WGI World Governance Index Why Should World Governance Be Evaluated, and for What Purpose? Proposal Papers Series Papers Proposal

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

Table of Contents

Overview. 5

World Governance Index - WGI. 5

Usefulness and Uses of the WGI. 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

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

4 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

Overview

romoting, on a world scale, a legitimate, effective, and democratic governance, and forming a responsible, plural, and united community within P 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 ide- ological 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 5 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 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 mak- ers, 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, • to evaluate a state’s degree of governance “Rethinking Global Governance”, 2007, • to identify its governance strengths and weaknesses http://www.world- governance.org/spip. • to monitor its evolutions over time php?article15&lang=en 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 selec- tion 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 (opinion- poll 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 lim- its inherent to indicators. Like all indicators, the WGI informs, warns, and enables 7 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 re- 2/ Many other detailed tables are available at the gional rankings of the countries included in the survey, a ranking factoring in the FnWG Web site: changes that have occurred since the first 2008 version of the index. For practical www.world-governance.org reasons—availability and reliability of the data—it covers only 179 countries (of 3/ The categorization the 192 UN Member States). In the medium run, it should cover all the coun- used for the regional rankings is inspired tries. 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

Developing the World 9 Governance Index

he World Governance Index is an assessment social, economic, and cultural systems that character- tool aiming to offer a picture, both general and ize them. detailed, of the state of governance throughout T Not one country in the world has succeeded to this the world. The 2011 Report marks the outcome of day in showing a degree of total perfection where considerations following the first version, completed governance is concerned. Each is constantly facing in 2008 and updated in 2009. This new version, the challenge of establishing and renewing the struc- called version 2.0, has increased the number of in- tures, institutions, and standards that contribute to dexes to 41 (there were 37 in 2008). good governance and to its search for improvement. The number of countries surveyed, 179 in all, is iden- The WGI, as designed, reflects the efforts undertaken tical to that of version 1.0 and is warranted by an ob- by the different countries in their quest for better vious problem of availability and reliability of data. governance and to illustrate observed evolutions. Please note, however, that the WGI applies uniform- ly to all countries, whatever the different political, World Governance Index

