Advertisement

Measuring the Opposite of Corruption: The Evolution of Governance Indicators at Global Integrity

  • Hazel Feigenblatt
  • Johannes Tonn
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explains why Global Integrity, an independent non-profit organisation best known for its Global Integrity Report, started working on indicator-based integrity assessments, how its approach and methodology have evolved over the last decade and the linkages to broader developments in the field of governance measurement. In addition, the chapter lays out the reasons why Global Integrity has revised its organisational strategy and the resulting implications for on-going and future data projects. The authors—the former and current directors of research at Global Integrity—walk readers through three main stages in this evolution. The first stage involves Global Integrity’s origins and the gap that the Global Integrity Report came to fill in the governance measurement field in the 2000s. In the second stage, Global Integrity iteratively enhanced its methodology and refocused its aim, effectively shifting from a traditional expert assessment to a “fact-based expert analysis”, and expanded into new regional and sector assessments. In the third stage, Global Integrity’s growing concerns about the overall impact of its data resulted in the organisation re-evaluating its theory of change and revising some of its core assumptions about how governance reform happens and how measurements can contribute. This has resulted in an effort to better understand and support the use and usefulness of data at the country level and to rethink the role that external “best-practice” benchmarks play vis-à-vis locally defined “best-fit” benchmarks, re-orienting the organisation towards exploring how adaptive learning can contribute to supporting domestic stakeholders in driving governance reform.

Keywords

Adaptive learning Africa Integrity Indicators Anti-corruption Expert assessment Global Integrity Report Governance data Implementation gap 

References

  1. Andrews, M., Hay, R., & Myers, J. (2010). Governance Indicators Can Make Sense: Under-Five Mortality Rates are an Example (Harvard Kennedy School. Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP 10-015). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=541
  2. Arndt, C., & Oman, C. (2006). Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved from http://www.la.utexas.edu/users/chenry/polec/2006/oecd/AE795835C8392A8111572211048C64BBAF3DA2573E.pdf
  3. Camerer, M. I. (2006). Measuring Public Integrity. Journal of Democracy, 17(1), 152–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooley, A. (2015). The Emerging Politics of International Rankings and Ratings: A Framework for Analysis. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance (pp. 1–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Custer, S., Takaaki, M., Sethi, T., Latourell, R., Rice, Z., & Parks, B. (2016). Governance Data: Who Uses It and Why? Governance Data Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.r4d.org/govdatareport
  6. Global Integrity. (2011). The Global Integrity Report: 2011 Methodology White Paper. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2011_GIR_Meth_Whitepaper.pdf
  7. Global Integrity. (2006–2013). Global Integrity Report. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.globalintegrity.org/research/reports/global-integrity-report/
  8. Global Integrity. (2015a). Money, Politics, and Transparency. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from https://data.moneypoliticstransparency.org/
  9. Global Integrity. (2015b). Learning to Open Governance. Strategy Document. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GlobalIntegrityLearningtoopengovernanceStrategy.pdf
  10. Global Integrity. (2015c). Sub-national and Sector Datasets. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.globalintegrity.org/downloads/
  11. Global Integrity. (2016a). Learning by Doing: Our Action Plan for Open Governance. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Global-Integrity-Learning-Plan-6th-September-2016.pdf
  12. Global Integrity. (2016b). Africa Integrity Indicators. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://aii.globalintegrity.org/
  13. Global Integrity & Center for Public Integrity. (2015a). How Does Your State Rank for Integrity? Washington, DC: Global Integrity, Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18822/how-does-your-state-rank-integrity
  14. Global Integrity & Center for Public Integrity. (2015b). State Integrity Investigation. Washington, DC: Global Integrity, Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from https://www.publicintegrity.org/accountability/state-integrity-investigation/state-integrity-2015
  15. Global Integrity & United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2008). A User’s Guide to Measuring Corruption. Oslo: UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/anti-corruption/a-users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html
  16. Gray, J., Lämmerhirt, D., & Bounegru, L. (2016). Changing What Counts. How Can Citizen-Generated Data and Civil Society Data be Used as an Advocacy Tool to Change Official Data Collection? DataShift and Open Knowledge. Retrieved from http://civicus.org/thedatashift/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/changing-what-counts-2.pdf
  17. Heller, N. (2011a). Why We Killed the Global Integrity Index. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/2011/05/post-792/
  18. Heller, N. (2011b). Outputs Versus Outcomes in Open Government. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/2011/09/outputs-and-outcomes-opengov/
  19. Hudson, A. (2014). Measuring Governance: What’s the Point? Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/2014/06/measuring-governance-whats-the-point/
  20. Hudson, A. (2015). The Marketplace of Ideas: From “External Assessments” to Country-Level Learning. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/2015/05/the-marketplace-of-ideas-from-external-assessments-to-country-level-learning/
  21. Kelly, J., & Simmons, B. (2015). Politics by Numbers: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kleinfeld, R. (2015). Improving Development Aid Design and Evaluation. Plan for Sailboats Not Trains. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/03/02/improving-development-aid-design-and-evaluation-plan-for-sailboats-not-trains-pub-59159
  23. MacGinty, R., & Firchow, P. (n.d.). Everyday Peace Indicators: Capturing Local Voices Through Surveys. Shared Space: A Research Journal on Peace, Conflict and Community Relations in Northern Ireland, 18, 33–39. Retrieved from http://www.community-relations.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Everyday-Peace-Indicators-Capturing-local-voices-through-surveys.pdf
  24. Malito, D. V. (2014). Measuring Corruption Indicators and Indices (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper 2014/13). Florence: European University Institute. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2393335
  25. Nadgrodkiewicz, A., Nakagaki, M., & Tomicic, M. (2012). Improving Public Governance: Closing the Implementation Gap Between Law and Practice. Washington, DC: Center for International Private Enterprise and Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.cipe.org/publications/detail/improving-public-governance-closing-implementation-gap-between-law-and-practice
  26. Reboot. (2015). Using Data to Influence Government Decisions. Opportunities and Challenges for User-Centered Design to Improve Governance Data Impact. New York: Reboot. Retrieved from http://reboot.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Reboot_Using-Data-to-Influence-Government-Decisions_2015.pdf
  27. Social Observatory. (2013). Participatory Tracking Data Collection. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/video/2013/12/29/the-social-observatory-participatory-tracking
  28. Tonn, J. (2016). Toward Governance Assessments 2.0. Washington, DC: Global Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.globalintegrity.org/2016/03/toward-governance-assessments-2-0/
  29. US Agency of International Development (USAID) & Family Health International 360 (FHI 360). (2015). Guide to the Good Governance Barometer. Washington, DC: USAID & FHI 360. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KJMP.pdf
  30. Valters, C. (2015). Theories of Change: Time for a Radical Approach for Learning in Development. London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9835.pdf
  31. World Bank. (2016a). Draft World Development Report 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017
  32. World Bank. (2016b). Actionable Governance Indicators and AGI Data Portal. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://www.agidata.org/site/ and http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/actionable-governance-indicators

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hazel Feigenblatt
    • 1
  • Johannes Tonn
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MarylandWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Global IntegrityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations