina Urquidi
Illustrations: Dominique Monteau
Graphic design: Patrick Lescure
Printing: Causses et Cévenne
This Proposal Paper is available under a Creative Commons License allowing users to use,
reproduce and circulate it on condition that they mention the title, authors and Forum for a new
World Governance. This Proposals Paper cannot be modified or sold. This work is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a
copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
Cover illustration: Carmen Piemonte, Lutrans I, 2010 (www.carlunelarte.cl)
World
Governance Index
Why Should World Governance Be Evaluated,
and for What Purpose?
Version 2.0
2011 Report
World Governance Index
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
World Governance Index - WGI. .
Usefulness and Uses of the WGI. .
5
. 5
. 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Part I: Developing the World Governance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Defining the World Governance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
World-governance goals and fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Establishing the conditions for sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Reducing inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Establishing lasting peace while respecting diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
World Governance Index 2011 – version 2.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Methodology and Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4
Part II: Results and Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2011 WGI Global Ranking in Descending Order (with rank in 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
WGI Regional Rankings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recapitulation Table per Country for the Five WGI Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
EU / OECD Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Latin America / The Caribbean Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Africa Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Asia Pacific Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CIS / Central Asia / Balkans Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Arab States Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Copyright Appendix . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
World Governance Index
Overview
P
romoting, on a world scale, a legitimate, effective, and democratic governance, and forming a responsible, plural, and united community within
which the system of governance holds an essential and vital position constitute the main objectives of the Forum for a new World Governance (FnWG).
The challenge is ambitious. The idea is to overcome the many obstacles of a world
in crisis: persisting tensions, conflicts and wars, paralysis or failure of regional and
international organizations, helpless nation-states, and the obsolescence of an ideological model that appeared in the seventeenth century.
Reaching these objectives requires the active and constructive involvement of
players who are able not only to contribute innovative thinking on world governance but also to offer proposals that are socially and politically viable, in order to
make it possible to get out of our current dead-end situation.
World Governance Index - WGI
It was in the framework of this thinking on the major challenges that global, or
world governance would inevitably have to face that the forum launched, in 2008,
the World Governance Index - WGI project. The idea is to develop a “tool” that
should allow the players in charge of governance to become aware of the issues and
problems arising and to think about what solutions to bring to them.
The paper “Rethinking Global Governance” defines the general objectives of
this effort—to reduce inequalities, establish sustainable development, and build
peace in a world of diversity—and frames some proposals for laying the new
5
World Governance Index
foundations of governance.1 These proposals are derived from the big principles
of governance set out in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
They are also directly aligned with more recent, but equally important, texts such
as the Earth Summit Declaration (Rio, 1992), the Millennium Declaration (New
York, 2000), and the findings of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(Johannesburg, 2002).
A survey of these objectives and these basic texts has made it possible to determine
and select five large fields, called indicators, which, aggregated, constitute the WGI:
•­Peace and Security
•­Rule of Law
•­Human Rights and Participation
•­Sustainable Development
•­Human Development
Each of these indicators is broken down into several sub-indicators—a total of 13
sub-indicators are used—and each of these sub-indicators is the result of the aggregation of several indexes (41 in all). Finally, the data used to calculate the indexes
and determine the WGI is taken from databases published annually by the main
international organizations and by NGOs specializing in the area of governance.
The result of this work is an index that hopes to be as complete as possible and
describes the state of world governance, not for theoretical, but for practical purposes.
6
Usefulness and Uses of the WGI
Both a photograph and a means to induce action/reaction, the WGI has a
twofold dimension. An analytical dimension—it tries to provide as true a
reflection as possible of the state of world governance—and an operational
dimension—it must enable players to act or to react in the direction of a
more efficient, more democratic world governance more in phase with the
environment. The index was designed mainly to offer political decision makers, whatever their level (national, regional or international), companies,
and NGOs reliable, independent, and scrutinized information that will allow
them:
1/ Arnaud Blin
and Gustavo Marin,
“Rethinking Global
Governance”, 2007,
http://www.worldgovernance.org/spip.
php?article15&lang=en
•­ to evaluate a state’s degree of governance
•­to identify its governance strengths and weaknesses
•­to monitor its evolutions over time
World Governance Index
Recourse to a very large number of variables makes the WGI a complete, pragmatic, practical index that is also meant as an incentive.
Complete: The systems of currently developed indicators factor in only one
of the fields, one of the aspects of world governance. For the WGI, the selection and aggregation of the indexes making up the indicators make it possible
to obtain a WGI that gives a vision that is global, exhaustive, and precise all
at the same time.
Pragmatic: The WGI, an aggregation of several indexes and variables of
different and measurable natures, to varying degrees—some rely on facts
(number of inhabitants, for example) and others on perceptions (opinionpoll outcomes)—translates abstract and subjective concepts into observable
and quantifiable data.
Practical: The WGI is presented here in the form of three tables.2 The first
table presents the world ranking in descending order, the second table reflects regional rankings, and the third table sums up, country by country, the
results for each of the five WGI constituent indicators.3 They will be updated
every year, making it possible to monitor evolutions closely (improvements
or regressions) over the years.
An incentive: The WGI is not only a warning bell, its intention is also to be
a means for action. It aims to provoke governance players to think and to ask
the right questions in order to act and to react
Despite a rigorous methodology, the results are nonetheless constrained by the limits inherent to indicators. Like all indicators, the WGI informs, warns, and enables
action and guidance. Although it is particularly useful for “taking the temperature”
of world governance in the countries of the survey, its diagnosis is not, for all that,
absolute, in the medical sense of the term, nor does it dictate action priorities.
The process relies on a conscientious examination of multiple and varied data and
on a combination of sources, data, and methods. In the end, the WGI points to a
number of problems and shows possible leads, but the means to be implemented are
left to the appreciation of world-governance players.