Defining the World Governance These fundamental domains were originally writ- ten into the two texts considered as the basic texts Index of world governance: the Charter of the United Na- tions, signed on June 26, 1945, and the Universal Beyond the more-or-less complex definitions of what Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948. world governance might be, beyond the more-or-less To “save succeeding generations from the scourge of subjective takes the concept cuts through, we prefer war . . . and to reaffirm faith in the fundamental hu- to consider world governance as simply “the collec- man rights, in the dignity and the worth of the human tive management of the planet.” person, in the equal rights of men and women and This definition may be broad, which can becon- of nations at large, and to establish conditions under strued as a weakness, but it facilitates exploring all which justice and respect for the obligations arising the dimensions of what world governance could be. from treaties and other sources of international law This concept goes beyond the restrictive setting of can be maintained, and to promote social progress international relations, which, until recently, have and better standards in larger freedom”: these were, constituted the one and only prism through which in the wake of World War II, the guidelines for world governance was perceived on a global level. governance. After having reviewed the voluminous literature on Three years later, the Universal Declaration of Hu- world governance, the FnWG team became aware of man Rights was to reinforce the Charter and con- the numerous challenges that the WGI undertaking stitute, in the minds of the leaders from all over the involved. Evaluating world governance addresses a world who adopted it, the roadmap to ensuring every twofold need. The idea is first to understand. Every- person’s rights, in all places and at all times. body agrees that the world is in bad shape, and that We would have to wait until 1992 for the Earth Sum- this is because world governance is in bad shape. Be- mit, held in Rio de Janeiro, to jump start awareness of fore even defining a “treatment protocol,” it is there- the importance of the fundamental domains of world fore of the essence to know what the patient’s condi- governance. As discussions developed, as the idea of tion is exactly. interdependence in the global village took hold, the Indicators, or systems of indicators, in the sense that thinking expanded from considering only environ- their role is to inform, seem to be the tools best adapt- mental assets (air, water, and forests) to including the ed to get a clear picture of what world governance is whole of humankind’s common goods: health, edu- afflicted with and to understand what is happening. cation, and human rights. This was the appearance Second, such evaluation is also needed to enable ac- of global common goods, which Riccardo Petrella, tion. formerly Head of the European Commission’s FAST As a photograph at the service of world-governance program, was to define as: “the goods and services players and as a tool put at their disposal, the WGI that should be seen as essential to the security of liv- ing together at the global level.” 10 thus also has a twofold dimension: an analytical dimension—it must provide as true a reflection as pos- Taking into account the geopolitical upheavals ensu- sible of the state of world governance—and an opera- ing from the end of the Cold War, the Millennium tional dimension—it must enable players, whatever Declaration, in 2000, confirmed the thinking on glo- their level, to act or to react in the direction of a more bal governance and reinforced the view that the dif- efficient, more democratic world governance more in ferent domains were all linked with one another. The phase with the environment. On first impression, the goals ensuing from the Millennium Declaration con- first dimension seems relatively easy to measure, but stitute a blueprint for the advent of a world everyone the operational dimension seems more delicate to hopes will be better. quantify. 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 World-governance goals 6 to 8, 2000, acknowledged their “collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, and fields equality and equity at the global level” and set out to defend them. They restated their determination “to To get a precise picture of the goals of world govern- support all efforts [for the] resolution of disputes by ance, its situation, and its evolution, all of the funda- peaceful means and in conformity with the principles mental domains in which it is exercised need to be of justice and international law, . . . respect for hu- taken into account. man rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the World Governance Index equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex, Reducing inequalities language or religion and international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, so- Sustainable development cannot be achieved by cial, cultural or humanitarian character.” They com- reserving the natural resources of the planet for mitted openly to “ensure that globalization becomes a small minority that has the economic means to a positive force for all the world’s people . . .” This acquire them and the military means to hold onto would be possible “only through broad and sustained them. Reducing inequalities is therefore not only efforts to create a shared future, based upon our com- a moral duty or an act of compassion; it is also mon humanity in all its diversity.” a duty of justice and a condition for long-term peace. Finding ways to conciliate the freedom of The World Summit on Sustainable Development of all with respect of the dignity of all is the second Johannesburg in 2002 underscored the urgent need objective assigned to world governance. to take on the challenges of the twenty-first century in compliance with the fundamental principles of Establishing lasting peace while world governance, which were restated in the final declaration of the summit. Seeking the best road to respecting diversity follow for the principles of sustainable development to be respected and their implementation to lead to Ecological diversity and cultural diversity are not concrete results, state representatives confirmed dur- only unbending realities of the current world. ing the summit the considerable progress achieved in They constitute humankind’s major wealth. Peace the direction of a world consensus and the construc- requires the recognition of a common belonging, tion of a partnership among all the populations of the the search for a common good, and awareness of planet. Sustainable development became the com- unity, from grassroots communities to the entire mon goal of all humankind and everything was to be human family. put to work to achieve it. At every level of governance, both greater unity The different concepts developed in the texts and at and greater diversity must be achieved. It is the the above-mentioned conferences clearly reveal that ability to not oppose unity and diversity, but to the first goal of world governance is to define new consider them as the two sides of the same coin, relations among human beings, among societies, and that constitutes, from managing a district or a vil- between humankind and the biosphere. lage to managing the planet, the art of governance. This is the art that world governance needs Starting from this overall objective, the three main to practice at the global scale and help to practice goals that international institutions should adopt as at all other levels. guidelines are:

Establishing the conditions for These three objectives, as presented and stated here, sustainable development are perfectly articulated with the big traditional principles of world governance: peace, security, democ- 11 The first duty of governance is to preserve the racy, freedom, and equity. long term. The imbalances generated by the cur- We have thus selected, directly in keeping with these rent form of development between humankind major principles, the following domains, the detailed and the biosphere have put the lives of our chil- study of which, in the form of sub-indicators and com- dren and grandchildren at risk. posite indexes, make it possible to obtain the WGI: The first common objective is therefore to change • Peace and Security the current development models to make them • Rule of Law compatible with the limited resources of the bio- • Human Rights and Participation sphere in the long term. Material development must be subordinated to human development. • Sustainable Development The future of humankind cannot be guaranteed • Human Development unless concern for the complete development of human beings—spiritual, intellectual, social, ar- tistic, etc.—becomes the primary development criterion. World Governance Index

World Governance Index 2011 – version 2.0

For each of the Indicator Sub-indicator Index five above- Peace and National Security Conflicts mentioned Security selected fields, Refugees and Asylum seekers a detailed Displaced Persons study has been Public Security Political Climate conducted Degree of Trust among Citizens in order to determine the Violent Crime elements that Homicides per 100,000 inhabitants constitute Rule of Law Body of Laws Ratification of Treaties them (sub- Property Rights indicators) and the data Judicial System Independence (indexes) Effectiveness that make it Settlement of Contractual Disputes possible to produce a Corruption Corruption Perception index WGI. In all, Human Rights Civil and Political Respect of Civil Rights and Participation Rights the 2011 WGI Respect for Physical Integrity Rights – version 2.0 Freedom of the Press is made up of 5 indicators, 13 Violence against the Press sub-indicators Participation Participation in Political Life and 41 Electoral Process and Pluralism indexes. Political Culture Gender Women’s Political Rights Discrimination / Women’s Social Rights Inequality Women’s Economic Rights Rate of Representation in National Parliaments Sustainable Economic Sector GDP per capita Development 12 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 Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Dimension Environmental Sustainability

CO2 Emission Rate per capita Environmental Performance Human Development Human Development Development Well-being and Subjective Well-being Happiness Happiness Quality of Life World Governance Index

Methodology and Calculations pation, Sustainable Development, and Human De- velopment, which are the mathematical average of The World Governance Index is a composite index the sub-indicators composing them. Only the Peace aggregating nearly 8,500 data items taken from the and Security indicator was weighted. It is made up databases or the yearly reports of about thirty differ- for two-thirds of it by the National Security sub-in- ent organizations. dicator and for one-third of it by the Public Security sub-indicator. The approach used to calculate the WGI is similar to the one used by the UNDP to establish its Human As a final result, the World Governance Index is the Development Index (HDI). For each of the indexes mathematical average of the 5 indicators that con- and sub-indicators, all the collected raw data was res- stitute it. caled into a “closed” scale ranging from 0 to 1 (where In some very rare cases, absence of data for one or 0 represent the worst result and 1 the best possible several countries was compensated, as needed, by as- score). signing 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

