Global Governance Indices as Policy Instruments: Actionability, Transparency and Comparative Policy Analysis

Abstract

Global country rankings have faced criticism for their normative character and methodology. Because of this, there have been attempts at creating so-called actionable governance indicators that provide more detailed and reform-oriented measurements of governance. This article analyzes the policy process behind the rise of actionable governance indicators and related changes in the production and use of indicators. It argues that the evolution of measurements can be understood as a process of field structuration, where various actors are entering the field of global governance assessments with rival indicator sets. But as the new actors tend to reproduce ideas and practices that already exist in the field, there are rather limited methodological improvements in the indices. However, the new actionable indicators are likely to become more influential policy instruments than rankings. This can be seen as an unintended outcome of the critique of ranking that has sparked the development of actionability. Measurements of transparency are used for analyzing the changes in the field of global governance indicators.

Keywords:

• governance indicators
• policy instruments
• ranking
• actionability
• transparency
• comparative policy analysis
• qualitative content analysis

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. Max Eklund helped with the collection of data. Caroline Werner and Mark Waller helped with editing and proofing the manuscript.

Notes

1. The indicators analyzed for this study were selected using two criteria. First, the indicators had to have global country coverage. Second, the indicators had to concern (good) governance and transparency.

2. In January 2012, I interviewed six experts in Washington, DC, representing the World Bank, World Bank Institute and Millennium Challenge Corporation.

3. Bagashka has defined state capture as formulation of new laws and regulations for private interest, whereas corruption is understood as implementation of existing rules for personal gain (Bagashka 2014).

4. The WGI do not provide a single ranking but instead only results for six aggregate indicators.

Additional information

Funding

I would like to thank the Academy of Finland for research funding [grant number 268181].

Notes on contributors

Tero Erkkilä

Tero Erkkilä is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Helsinki. His research interests include knowledge governance, public institutions and collective identities.