This 2011 Report presents the WGI, version 2.0. It establishes new world and regional rankings of the countries included in the survey, a ranking factoring in the
changes that have occurred since the first 2008 version of the index. For practical
reasons—availability and reliability of the data—it covers only 179 countries (of
the 192 UN Member States). In the medium run, it should cover all the countries.
7
2/ Many other detailed
tables are available at the
FnWG Web site:
www.world-governance.org
3/
The categorization
used for the regional
rankings is inspired
from the United Nations
Development Program
(UNDP)’s categorization.
World Governance Index
The 2011 report, the first update of a series we hope will be long, is intended for
the broadest possible audience of national, regional, and international governance
players, civil-society representatives, researchers, academics, company leaders,
NGOs, and the world of nonprofit organizations.
8
World Governance Index
Ximena Mandiola, Mid-day, 2007 (www.ximenamandiola.com)
Part I
Developin g t h e Wo r l d
Governanc e I n d e x
T
he World Governance Index is an assessment
tool aiming to offer a picture, both general and
detailed, of the state of governance throughout
the world. The 2011 Report marks the outcome of
considerations following the first version, completed
in 2008 and updated in 2009. This new version,
called version 2.0, has increased the number of indexes to 41 (there were 37 in 2008).
The number of countries surveyed, 179 in all, is identical to that of version 1.0 and is warranted by an obvious problem of availability and reliability of data.
Please note, however, that the WGI applies uniformly to all countries, whatever the different political,
social, economic, and cultural systems that characterize them.
Not one country in the world has succeeded to this
day in showing a degree of total perfection where
governance is concerned. Each is constantly facing
the challenge of establishing and renewing the structures, institutions, and standards that contribute to
good governance and to its search for improvement.
The WGI, as designed, reflects the efforts undertaken
by the different countries in their quest for better
governance and to illustrate observed evolutions.
9
World Governance Index
Defining the World Governance
Index
Beyond the more-or-less complex definitions of what
world governance might be, beyond the more-or-less
subjective takes the concept cuts through, we prefer
to consider world governance as simply “the collective management of the planet.”
This definition may be broad, which can be construed as a weakness, but it facilitates exploring all
the dimensions of what world governance could be.
This concept goes beyond the restrictive setting of
international relations, which, until recently, have
constituted the one and only prism through which
governance was perceived on a global level.
After having reviewed the voluminous literature on
world governance, the FnWG team became aware of
the numerous challenges that the WGI undertaking
involved. Evaluating world governance addresses a
twofold need. The idea is first to understand. Everybody agrees that the world is in bad shape, and that
this is because world governance is in bad shape. Before even defining a “treatment protocol,” it is therefore of the essence to know what the patient’s condition is exactly.
Indicators, or systems of indicators, in the sense that
their role is to inform, seem to be the tools best adapted to get a clear picture of what world governance is
afflicted with and to understand what is happening.
Second, such evaluation is also needed to enable action.
10
As a photograph at the service of world-governance
players and as a tool put at their disposal, the WGI
thus also has a twofold dimension: an analytical dimension—it must provide as true a reflection as possible of the state of world governance—and an operational dimension—it must enable players, whatever
their level, to act or to react in the direction of a more
efficient, more democratic world governance more in
phase with the environment. On first impression, the
first dimension seems relatively easy to measure, but
the operational dimension seems more delicate to
quantify.
World-governance goals
and fields
To get a precise picture of the goals of world governance, its situation, and its evolution, all of the fundamental domains in which it is exercised need to be
taken into account.
These fundamental domains were originally written into the two texts considered as the basic texts
of world governance: the Charter of the United Nations, signed on June 26, 1945, and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948.
To “save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war . . . and to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and the worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and
of nations at large, and to establish conditions under
which justice and respect for the obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law
can be maintained, and to promote social progress
and better standards in larger freedom”: these were,
in the wake of World War II, the guidelines for world
governance.
Three years later, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to reinforce the Charter and constitute, in the minds of the leaders from all over the
world who adopted it, the roadmap to ensuring every
person’s rights, in all places and at all times.
We would have to wait until 1992 for the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, to jump start awareness of
the importance of the fundamental domains of world
governance. As discussions developed, as the idea of
interdependence in the global village took hold, the
thinking expanded from considering only environmental assets (air, water, and forests) to including the
whole of humankind’s common goods: health, education, and human rights. This was the appearance
of global common goods, which Riccardo Petrella,
formerly Head of the European Commission’s FAST
program, was to define as: “the goods and services
that should be seen as essential to the security of living together at the global level.”
Taking into account the geopolitical upheavals ensuing from the end of the Cold War, the Millennium
Declaration, in 2000, confirmed the thinking on global governance and reinforced the view that the different domains were all linked with one another. The
goals ensuing from the Millennium Declaration constitute a blueprint for the advent of a world everyone
hopes will be better.
Aware of the complexity of the challenges to meet
and of the urgency to act, the heads of state and of
government meeting in New York from September
6 to 8, 2000, acknowledged their “collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity,
equality and equity at the global level” and set out to
defend them. They restated their determination “to
support all efforts [for the] resolution of disputes by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles
of justice and international law, . . . respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the
World Governance Index
equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex,
language or religion and international cooperation in
solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character.” They committed openly to “ensure that globalization becomes
a positive force for all the world’s people . . .” This
would be possible “only through broad and sustained
efforts to create a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity.”
The World Summit on Sustainable Development of
Johannesburg in 2002 underscored the urgent need
to take on the challenges of the twenty-first century
in compliance with the fundamental principles of
world governance, which were restated in the final
declaration of the summit. Seeking the best road to
follow for the principles of sustainable development
to be respected and their implementation to lead to
concrete results, state representatives confirmed during the summit the considerable progress achieved in
the direction of a world consensus and the construction of a partnership among all the populations of the
planet. Sustainable development became the common goal of all humankind and everything was to be
put to work to achieve it.
The different concepts developed in the texts and at
the above-mentioned conferences clearly reveal that
the first goal of world governance is to define new
relations among human beings, among societies, and
between humankind and the biosphere.
Starting from this overall objective, the three main
goals that international institutions should adopt as
guidelines are:
Establishing the conditions for
sustainable development
The first duty of governance is to preserve the
long term. The imbalances generated by the current form of development between humankind
and the biosphere have put the lives of our children and grandchildren at risk.
The first common objective is therefore to change
the current development models to make them
compatible with the limited resources of the biosphere in the long term. Material development
must be subordinated to human development.
The future of humankind cannot be guaranteed
unless concern for the complete development of
human beings—spiritual, intellectual, social, artistic, etc.—becomes the primary development
criterion.
Reducing inequalities
Sustainable development cannot be achieved by
reserving the natural resources of the planet for
a small minority that has the economic means to
acquire them and the military means to hold onto
them. Reducing inequalities is therefore not only
a moral duty or an act of compassion; it is also
a duty of justice and a condition for long-term
peace. Finding ways to conciliate the freedom of
all with respect of the dignity of all is the second
objective assigned to world governance.
Establishing lasting peace while
respecting diversity
Ecological diversity and cultural diversity are not
only unbending realities of the current world.
They constitute humankind’s major wealth. Peace
requires the recognition of a common belonging,
the search for a common good, and awareness of
unity, from grassroots communities to the entire
human family.
At every level of governance, both greater unity
and greater diversity must be achieved. It is the
ability to not oppose unity and diversity, but to
consider them as the two sides of the same coin,
that constitutes, from managing a district or a village to managing the planet, the art of governance. This is the art that world governance needs
to practice at the global scale and help to practice
at all other levels.
These three objectives, as presented and stated here,
are perfectly articulated with the big traditional principles of world governance: peace, security, democracy, freedom, and equity.
We have thus selected, directly in keeping with these
major principles, the following domains, the detailed
study of which, in the form of sub-indicators and composite indexes, make it possible to obtain the WGI:
• Peace and Security
• Rule of Law
• Human Rights and Participation
• Sustainable Development
• Human Development
11
World Governance Index
World Governance Index 2011 – version 2.0
For each of the
five abovementioned
selected fields,
a detailed
study has been
conducted
in order to
determine the
elements that
constitute
them (subindicators)
and the data
(indexes)
that make it
possible to
produce a
WGI. In all,
the 2011 WGI
– version 2.0
is made up of 5
indicators, 13
sub-indicators
and 41
indexes.
Indicator
Sub-indicator
Index
Peace and
Security
National Security
Conflicts
Refugees and Asylum seekers
Displaced Persons
Public Security
Political Climate
Degree of Trust among Citizens
Violent Crime
Homicides per 100,000 inhabitants
Rule of Law
Body of Laws
Ratification of Treaties
Property Rights
Judicial System
Independence
Effectiveness
Settlement of Contractual Disputes
Human Rights
and Participation
Corruption
Corruption Perception index
Civil and Political
Rights
Respect of Civil Rights
Respect for Physical Integrity Rights
Freedom of the Press
Violence against the Press
Participation
Participation in Political Life
Electoral Process and Pluralism
Political Culture
Gender
Discrimination /
Inequality
Women’s Political Rights
Women’s Social Rights
Women’s Economic Rights
Rate of Representation in National Parliaments
12
Sustainable
Development
Economic Sector
GDP per capita
GDP growth rate
Degree/level of Economic Openness
Cover Rate
Inflation rate
Ease in Starting a Business
Social Dimension
GINI Coefficient (poverty and inequality)
Unemployment Rate
Ratification of International Labor Rights texts
Environmental
Dimension
Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity
Environmental Sustainability
CO2 Emission Rate per capita
Environmental Performance
Human
Development
Development
Human Development
Well-being and
Happiness
Subjective Well-being
Happiness
Quality of Life
World Governance Index
Methodology and Calculations
The World Governance Index is a composite index
aggregating nearly 8,500 data items taken from the
databases or the yearly reports of about thirty different organizations.
The approach used to calculate the WGI is similar
to the one used by the UNDP to establish its Human
Development Index (HDI). For each of the indexes
and sub-indicators, all the collected raw data was rescaled into a “closed” scale ranging from 0 to 1 (where
0 represent the worst result and 1 the best possible
score).
pation, Sustainable Development, and Human Development, which are the mathematical average of
the sub-indicators composing them. Only the Peace
and Security indicator was weighted. It is made up
for two-thirds of it by the National Security sub-indicator and for one-third of it by the Public Security
sub-indicator.
As a final result, the World Governance Index is the
mathematical average of the 5 indicators that constitute it.
In some very rare cases, absence of data for one or
several countries was compensated, as needed, by assigning to them the reported regional average.
Every sub-indicator is the mathematical average of
the indexes composing it. This also applies to the
indicators Rule of Law, Human Rights and Partici-
13
Federica Matta, The World’s Eye N° 6, 2004 (www.federicamatta.com)
Part II
14
Results and Illustrations
T
he first of the three tables below presents the
WGI ranking for all countries in descending
order with for each country its rank in 2008.
The second table presents the ranking in descending
order at the regional level. The last table sums up, per
country in alphabetical order, the results obtained for
every indicator constituting the WGI.
Other tables, world ranking and regional ranking in
descending order, for each of the indicators constituting the WGI, are available on the Web site of the
Forum for a new World Governance.
For each regional whole, we have also provided two
figures illustrating the results obtained by the highestranking country and the lowest-ranking country, respectively. Their results (red pentagon) can be easily
compared with the average world result (green pentagon).
Each figure is in the form of a pentagon. Each angle
of the pentagon represents one of the five indicators
that constitute the WGI. To the right of the figure,
the country’s WGI is indicated with a red pointer and
is also easily compared with the world’s average WGI
(green pointer).
12
11
22
0.832
0.830
0.826
0.825
0.813
0.807
0.806
0.801
0.801
0.796
0.788
0.778
0.758
0.758
0.752
3 Finland
4 Iceland
5 Denmark
6 New Zealand
7 Netherlands
8 Switzerland
9 Australia
10 Germany
11 Austria
12 Canada
13 Ireland
14 Luxemburg
15 France
16 Belgium
17 Japan
0.750
0.749
0.738
19 Spain
20 Costa Rica
21 Portugal
0.724
0.723
0.723
28 Singapore
29 Slovenia
30 Estonia
23
0.733
0.731
26 Bahamas
0.733
25 Chile
27 Barbados
24
0.733
24 Uruguay
42
26
33
16
32
20
23 Malta
31
0.736
0.736
22 Czech Republic
30
19
18
17
18 United Kingdom 0.750
14
21
9
15
13
6
10
7
8
5
1
4
2
0.843
3
0.844
2 Sweden
2008
Rank
1 Norway
2011 Ranking and WGI
0.699
0.700
0.702
0.703
0.714
0.714
0.720
0.720
0.660
56 Bulgaria
60 Namibia
59 Romania
58 Seychelles
57 Albania
0.650
0.651
0.653
0.653
0.658
0.658
54 Trinidad and Tobago
55 Peru
0.662
0.662
0.668
0.671
0.671
0.674
0.678
0.678
0.679
0.685
0.686
0.686
0.687
0.692
53 Jamaica
52 Brazil
51 Cyprus
50 Croatia
49 Israel
48 Belize
47 Grenada
46 Cape Verde
45 Greece
44 Latvia
43 Dominica
42 Panama
41 Saint Lucia
40 Argentina
39 St Vincent & Grenadines 0.697
38 Italy
37 Poland
36 Slovakia
35 Hungary
34 South Korea
33 Lithuania
32 United States
31 Mauritius
2011 Ranking and WGI
56 113 Morocco
53 114 Venezuela
0.616
0.616
0.614
0.611
0.609
0.609
50 80 Ghana
28 81 Nicaragua
69 82 Surinam
71 83 Tunisia
59 84 Fiji
60 85 Thailand
90 120 Viet Nam
68 90 Bosnia Herzegovina 0.606
0.571
0.572
85 150 Sierra Leone
116 149 Guinea
93 148 Russia
79 119 Tanzania
0.607
63 89 Kirghizstan
117 146 Congo
131 145 Djibouti
111 144 Togo
82 143 Bangladesh
105 142 Liberia
110 141 Lebanon
136 140 China
102 139 Mauritania
97 138 Nepal
121 137 Comoros
86 136 Uganda
98 135 Zambia
77 134 Uzbekistan
157 133 Egypt
99 132 Libya
100 131 Rwanda
76 130 Sri Lanka
106 129 Madagascar
119 128 Saudi Arabia
52 127 Mali
96 126 Benin
78 125 Cambodia
103 124 Gambia
112 123 Burkina Faso
114 122 Laos
107 118 Salomon Islands 0.575
0.607
37 88 Lesotho
0.578
2008
Rank
0.472 151
0.480 159
0.486 156
0.490 141
0.496 162
0.503 153
0.505 166
0.445 171
0.447 167
0.528 158
AVERAGE
0.532 139 179 Somalia
0.534 135 178 DRC
0.535 149 177 Sudan
0.536 134 176 Myanmar
0.536 152 175 Afghanistan
0.539 147 174 Iraq
0.541 140 173 Zimbabwe
0.542 168 172 North Korea
0.616
0.293 179
0.408 176
0.408 175
0.413 174
0.424 161
0.425 178
0.432 172
0.433 173
0.543 128 171 Gaza / West Bank 0.438 177
0.549 109 170 Chad
0.551 122 169 Erythrea
0.554 145 168 Central Africa Rep. 0.467 169
0.555 118 167 Iran
0.556 170 166 Pakistan
0.556 146 165 Ethiopia
0.557 126 164 Yemen
0.557 120 163 Burundi
0.558 132 162 Cameroon
0.559 137 161 Angola
0.508 148
0.506 155
0.560 125 160 Equatorial Guinea
0.509 163
0.512 165
0.514 154
0.518 143
0.520 150
0.522 164
0.525 142
0.560 101 159 Niger
0.561 138 158 Ivory Coast
0.561 115 157 Nigeria
0.561 129 156 Guinea Bissau
0.562 166 155 Syria
0.566 127 154 Swaziland
0.566 144 153 Haiti
0.568 130 152 India
2008
Rank
0.526 160
2011 Ranking and WGI
113 121 Papua New Guinea 0.569 133 151 Turkmenistan
2011 Ranking and WGI
108 147 Kenya
83 117 Colombia
0.609
0.578
0.578
0.582
0.583
0.584
0.585
0.585
0.586
0.587
0.589
0.589
0.592
0.592
0.593
0.594
0.594
0.594
0.595
0.595
0.596
0.598
0.599
0.599
0.600
0.605
2008
Rank
0.576
72 116 Mozambique
62 86 São Tomé and Príncipe 0.609
74 87 Gabon
92 115 Azerbaijan
67 112 Armenia
64 111 Georgia
70 110 Malawi
75 109 Jordan
0.617
0.617
45 78 Kuwait
54 79 Bahrain
94 108 Tajikistan
61 105 Tonga
84 104 Maldives
88 106 Philippines
0.627
41 75 Mongolia
91 107 Belarus
0.628
51 74 Botswana
66 103 East Timor
0.619
0.632
36 73 Dominican Rep.