he first of the three tables below presents the For each regional whole, we have also provided two WGI ranking for all countries in descending figures illustrating the results obtained by the highest- T order with for each country its rank in 2008. ranking country and the lowest-ranking country, re- The second table presents the ranking in descending spectively. Their results (red pentagon) can be easily order at the regional level. The last table sums up, per compared with the average world result (green pen- country in alphabetical order, the results obtained for tagon). every indicator constituting the WGI. Each figure is in the form of a pentagon. Each angle Other tables, world ranking and regional ranking in of the pentagon represents one of the five indicators descending order, for each of the indicators constitut- that constitute the WGI. To the right of the figure, ing the WGI, are available on the Web site of the the country’s WGI is indicated with a red pointer and Forum for a new World Governance. is also easily compared with the world’s average WGI (green pointer). World Governance Index 176 179 160 163 148 178 142 161 164 150 143 154 165 162 174 141 175 156 173 172 155 159 169 177 166 151 167 153 171 2008 Rank 0.408 0.293 0.526 0.509 0.508 0.425 0.525 0.424 0.522 0.520 0.518 0.514 0.512 0.496 0.413 0.490 0.408 0.486 0.433 0.432 0.616 0.506 0.480 0.467 0.438 0.505 0.472 0.447 0.503 0.445 DRC Somalia Turkmenistan Ivory Coast Niger Iraq India Afghanistan Haiti Swaziland Syria Guinea Bissau Nigeria Burundi Pakistan Myanmar Yemen Sudan Ethiopia North Korea Zimbabwe AVERAGE Angola Iran Erythrea Cameroon Chad Equatorial Guinea Central Africa Rep. Bank West / Gaza 2011 Ranking and WGI 178 179 151 158 159 174 152 160 175 153 154 155 156 157 163 166 176 164 177 165 168 172 173 161 167 169 162 170 171 135 139 133 138 101 147 130 125 152 144 127 166 129 115 120 170 134 158 126 149 146 145 168 140 137 118 122 132 109 128 2008 Rank 0.534 0.532 0.569 0.561 0.560 0.539 0.568 0.560 0.536 0.566 0.566 0.562 0.561 0.561 0.557 0.556 0.536 0.528 0.557 0.535 0.556 0.554 0.542 0.541 0.559 0.555 0.551 0.558 0.549 0.543 Guinea New Russia Guinea Madagascar Togo Laos Sri Lanka Djibouti Burkina Faso Gambia Cambodia Benin Mali Egypt Uganda Congo Sierra Leone Uzbekistan Kenya Zambia Saudi Arabia Papua Nepal Liberia Bangladesh Rwanda Comoros Mauritania Libya China Lebanon 2011 Ranking and WGI 148 149 129 144 122 130 145 123 124 125 126 127 128 133 136 146 150 134 147 135 121 138 142 143 131 137 139 132 140 141 93 76 78 96 52 86 85 77 98 97 82 99 116 106 111 114 131 112 103 119 157 117 108 113 105 100 121 102 136 110 2008 Rank 0.575 0.572 0.594 0.578 0.600 0.594 0.578 0.599 0.599 0.598 0.596 0.595 0.595 0.592 0.589 0.578 0.571 0.592 0.576 0.589 0.605 0.586 0.583 0.582 0.594 0.587 0.585 0.593 0.585 0.584 Salomon Islands Tanzania Brunei Venezuela Bhutan Honduras Azerbaijan Senegal Turkey Oman Indonesia Cuba Algeria East Timor Philippines Mozambique Nam Viet Maldives Colombia Tonga Ukraine Tajikistan Armenia Morocco Guatemala Belarus Jordan Kazakhstan Malawi Georgia 99 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 91 2011 Ranking and WGI 119 114 100 115 103 106 116 120 104 117 105 118 108 112 113 101 107 109 102 110 111 79 81 53 57 80 92 87 73 58 55 66 88 72 90 84 83 61 65 94 67 56 95 91 75 89 70 64 104 124 107 2008 Rank 0.607 0.635 0.609 0.648 0.633 0.609 0.648 0.646 0.643 0.641 0.641 0.638 0.632 0.620 0.609 0.606 0.628 0.609 0.627 0.607 0.649 0.617 0.614 0.611 0.632 0.619 0.617 0.632 0.616 0.616 Príncipe and Tomé Kirghizstan Qatar Fiji Guyana Paraguay Thailand Ecuador Macedonia Montenegro Mexico Malaysia Botswana Gabon Mongolia Lesotho El Salvador Kuwait Surinam Tunisia South Africa Dominican Rep. United Arab Emirates São Bosnia Herzegovina Bolivia Moldavia Bahrain Serbia Ghana Nicaragua 2011 Ranking and WGI 89 90 69 84 62 70 85 63 86 64 65 66 67 68 74 87 75 88 76 61 78 82 83 71 77 79 72 80 73 81 15 63 68 25 59 27 43 60 44 62 40 39 46 48 38 51 74 41 37 49 29 45 69 71 34 35 54 47 50 36 28 2008 Rank 0.651 0.650 0.697 0.660 0.720 0.692 0.658 0.714 0.658 0.714 0.703 0.702 0.700 0.699 0.685 0.653 0.679 0.653 0.678 0.720 0.674 0.662 0.662 0.687 0.678 0.671 0.686 0.671 0.686 0.668 Romania Namibia United States Argentina Peru Lithuania Bulgaria South Korea Hungary Slovakia Poland Italy Latvia Albania Greece Seychelles Cape Verde Mauritius St Vincent & Grenadines St Vincent and Tobago Trinidad Belize Brazil Jamaica Saint Lucia Grenada Israel Panama Croatia Dominica Cyprus 2011 Ranking and WGI 59 60 32 39 40 55 33 56 34 35 36 37 38 44 57 45 58 46 31 48 52 53 54 41 47 49 42 50 43 51 2 4 1 5 8 7 9 3 6 26 42 11 10 24 23 12 16 21 33 14 18 31 20 32 22 17 13 19 15 30 2008 Rank 0.723 0.723 0.843 0.806 0.801 0.733 0.832 0.733 0.830 0.826 0.825 0.813 0.807 0.778 0.731 0.758 0.724 0.758 0.844 0.750 0.736 0.736 0.733 0.801 0.752 0.750 0.796 0.749 0.788 0.738 Slovenia Estonia Sweden Australia Germany Chile Finland Bahamas Iceland Denmark New Zealand Netherlands Switzerland Luxemburg Barbados France Singapore Belgium Norway Malta Uruguay United Kingdom Czech Republic Austria Japan Spain Canada Costa Rica Ireland Portugal 2 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2011 Ranking and WGI 29 30 10 25 26 14 27 15 28 16 23 24 11 17 19 22 12 18 20 13 21 2011 WGI Global Ranking in Descending Order (with rank in 2008) (with rank in Descending Order Global Ranking WGI 2011 World Governance Index 0.671 0.619 0.653 0.607 0.646 0.606 0.643 0.605 0.632 0.593 0.587 0.586 0.584 0.583 0.578 0.557 0.534 0.526 0.601 Central Asia Balkans C is Central Average Croatia Moldavia Albania Kirghizstan Macedonia Bosnia Herzegovina Montenegro Ukraine Serbia Kazakhstan Belarus Tajikistan Georgia Armenia Azerbaijan Uzbekistan Russia Turkmenistan 0.635 0.598 0.620 0.595 0.617 0.585 0.617 0.582 0.611 0.561 0.558 0.557 0.543 0.536 0.518 0.490 0.438 0.425 0.293 0.408 0.539 Arab States Arab Average Qatar Oman United Arab Emirates Algeria Kuwait Jordan Bahrain Morocco Tunisia Saudi Arabia Libya Egypt Lebanon Djibouti Syria Yemen Gaza / West Bank Gaza / West Iraq Somalia Sudan 0.724 0.600 0.525 0.480 0.472 0.433 0.424 0.413 0.641 0.596 0.627 0.594 0.609 0.592 0.609 0.592 0.589 0.589 0.575 0.571 0.569 0.568 0.562 0.560 0.541 0.549 0.554 0.561 Asia Pacific Average Singapore Bhutan India Pakistan Iran North Korea Afghanistan Myanmar Malaysia Indonesia Mongolia Brunei Fiji East Timor Thailand Maldives Tonga Philippines Salomon Islands Viet Nam Viet Papua New Guinea Laos Cambodia Sri Lanka Bangladesh China Nepal 0.522 0.576 0.749 0.697 0.632 0.616 0.614 0.595 0.594 0.594 0.578 0.733 0.692 0.733 0.687 0.733 0.686 0.731 0.686 0.678 0.674 0.662 0.662 0.660 0.658 0.649 0.648 0.632 0.633 0.648 0.655

16 Latin America and the Caribbean Haiti Colombia Average Costa Rica St Vincent and the Grenadines the and Vincent St Dominican Republic Nicaragua Surinam Cuba Honduras Guatemala Venezuela Uruguay Argentina Chile Saint Lucia Bahamas Panama Barbados Dominica Grenada Belize Brazil Jamaica Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad Peru El Salvador Guyana Bolivia Paraguay Ecuador 0.599 0.641 0.651 0.658 0.668 0.671 0.679 0.685 0.699 0.700 0.702 0.844 0.723 0.723 0.720 0.714 0.714 0.703 0.843 0.813 0.832 0.807 0.830 0.806 0.826 0.801 0.825 0.801 0.796 0.788 0.778 0.758 0.758 0.752 0.750 0.736 0.736 0.738 0.750 0.744 E u oecd Turkey Mexico Romania Bulgaria Cyprus Israel Greece Latvia Italy Poland Slovakia Average Norway Slovenia Estonia United States Lithuania South Korea Hungary Sweden Netherlands Finland Switzerland Iceland Australia Denmark Germany New Zealand Austria Canada Ireland Luxemburg France Belgium Japan United Kingdom Czech Republic Malta Portugal Spain 0.486 0.496 0.503 0.505 0.506 0.508 0.509 0.512 0.514 0.520 0.528 0.532 0.467 0.447 0.445 0.432 0.408 0.720 0.555 0.551 0.542 0.539 0.536 0.535 0.678 0.616 0.653 0.609 0.650 0.609 0.638 0.607 0.628 0.599 0.585 0.578 0.572 0.566 0.566 0.561 0.561 0.556 0.556 0.559 0.560 0.551 Africa WGI Regional Rankings Regional WGI Ethiopia Burundi Cameroon Angola Equatorial Guinea Niger Ivory Coast Nigeria Guinea Bissau Swaziland Sierra Leone Guinea Central Africa Republic Erythrea Chad Zimbabwe DRC Average Mauritius Comoros Mauritania Liberia Togo Congo Kenya Cape Verde Ghana Seychelles and Príncipe São Tomé Namibia Gabon South Africa Lesotho Botswana Senegal Malawi Mozambique Tanzania Burkina Faso Gambia Benin Mali Zambia Uganda Rwanda Madagascar World Governance Index

Recapitulation Table per Country for the Five WGI Indicators WGI

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 0.697 0.843 0.807 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 0.556 0.432 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 0.599 0.605 0.733 0.578 0.571 0.490 0.616

Development Human Human

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 0.536 0.800 0.827 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 0.378 0.151 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 0.586 0.538 0.671 0.687 0.613 0.466 0.577

Development Sustainable Sustainable

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 0.583 0.664 0.645 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 0.521 0.551 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 0.557 0.562 0.599 0.520 0.549 0.535 0.558

Rights Human Human

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 0.742 0.937 0.798 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 0.515 0.384 0.569 0.340 0.460 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 0.444 0.523 0.720 0.542 0.390 0.272 0.557

of Law of Rule Rule

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 0.769 0.864 0.810 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 0.466 0.366 0.582 0.337 0.595 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 0.443 0.514 0.725 0.345 0.420 0.392 0.528

Security Peace and and Peace 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 0.855 0.951 0.954 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 0.902 0.710 0.899 0.566 0.795 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 0.713 0.886 0.949 0.798 0.882 0.787 0.859

St Vincent and the Grenadines St Vincent Surinam Swaziland Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Chad Thailand East Timor Togo Tonga and Tobago Trinidad Tunisia Turkmenistan Sweden Switzerland Nigeria Norway New Zealand Oman Uganda Uzbekistan Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Netherlands Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar DRC Dominican Republic Czech Republic Zambia Zimbabwe Averages Romania Sudan Turkey United Kingdom Russia Rwanda Saint Lucia and Príncipe São Tomé Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia Sri Lanka Ukraine Uruguay Venezuela Nam Viet Yemen WGI

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 0.542 0.558 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 0.554 0.616 0.508 0.425 0.607 0.619 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 0.685 0.543 0.627 0.643 0.578 0.413 0.650

Development Human Human

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 0.280 0.611 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 0.480 0.611 0.281 0.350 0.365 0.541 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 0.612 0.532 0.576 0.612 0.323 0.455 0.533

Development Sustainable Sustainable

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 0.583 0.559 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 0.517 0.505 0.542 0.486 0.568 0.556 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 0.599 0.533 0.564 0.548 0.589 0.480 0.520

Rights Human Human

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 0.634 0.370 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 0.530 0.605 0.477 0.417 0.677 0.587 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 0.652 0.505 0.562 0.617 0.625 0.129 0.669

of Law of Rule Rule

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 0.359 0.357 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 0.438 0.495 0.419 0.327 0.564 0.539 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 0.637 0.410 0.536 0.522 0.449 0.297 0.618

Security Peace and and Peace 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 0.852 0.892 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 0.804 0.863 0.820 0.545 0.864 0.873 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 0.927 0.736 0.895 0.913 0.903 0.704 0.912

Lithuania Luxemburg Macedonia Madagascar Malaysia Malawi Maldives Mali Malta Morocco Mauritius Mauritania Mexico Liberia Libya France Gabon Gambia Bank Gaza / West Georgia Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea Bissau Equatorial Guinea Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Salomon Islands India Indonesia Nepal Nicaragua Niger Iraq Lesotho Moldavia Iran Ireland Iceland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kirghizstan Kuwait Laos Latvia Lebanon Mongolia Montenegro Mozambique Myanmar Namibia WGI

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 0.668 0.576 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 0.486 0.609 0.832 0.561 0.467 0.620 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 0.733 0.549 0.648 0.447 0.750 0.723 0.720

Development Human Human

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 0.726 0.725 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 0.328 0.647 0.797 0.402 0.308 0.665 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 0.715 0.644 0.657 0.378 0.761 0.619 0.762

Development Sustainable Sustainable

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 0.550 0.597 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 0.579 0.563 0.641 0.536 0.589 0.498 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 0.583 0.529 0.573 0.497 0.569 0.589 0.483

Rights Human Human

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 0.671 0.477 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 0.348 0.421 0.891 0.547 0.388 0.459 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 0.665 0.287 0.643 0.278 0.800 0.741 0.769

of Law of Rule Rule

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 0.714 0.479 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 0.505 0.866 0.409 0.351 0.540 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 0.803 0.492 0.489 0.306 0.741 0.741 0.729 0.409

Security Peace and and Peace 0.850 0.801 0.939 0.913 0.828 0.916 0.880 0.957 0.916 0.867 0.840 0.831 0.680 0.600 0.876 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 0.911 0.965 0.913 0.699 0.940 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 0.897 0.791 0.878 0.778 0.878 0.924 0.856 0.765 Congo North Korea South Korea Costa Rica Ivory Coast Croatia Cuba Denmark Djibouti Dominica Egypt El Salvador Cyprus Colombia Comoros Afghanistan Central Africa Republic United Arab Emirates South Africa Albania Algeria Germany Angola Saudi Arabia Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Fiji Finland Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Chile China Ecuador Erythrea Spain Estonia United States Ethiopia 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

CONCLUSION 25

ne of the perverse effects of indicators is ited from a history and culture sometimes thousands that often their purpose is eclipsed by a final of years old. It is hence in this capacity that they are O ranking that for some can become obsessive, among the most important players in world govern- whereas for others, it seems to have no value. The ance, and it is for this reason that the result of the point is not, once this survey is completed, to use the present survey provides a good indication of the cur- results to hand out good or bad points. It is in fact rent state of world governance. essential to look beyond the rankings shown in these A number of other players will have to be taken into different tables. What is most important is to show consideration in the future. Identifying these players the state of world governance through the selected is not a problem in itself: they are Intergovernmen- survey criteria as well through the indicators, the sub- tal Organizations (IGOs), NGOs and enterprises of indicators, and indexes that constitute them. global dimension. A more delicate aspect will be to This survey does not claim to be exhaustive. Our determine what criteria to use. From the simple point choices led to selecting only five areas of survey and of view of nation-states, it is relatively easy to define to limiting their field of application to nation-states a number of general criteria common to all nation- as players. Nation-states constitute a legal framework states. Given their general and common character, and a form of political and social organization inher- there is plenty of easily exploitable data. World Governance Index

The challenge will be different when it comes to oth- As long as we are not able to find the ways and the er players. In France, the recent and significant mal- means to implement general and enlightened partici- functioning of a French NGO accused of trafficking pation of the beneficiaries of their actions, any an- children early in 2008, amply conveyed by the me- swer to the world’s challenges is bound to fail. dia, has contributed to rekindling the debate on the The ultimate goal of the WGI is therefore part of a governance of non-state actors. It is therefore natural long-term process. On the basis of the situation it de- to raise the question of governance within this fuzzy scribes and of its diagnosis, it must enable actors in mass of organizations. charge of governance to raise the right questions in In the same way that the five indicators of this survey order to consider solutions. In the end, it is about giv- make it possible to assess the performance of nation- ing body to a world governance that can address the states in the area of governance, other indicators world’s challenges in the years to come. should be able to make it possible to evaluate the The team that has worked on this WGI hopes to have impact of IGOs, NGOs and enterprises of global di- made a modest contribution to a better perception of mension. Evaluating the “responsibility and account- world governance. In its current version, the WGI is ability” of these players should not stop at theory. The certainly not perfect. All the same, it has the virtue idea is to assess the way in which these players com- of existing. The remarks that it will call forth, the mit to factoring their beneficiaries’ needs into their questions that it will raise, the suggestions that it will decisions, and the way in which they fulfill this com- inspire are all obviously welcome. mitment.

26 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 bal- ance of power by reaching a compromise among different national interests, but to manage the planet collectively, including in its environmental dimension. 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 at- tempt 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. 28 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 Proposal Papers Series Papers Proposal This Proposals Paper is published with the support of the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation