AidData Policy Report

In the Eye of the Beholder: When is governance data "good enough"?

Date Published

Dec 1, 2016

Authors

Takaaki Masaki, Tanya Sethi, Samantha Custer

Publisher

Citation

Takaaki Masaki, Tanya Sethi, and Samantha Custer. 2016. In the Eye of the Beholder: When is governance data “good enough”? Williamsburg, VA. AidData at the College of William & Mary and the Governance Data Alliance.

AidData Policy Report

In the Eye of the Beholder: When is governance data "good enough"?

Date Published

Dec 1, 2016

Authors

Takaaki Masaki, Tanya Sethi, Samantha Custer

Citation

Takaaki Masaki, Tanya Sethi, and Samantha Custer. 2016. In the Eye of the Beholder: When is governance data “good enough”? Williamsburg, VA. AidData at the College of William & Mary and the Governance Data Alliance.

This report presents new evidence from a 2016 Governance Data Alliance (GDA) Snap Poll of public, private, and civil society leaders in 126 low- and middle-income countries to answer four critical questions:

  • Delivery Channels: How do these leaders find or source governance data?
  • Use: How is governance data used and for what purpose(s)?
  • Influence: Which governance data do leaders find most useful – and why?
  • Barriers: What are the most prevalent obstacles to the use of governance data?

Over 500 leaders shared their firsthand experiences in advancing reforms in their countries and the role of governance data in that process. Snap poll participants evaluated 29 governance data sources produced by a wide variety of multilateral organizations, bilateral agencies, and civil society groups.

Based upon their responses, we present four key takeaways.
  1. Broad-based communications still have sway, though the delivery channels leaders use to find governance data varies by where they work
  2. Governance data is predominantly used to conduct research and analysis; however, specific use cases appear to be shaped by different organizational mandates
  3. Most survey participants found governance data to be salient and helpful in their work, but this data is reportedly most useful when it is also perceived to be relevant and credible
  4. Governance data that fails to take into account the local context is seen as irrelevant and lacks credibility when it is not transparent in methods and assumptions.

A-G

The Bertelsmann Stiftung's Transformation Index

The Center for Law and Democracy's Global Right to Information Rating

Freedom House's Freedom in the World Report

Freedom House's Freedom of the Press Index

Freedom House's Freedom on the Net Index

The Global Barometer Survey

Global Financial Integrity's Illicit Financial Flows Report

G-M

Global Integrity's Africa Integrity Indicators

The Global Integrity Report

The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom

The Ibrahim Index of African Governance

The IMF and the World Bank's Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes

The International Budget Partnership's Open Budget Index

The Millennium Challenge Corporation's Eligibility Criteria and Country Scorecards

N-U

The Natural Resource Governance Institute Resource Governance Index

The Open Government Partnership's IRM Progress Reports

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer

Transparency International's National Integrity System Assessment

The U.S. Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

U-Z

The U.S. Department of State's Trafficking in Persons Report

The World Bank's Citizen Engagement in Rulemaking

The World Bank's Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability

The World Bank Group's Doing Business Report

The World Justice Project's Open Government Index

The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index

The World Resource Institute's Environmental Democracy Index

The Worldwide Governance Indicators