89 102 Kazakhstan
95 101 Guatemala
49 76 United Arab Emirates 0.620
0.632
99 Brunei
98 Algeria
97 Cuba
96 Indonesia
95 Oman
94 Turkey
93 Senegal
80 100 Honduras
55
58
104
73
87
92 Bhutan
91 Ukraine
2011 Ranking and WGI
35 77 Moldavia
0.632
47 72 Serbia
38 68 South Africa
34 71 Bolivia
81
0.641
0.638
48 67 Malaysia
0.635
0.641
46 66 Mexico
0.633
0.643
39 65 Montenegro
25 69 Qatar
0.646
40 64 Macedonia
43 70 Paraguay
124
0.648
44 63 Ecuador
57
0.648
65
0.649
2008
Rank
27 62 Guyana
2011 Ranking and WGI
29 61 El Salvador
2008
Rank
2011 WGI Global Ranking in Descending Order (with rank in 2008)
World Governance Index
15
0.720
0.678
0.653
0.650
0.638
0.628
0.616
0.609
0.609
0.607
0.599
0.585
0.578
0.572
0.566
0.566
0.561
0.561
0.560
0.559
0.556
0.556
0.555
0.551
0.542
0.539
0.536
0.535
0.532
0.528
0.520
0.514
0.512
0.509
0.508
0.506
0.505
0.503
0.496
0.486
0.467
0.447
0.445
0.432
0.408
0.551
0.844
0.843
0.832
0.830
0.826
0.825
0.813
0.807
0.806
0.801
0.801
0.796
0.788
0.778
0.758
0.758
0.752
0.750
0.750
0.738
0.736
0.736
0.723
0.723
0.720
0.714
0.714
0.703
0.702
0.700
0.699
0.685
0.679
0.671
0.668
0.658
0.651
0.641
0.599
0.744 Average
Eu oecd
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
Denmark
New Zealand
Netherlands
Switzerland
Australia
Germany
Austria
Canada
Ireland
Luxemburg
France
Belgium
Japan
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Czech Republic
Malta
Slovenia
Estonia
United States
Lithuania
South Korea
Hungary
Slovakia
Poland
Italy
Latvia
Greece
Israel
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Romania
Mexico
Turkey
Average
0.655
Latin America and the Caribbean
Costa Rica
0.749
Uruguay
0.733
Chile
0.733
Bahamas
0.733
Barbados
0.731
St Vincent and the Grenadines 0.697
Argentina
0.692
Saint Lucia
0.687
Panama
0.686
Dominica
0.686
Grenada
0.678
Belize
0.674
Brazil
0.662
Jamaica
0.662
Trinidad and Tobago
0.660
Peru
0.658
El Salvador
0.649
Guyana
0.648
Ecuador
0.648
Paraguay
0.633
Bolivia
0.632
Dominican Republic
0.632
Nicaragua
0.616
Surinam
0.614
Cuba
0.595
Honduras
0.594
Guatemala
0.594
Venezuela
0.578
Colombia
0.576
Haiti
0.522
16
Africa
Mauritius
Cape Verde
Seychelles
Namibia
South Africa
Botswana
Ghana
São Tomé and Príncipe
Gabon
Lesotho
Senegal
Malawi
Mozambique
Tanzania
Burkina Faso
Gambia
Benin
Mali
Madagascar
Rwanda
Zambia
Uganda
Comoros
Mauritania
Liberia
Togo
Congo
Kenya
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Swaziland
Guinea Bissau
Nigeria
Ivory Coast
Niger
Equatorial Guinea
Angola
Cameroon
Burundi
Ethiopia
Central Africa Republic
Erythrea
Chad
Zimbabwe
DRC
Average
WGI Regional Rankings
Average
Asia Pacific
Singapore
Malaysia
Mongolia
Fiji
Thailand
Bhutan
Indonesia
Brunei
East Timor
Maldives
Tonga
Philippines
Salomon Islands
Viet Nam
Papua New Guinea
Laos
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
Nepal
China
Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
Iran
North Korea
Afghanistan
Myanmar
0.561
0.724
0.641
0.627
0.609
0.609
0.600
0.596
0.594
0.592
0.592
0.589
0.589
0.575
0.571
0.569
0.568
0.562
0.560
0.554
0.549
0.541
0.525
0.480
0.472
0.433
0.424
0.413
Average
Arab States
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Bahrain
Tunisia
Oman
Algeria
Jordan
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Egypt
Lebanon
Djibouti
Syria
Yemen
Gaza / West Bank
Iraq
Sudan
Somalia
0.539
0.635
0.620
0.617
0.617
0.611
0.598
0.595
0.585
0.582
0.561
0.558
0.557
0.543
0.536
0.518
0.490
0.438
0.425
0.408
0.293
Average
0.601
Cis Central Asia Balkans
Croatia
0.671
Albania
0.653
Macedonia
0.646
Montenegro
0.643
Serbia
0.632
Moldavia
0.619
Kirghizstan
0.607
Bosnia Herzegovina
0.606
Ukraine
0.605
Kazakhstan
0.593
Belarus
0.587
Tajikistan
0.586
Georgia
0.584
Armenia
0.583
Azerbaijan
0.578
Uzbekistan
0.557
Russia
0.534
Turkmenistan
0.526
World Governance Index
Afghanistan
South Africa
Albania
Algeria
Germany
Angola
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central Africa Republic
Chile
China
Cyprus
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
North Korea
South Korea
Costa Rica
Ivory Coast
Croatia
Cuba
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Egypt
El Salvador
United Arab Emirates
Ecuador
Erythrea
Spain
Estonia
United States
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
0.334
0.602
0.544
0.498
0.848
0.284
0.471
0.503
0.507
0.850
0.822
0.489
0.700
0.576
0.359
0.728
0.439
0.757
0.532
0.409
0.540
0.443
0.500
0.612
0.585
0.461
0.549
0.514
0.363
0.430
0.343
0.813
0.653
0.351
0.803
0.492
0.714
0.479
0.400
0.325
0.321
0.698
0.633
0.412
0.570
0.366
0.856
0.357
0.609
0.497
0.566
0.540
0.489
0.306
0.741
0.741
0.729
0.409
0.505
0.866
0.350
0.719
0.592
0.443
0.802
0.480
0.293
0.734
0.434
0.836
0.822
0.389
0.745
0.463
0.482
0.697
0.503
0.813
0.678
0.547
0.566
0.646
0.570
0.640
0.613
0.344
0.639
0.528
0.575
0.502
0.365
0.852
0.735
0.388
0.665
0.287
0.671
0.477
0.445
0.433
0.251
0.687
0.811
0.409
0.612
0.509
0.921
0.463
0.653
0.326
0.619
0.459
0.643
0.278
0.800
0.741
0.769
0.348
0.421
0.891
0.324
0.532
0.603
0.589
0.801
0.358
0.709
0.749
0.552
0.797
0.795
0.571
0.728
0.675
0.510
0.738
0.541
0.782
0.683
0.402
0.660
0.600
0.607
0.506
0.697
0.717
0.599
0.297
0.229
0.484
0.402
0.784
0.540
0.308
0.715
0.644
0.726
0.725
0.498
0.452
0.426
0.721
0.792
0.351
0.679
0.677
0.779
0.392
0.718
0.575
0.668
0.665
0.657
0.378
0.761
0.619
0.762
0.328
0.647
0.797
S
De ust
ve ain
lo a
p
meble
nt
De Hu
ve m
a
l
o
pm n
en
t
0.496
0.518
0.608
0.579
0.609
0.561
0.508
0.589
0.560
0.599
0.620
0.639
0.585
0.478
0.562
0.578
0.578
0.568
0.564
0.536
0.550
0.606
0.543
0.487
0.583
0.512
0.568
0.594
0.571
0.536
0.553
0.583
0.546
0.589
0.583
0.529
0.550
0.597
0.555
0.621
0.367
0.525
0.594
0.545
0.579
0.546
0.616
0.554
0.581
0.547
0.560
0.498
0.573
0.497
0.569
0.589
0.483
0.579
0.563
0.641
Pe
Se ace
cu an
rit d
y
R
of ule
La
w
H
Riguma
ht n
s
0.617
0.818
0.920
0.865
0.947
0.843
0.823
0.887
0.861
0.949
0.947
0.803
0.905
0.894
0.794
0.913
0.872
0.869
0.912
0.913
0.685
0.866
0.812
0.895
0.833
0.938
0.935
0.897
0.742
0.856
0.850
0.947
0.917
0.699
0.897
0.791
0.680
0.600
0.876
0.850
0.801
0.939
0.913
0.828
0.916
0.880
0.957
0.916
0.867
0.840
0.831
0.940
0.878
0.778
0.878
0.924
0.856
0.765
0.911
0.965
WG
I
0.424
0.638
0.653
0.595
0.801
0.505
0.561
0.692
0.583
0.806
0.801
0.578
0.733
0.617
0.541
0.731
0.587
0.758
0.674
0.561
0.600
0.632
0.606
0.628
0.662
0.594
0.658
0.566
0.496
0.562
0.503
0.796
0.678
0.467
0.733
0.549
0.668
0.576
0.555
0.536
0.433
0.714
0.749
0.509
0.671
0.595
0.826
0.536
0.686
0.557
0.649
0.620
0.648
0.447
0.750
0.723
0.720
0.486
0.609
0.832
France
Gabon
Gambia
Gaza / West Bank
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Equatorial Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Salomon Islands
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Iran
Ireland
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kirghizstan
Kuwait
Laos
Lesotho
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malaysia
Malawi
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Morocco
Mauritius
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldavia
Mongolia
Montenegro
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
0.784
0.449
0.463
0.216
0.558
0.608
0.566
0.503
0.435
0.413
0.341
0.343
0.481
0.348
0.459
0.670
0.428
0.442
0.462
0.327
0.374
0.810
0.835
0.655
0.544
0.567
0.797
0.539
0.507
0.436
0.455
0.571
0.422
0.564
0.637
0.410
0.359
0.357
0.690
0.802
0.563
0.413
0.508
0.543
0.452
0.460
0.681
0.508
0.632
0.452
0.581
0.539
0.536
0.522
0.449
0.297
0.618
0.438
0.495
0.419
Pe
Se ace
cu an
rit d
y
R
of ule
La
w
0.910
0.876
0.915
0.762
0.741
0.921
0.908
0.927
0.801
0.852
0.891
0.856
0.888
0.839
0.808
0.929
0.918
0.653
0.806
0.545
0.774
0.983
0.971
0.785
0.928
0.825
0.949
0.862
0.887
0.795
0.906
0.933
0.897
0.864
0.927
0.736
0.852
0.892
0.958
0.951
0.895
0.889
0.889
0.875
0.903
0.881
0.952
0.865
0.963
0.830
0.794
0.873
0.895
0.913
0.903
0.704
0.912
0.804
0.863
0.820
0.765
0.571
0.434
0.344
0.554
0.487
0.712
0.645
0.650
0.344
0.352
0.433
0.617
0.449
0.661
0.675
0.577
0.535
0.621
0.350
0.600
0.775
0.761
0.744
0.757
0.722
0.737
0.606
0.588
0.435
0.585
0.641
0.515
0.365
0.612
0.532
0.280
0.611
0.636
0.737
0.574
0.437
0.715
0.384
0.613
0.334
0.773
0.570
0.712
0.426
0.723
0.541
0.576
0.612
0.323
0.455
0.533
0.480
0.611
0.281
S
De ust
ve ain
lo a
p
meble
nt
De Hu
ve ma
l
o
n
p
me
nt
0.598
0.664
0.563
0.484
0.571
0.538
0.545
0.573
0.506
0.566
0.550
0.554
0.582
0.476
0.518
0.589
0.481
0.502
0.558
0.486
0.507
0.611
0.648
0.564
0.574
0.539
0.579
0.530
0.592
0.536
0.556
0.543
0.542
0.568
0.599
0.533
0.583
0.559
0.592
0.583
0.531
0.573
0.562
0.582
0.521
0.550
0.557
0.548
0.584
0.550
0.544
0.556
0.564
0.548
0.589
0.480
0.520
0.517
0.505
0.542
H
Riguma
ht n
s
0.735
0.483
0.455
0.384
0.497
0.525
0.664
0.742
0.579
0.483
0.434
0.345
0.675
0.497
0.525
0.651
0.468
0.493
0.533
0.417
0.104
0.760
0.935
0.609
0.695
0.656
0.701
0.388
0.390
0.474
0.535
0.399
0.463
0.677
0.652
0.505
0.634
0.370
0.696
0.818
0.667
0.486
0.530
0.541
0.468
0.581
0.715
0.418
0.708
0.500
0.563
0.587
0.562
0.617
0.625
0.129
0.669
0.530
0.605
0.477
Nigeria
Norway
New Zealand
Oman
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Netherlands
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
DRC
Dominican Republic
Czech Republic
Romania
United Kingdom
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Lucia
São Tomé and Príncipe
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
Sudan
Sri Lanka
St Vincent and the Grenadines
Sweden
Switzerland
Surinam
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Chad
Thailand
East Timor
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Turkey
Ukraine
Uruguay
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Averages
WG
I
0.758
0.609
0.566
0.438
0.584
0.616
0.679
0.678
0.594
0.532
0.514
0.506
0.648
0.522
0.594
0.703
0.575
0.525
0.596
0.425
0.472
0.788
0.830
0.671
0.699
0.662
0.752
0.585
0.593
0.535
0.607
0.617
0.568
0.607
0.685
0.543
0.542
0.558
0.714
0.778
0.646
0.560
0.641
0.585
0.592
0.561
0.736
0.582
0.720
0.551
0.641
0.619
0.627
0.643
0.578
0.413
0.650
0.554
0.616
0.508
0.464
0.828
0.891
0.537
0.456
0.410
0.365
0.524
0.358
0.465
0.812
0.539
0.439
0.645
0.717
0.665
0.319
0.474
0.655
0.582
0.804
0.448
0.522
0.642
0.394
0.540
0.553
0.569
0.419
0.755
0.639
0.656
0.224
0.337
0.443
0.769
0.864
0.810
0.404
0.433
0.399
0.448
0.458
0.314
0.520
0.352
0.416
0.440
0.477
0.545
0.376
0.595
0.514
0.725
0.345
0.420
0.392
0.466
0.366
0.528
0.544
0.666
0.595
0.496
0.566
0.540
0.524
0.590
0.582
0.615
0.604
0.618
0.577
0.565
0.585
0.556
0.555
0.557
0.592
0.564
0.584
0.575
0.569
0.552
0.538
0.539
0.563
0.625
0.516
0.592
0.614
0.595
0.421
0.501
0.570
0.583
0.664
0.645
0.473
0.552
0.544
0.550
0.554
0.574
0.563
0.526
0.547
0.521
0.534
0.560
0.536
0.557
0.562
0.599
0.520
0.549
0.535
0.521
0.551
0.558
0.407
0.806
0.782
0.600
0.387
0.593
0.467
0.745
0.480
0.625
0.813
0.651
0.638
0.683
0.677
0.641
0.234
0.716
0.712
0.639
0.753
0.541
0.351
0.686
0.572
0.436
0.618
0.570
0.305
0.738
0.676
0.728
0.272
0.297
0.628
0.536
0.800
0.827
0.668
0.383
0.547
0.578
0.366
0.302
0.626
0.524
0.372
0.665
0.694
0.654
0.464
0.586
0.538
0.671
0.687
0.613
0.466
0.378
0.151
0.577
WG
I
0.512
0.844
0.825
0.598
0.556
0.557
0.480
0.686
0.569
0.633
0.813
0.658
0.589
0.700
0.738
0.635
0.408
0.632
0.736
0.651
0.750
0.534
0.559
0.687
0.609
0.599
0.632
0.653
0.528
0.724
0.702
0.723
0.293
0.408
0.560
0.697
0.843
0.807
0.614
0.520
0.518
0.586
0.572
0.445
0.609
0.592
0.539
0.589
0.660
0.611
0.526
0.599
0.605
0.733
0.578
0.571
0.490
0.556
0.432
0.616
H
Riguma
ht n
s
S
De ust
ve ain
l
o
pmable
en
t
De Hu
ve ma
lo n
p
me
nt
0.368
0.936
0.883
0.400
0.577
0.375
0.340
0.651
0.532
0.600
0.877
0.638
0.497
0.651
0.767
0.369
0.325
0.574
0.757
0.569
0.716
0.431
0.509
0.671
0.597
0.583
0.650
0.583
0.516
0.577
0.642
0.666
0.130
0.340
0.444
0.742
0.937
0.798
0.619
0.409
0.284
0.459
0.592
0.301
0.529
0.694
0.476
0.419
0.741
0.392
0.347
0.460
0.523
0.720
0.542
0.390
0.272
0.515
0.384
0.557
Pe
Se ace
cu an
rit d
y
R
of ule
La
w
0.777
0.985
0.974
0.957
0.793
0.866
0.704
0.919
0.893
0.859
0.958
0.846
0.793
0.957
0.946
0.945
0.607
0.838
0.962
0.899
0.896
0.675
0.847
0.885
0.944
0.898
0.774
0.917
0.884
0.959
0.938
0.971
0.419
0.566
0.713
0.855
0.951
0.954
0.909
0.822
0.816
0.897
0.891
0.732
0.809
0.866
0.882
0.902
0.856
0.905
0.907
0.795
0.886
0.949
0.798
0.882
0.787
0.902
0.710
0.859
World Governance Index
Recapitulation Table per Country for the Five WGI Indicators
17
World Governance Index
18
Patrick Cabin, The Queue, 2007 © ADAGP, Banque d’images, Paris 2011 World Governance Index
EU / OECD Figures
19
World Governance Index
Latin America / The Caribbean Figures
20
World Governance Index
Africa Figures
21
World Governance Index
Asia Pacific Figures
22
World Governance Index
CIS / Central Asia / Balkans Figures
23
World Governance Index
Arab States Figures
24
World Governance Index
Vassily Kandinsky, The Fat and the Thin © ADAGP/BPK, Berlin, Dist.RM N/ image BStGS
CONCLUSION
25
O
ne of the perverse effects of indicators is
that often their purpose is eclipsed by a final
ranking that for some can become obsessive,
whereas for others, it seems to have no value. The
point is not, once this survey is completed, to use the
results to hand out good or bad points. It is in fact
essential to look beyond the rankings shown in these
different tables. What is most important is to show
the state of world governance through the selected
survey criteria as well through the indicators, the subindicators, and indexes that constitute them.
This survey does not claim to be exhaustive. Our
choices led to selecting only five areas of survey and
to limiting their field of application to nation-states
as players. Nation-states constitute a legal framework
and a form of political and social organization inher-
ited from a history and culture sometimes thousands
of years old. It is hence in this capacity that they are
among the most important players in world governance, and it is for this reason that the result of the
present survey provides a good indication of the current state of world governance.
A number of other players will have to be taken into
consideration in the future. Identifying these players
is not a problem in itself: they are Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), NGOs and enterprises of
global dimension. A more delicate aspect will be to
determine what criteria to use. From the simple point
of view of nation-states, it is relatively easy to define
a number of general criteria common to all nationstates. Given their general and common character,
there is plenty of easily exploitable data.
World Governance Index
The challenge will be different when it comes to other players. In France, the recent and significant malfunctioning of a French NGO accused of trafficking
children early in 2008, amply conveyed by the media, has contributed to rekindling the debate on the
governance of non-state actors. It is therefore natural
to raise the question of governance within this fuzzy
mass of organizations.
In the same way that the five indicators of this survey
make it possible to assess the performance of nationstates in the area of governance, other indicators
should be able to make it possible to evaluate the
impact of IGOs, NGOs and enterprises of global dimension. Evaluating the “responsibility and accountability” of these players should not stop at theory. The
idea is to assess the way in which these players commit to factoring their beneficiaries’ needs into their
decisions, and the way in which they fulfill this commitment.
26
As long as we are not able to find the ways and the
means to implement general and enlightened participation of the beneficiaries of their actions, any answer to the world’s challenges is bound to fail.
The ultimate goal of the WGI is therefore part of a
long-term process. On the basis of the situation it describes and of its diagnosis, it must enable actors in
charge of governance to raise the right questions in
order to consider solutions. In the end, it is about giving body to a world governance that can address the
world’s challenges in the years to come.
The team that has worked on this WGI hopes to have
made a modest contribution to a better perception of
world governance. In its current version, the WGI is
certainly not perfect. All the same, it has the virtue
of existing. The remarks that it will call forth, the
questions that it will raise, the suggestions that it will
inspire are all obviously welcome.
COPYRIGHT APPENDIX
You are free:
to Share – to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
to Remix – to make derivative works
Under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but
not
in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
Si Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting
work only under the same or similar license to this one.
• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
• Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
• Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.
This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code. See the full license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/legalcode.
World Governance Index
WGI
World Governance Index
After the 1648 Westphalian revolution that placed the modern
state at the heart of international relations and planted the first
seeds of international law, contemporary times have witnessed
the emergence of a form of world governance that transcends the
state and is putting other players on stage: NGOs, corporations,
and civil society. It has now become vital, no longer to secure balance of power by reaching a compromise among different national
interests, but to manage the planet collectively, including in its
environmental dimension.
Prop osal Pa per s Series
28
This evolution, both rapid and chaotic—a passing of the baton,
as it were, from yesterday’s conventional international relations to
tomorrow’s world governance—is complicated to perceive and to
grasp. The World Governance Index (WGI) constitutes a first attempt to measure these transformations. It is intended first to offer
a clearer view of the changes taking place, but it is also designed
as a reliable tool to help define the better course for tomorrow and
to provide a greater understanding of what “world governance”
is. Like any index, the WGI is not perfect given that it relies on
available data, most of which is provided by states. Nonetheless,
the WGI and its various constituent indicators open an interesting
window on the new world that is coming into view in a thick fog
of uncertainty.
The World Governance Index was designed and developed by a
Forum for a new World Governance research team directed by
Renaud François and advised by Gustavo Marin and Arnaud Blin.
www.world-governance.org
This Proposals Paper is published with the support of the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation