Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Can Governance Indicators Make Sense? Towards a New Approach to Sector-Specific Measures of Governance

Can Governance Indicators Make Sense? Towards a New Approach to Sector-Specific Measures of... Governance indicators have come under fire in recent years, especially the World Governance Indicators. Critics present these indicators as atheoretical and biased. Critics of the critics counter that no better alternatives exist. The authors suggest otherwise, arguing that more appropriate “governance” indicators will: have theoretical grounding; focus on specific fields of engagement; emphasize outcomes; and control for key contextual differences in comparing countries. Such constructs can help indicate where countries seem to have governance problems, allowing second-stage analyses of where and what these problems are; they do not directly point to the presence or nature of problems or provide a measure of the governance concept. Under-5 mortality rates adjusted for country income groups are shown as an example of such a measure, and data presented for contextually compared outcomes in this specific field to show where governance seems better and worse. The USA is shown up as relatively weak, whereas a country such as Pakistan seems to have better governance in this sector than other low-income countries. The indicator has its weaknesses and is partly presented as an illustrative example of a new approach, but also allows questions about why governance of this sector might be problematic in certain contexts and easier in others. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oxford Development Studies Taylor & Francis

Can Governance Indicators Make Sense? Towards a New Approach to Sector-Specific Measures of Governance

Oxford Development Studies , Volume 38 (4): 20 – Dec 1, 2010
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/can-governance-indicators-make-sense-towards-a-new-approach-to-sector-ucwH0gfSE8

References (39)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright International Development Centre, Oxford
ISSN
1469-9966
eISSN
1360-0818
DOI
10.1080/13600818.2010.524696
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Governance indicators have come under fire in recent years, especially the World Governance Indicators. Critics present these indicators as atheoretical and biased. Critics of the critics counter that no better alternatives exist. The authors suggest otherwise, arguing that more appropriate “governance” indicators will: have theoretical grounding; focus on specific fields of engagement; emphasize outcomes; and control for key contextual differences in comparing countries. Such constructs can help indicate where countries seem to have governance problems, allowing second-stage analyses of where and what these problems are; they do not directly point to the presence or nature of problems or provide a measure of the governance concept. Under-5 mortality rates adjusted for country income groups are shown as an example of such a measure, and data presented for contextually compared outcomes in this specific field to show where governance seems better and worse. The USA is shown up as relatively weak, whereas a country such as Pakistan seems to have better governance in this sector than other low-income countries. The indicator has its weaknesses and is partly presented as an illustrative example of a new approach, but also allows questions about why governance of this sector might be problematic in certain contexts and easier in others.

Journal

Oxford Development StudiesTaylor & Francis

Published: Dec 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.