16
NOVEMBER 2005
ANALYSIS: How to Measure Openness? Towards
an International Index
Government
transparency ranks as a fundamental human right and an essential
element in developing effective democratic governance. Nonetheless,
international freedom of information advocates face a daunting
challenge in quantifying and evaluating government openness
and access to information in different nations.
A
wide range of researchers have pioneered the development
of indexes for measuring and assessing openness around the
globe. Some of these efforts use surveys and polls to establish
the subjective perceptions of individuals, advocacy groups,
and officials about their own and other governments. Others
combine evaluations of experts, researchers, and journalists,
observing as outsiders the legal and practical realities
of each society. Several more economically-oriented approaches
examine aspects of regulation and corruption by looking
specifically at market and business-related factors. Still
others, including Sheila Coronel in The
Right to Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia,
rely on a set of objective criteria tested by approaching
directly the government being measured.
This
debate will be critical as civil society groups and democratic
advocates around the world move forward in appraising progress
and demanding reform on openness issues in their own countries
and in international institutions. By laying out some of
the options that are now available to tackle this important
problem, freedominfo.org hopes to begin a conversation
that can lead to productive contributions and an ultimate
consensus on quantifying the successes and failures of freedom
of information around the world.
World Bank
Over the past six years, a number of researchers at the
World
Bank Institute (WBI), the World Bank's research
arm, have evolved a model of aggregate governance indicators
to assess the quality of governance in a manner more precise
than the anecdotal evidence on which most policy-makers
ordinarily rely.
Daniel
Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Pablo Zoido-Lobaton "Governance
Matters" "Aggregating
Governance Indicators," companion paper (October
1999)
In
1999, Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobaton derived their
method of aggregate governance indicators in an attempt
to combine the numerous cross-country indices that were
then being used to measure different aspects of governance,
with the advantage of thereby being able "to quantify
the precision of the both individual sources of governance
data as well as the aggregate governance indicators."
Definition
of Governance: the
set of traditions and institutions by which authority
in a country is exercised, specifically:
The
process by which those in authority are selected and
replaced
1) VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
2) POLITICAL STABILITY AND ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE
The
capacity of government to formulate and implement
policies
3) GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS
4) REGULATORY QUALITY
The
respect of citizens and state for institutions that
govern interactions among them
5) RULE OF LAW
6) CONTROL OF CORRUPTION
In
analyzing the empirical data they collected, the authors
focused on the six aggregate indicators listed above,
representing basic principles of governance. Each of
the indicators used are subjective, measuring the perceptions
of individuals as to the quality of governance. This
data is derived from two different types of sources:
polls of experts, which represent country ratings from
commercial and other organizations; and surveys of citizens,
conducted by international organizations or other non-governmental
organizations.
The authors admitted the drawbacks of their model, in
particular that a broad range of different types of
sources and variation among the indicators generate
imperfect conclusions, as does the fact that certain
of the indicators only cover a particular sample of
countries--some larger, some smaller or more focused--and
that different units of measurement are used in each
source. They conclude that, despite their initial instincts
to the contrary, governance cannot be measured with
precision and the statistically significant differences,
particularly among the majority of countries that fall
in the center of the spectrum, make it difficult to
confidently distinguish the countries. Nonetheless,
aggregate governance indictors can be useful for translating
various data sources into a coherent framework, and,
although still imprecise, the aggregate indictors cover
a larger sample and are more reliable than any one indicator
alone. From their study, the authors conclude that governance
matters: they show "empirical evidence of a strong
causal relationship from governance to better development
outcomes."
Kaufmann
and Kraay, "Growth Without Governance" (2002) In
a subsequent study entitled "Growth Without Governance,"
Kaufmann and Kraay looked specifically at a feature
of corruption as it affected the governance indicator
data, predominantly in Latin America and other transition
economies: the phenomenon of state capture--which occurs
"[i]f the fruits of income growth largely accrue
to an elite that benefits from misgovernance, then any
possible positive impact of income growth on governance
could be offset by the effect of the elite's negative
influence." The implications lie in matters of
reform, and particularly in identifying and targeting
of country-specific needs which, in the case of states
where growth is inhibited by capture, require "much
more emphasis must be placed on promoting mechanisms
of external accountability, voice, participation, and
transparency.
Kaufmann
and Kraay, "Governance Matters III: New Indicators
for 1996-2002 and Addressing Methodological Challenges" Kaufmann
and Kraay updated their research in 2003 with "Governance
Matters III: New Indicators for 1996-2002 and Addressing
Methodological Challenges." The later reports greatly
increase the number of data sources as well as the number
of countries included in the study, including up to
199 countries for the 2002 data. By means of illustration,
the 2003 paper looks at the U.S. Government policy on
the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), which announced
rules for allocation of funds according to governance-based
factors, including the degree to which potential recipient
countries "govern justly," "invest in
people," and "promote economic freedom."
Kaufmann and Kraay in their conclusions caution against
attempting to group countries based on levels of governance
rather than viewing them in relation to one another,
because of the relative imprecision of the indicators.
In addition, the authors assess for the first time any
trends over time appearing in their aggregate data covering
1996-2002, and conclude that although "[i]nterpreting
these trends is difficult ... we can state with some
confidence that there is little if any evidence of improvements
in global governance over the period we consider."
Roumeen
Islam, Do More Transparent Governments Govern Better?(June
2003)
Islam sets out to delve deeper into how the availability
of economic information and the legal framework for access
to information affects the quality of governance in a
given state; she further examines how restrictions on
information--particularly limitations on media freedom--can
reduce the quality of governance. Building on scholarship
examining the way in which available economic data improves
the function of economic markets, Islam creates two new
mechanisms: a "Transparency Index" and an "Access
to Information Index." The Transparency Index looks
at 11 representative variables from real, fiscal, financial
and external sectors and evaluates each of 169 countries
in terms of the availability of economic data in comparison
to an ideal, or "desirable," frequency level.
She subsequently looks at an Access to Information Index,
based on the existence of a FOI law. It is unclear from
the methodology presented whether she considers any factors
beyond the existence of statutes, although she discusses
in her analysis the importance of subjective factors--including
implementation and FOI practice--in the question of who
governs. Islam concludes that both the transparency index
and the access to information index show a positive correlation
with the quality of governance (based on KKZ) and, therefore
that "there is a close relationship between better
information flows and how fast economies grow."
Center for Public Integrity
The
Center
for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, non-governmental
organization that sponsors and promotes investigative journalism
and reporting on public policy issues in the United States
and around the world. The Center receives funding from the
Open Society Institute (OSI), among other organizations
and individuals.
As
part of its Global
Integrity Project, launched in 2001, the
Center produces in-depth country reports, focused "on
the existence and effectiveness of mechanisms that prevent
abuse of power and promote public integrity, and on the
access that citizens have to their government." Reporting
for the country reports is conducted by in-country teams
of independent social scientists and investigative journalists
who observe both legal restrictions and practical realities
of access and transparency on the ground.
The
Center has also developed a quantitative assessment in
the form of the Public
Integrity Index. Countries are rated based
on six broad categories: Civil Society, Public Information
and Media; Electoral and Political Processes; Branches
of Government; Administration and Civil Service; Oversight
and Regulatory Mechanisms; and Anti-Corruption Mechanisms
and Rule of Law. These categories are further broken down
into 80 separate indicators and 238 subindicators, which
together seek to quantify the existence of public integrity
mechanisms, the effectiveness of these mechanisms, and
citizens' access to public information and ability to
hold their government accountable. (View the Indicators)
The question of access to information falls within the
first major category and includes two indicators: whether
citizens have a legal right of access to information,
and whether access to information functions effectively
in practice. Subindicators focus on the legal availability
of government records and the opportunity of appeal for
government denial of access.
Freedom
House
Freedom
House is the oldest nonprofit, non-governmental
organization dedicated to monitoring and promoting human
rights and democratic freedoms around the world. Founded
in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt and others, Freedom House has
been publishing its standard-setting comparative survey
on Freedom in the World since 1972. Freedom House has also
been conducting a global assessment of press freedom annually
since 1980.
Freedom
of the Press 2005
Freedom House's annual survey of media independence covers
transparency and, in particular, considers as part of
its methodology whether states have freedom of information
legislation and, if so, whether journalists are able to
use it to gather information from the government. The
data comes from overseas correspondents and traveling
staff, findings of several other human rights organizations,
geographic and geopolitical specialists, reports from
governments and multilateral bodies, and various domestic
and international news media.
The Freedom of the Press survey calculates numerical scores
for each country and, based on this score, designates
countries as either "Free," "Partly Free"
or "Not Free." The total score is given out
of 100 points, and includes 30 points for criteria related
the Legal Environment, 40 for the Political Environment,
and 30 for the Economic Environment; lower scores indicate
greater freedoms. Within the legal category, 2 points
may be awarded based on the question, "Is freedom
of information legislation in place and are journalists
able to make use of it?" Under the political criteria,
there is also the potential for 2 points to be given based
on the question, "Is access to official or unofficial
sources generally controlled?" In some of the individual
country reports presented, there is mention of the role
of access to information laws and practices with regard
to journalistic freedom.
Freedom
in the World 2005
Freedom House also publishes a survey of political rights
and civil liberties annually. Each country is given
a numerical rating and a freedom designation based on
two categories, political rights and civil liberties.
This survey does not attempt to rate governments or
government policy, but rather "the real-world rights
and freedoms enjoyed by individuals," and therefore
reflects more broadly the interaction between governments
and nongovernmental actors.
The
methodology of Freedom in the World is largely based
on established standards in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. A team of regional experts and scholars
evaluates a broad range of data from governmental sources,
non-governmental organizations, and the media. Within
the category of Political Rights, the survey checklist
covers Electoral Process, Political Pluralism and Participation,
and Functioning of Government (which includes the question,
"Is the government accountable to the electorate
between elections, and does it operate with openness
and transparency?"), and under the heading of Civil
Liberties the inquiry considers Freedom of Expression
and Belief, Associational and Organizational Rights,
Rule of Law, and Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
/ Kurtzman Group
Opacity
Index This
index measures countries' degree of opacity--"the
degree to which they lack clear, accurate, easily discernible
and widely accepted practices governing the relationships
among businesses, investors, and governments, which form
the basis of most small scale, high frequency risks."
The Opacity Index compares 48 countries based on 65 objective
variables and data from 41 different sources. The methodology
measures opacity based on five distinct components: business
and government corruption (costs from corruption, based
on Transparency International and other sources); ineffective
legal system (overall function of legal system, effectiveness
in resolving disputes and protecting businesses); economic
costs of doing business (including losses from bureaucratic
red tape, non-transparent taxation, and costs from organized
crime and terrorism); inadequate accounting and governance
practices (degree to which accounting and banking laws
in accordance with international standards); and harmful
regulatory structures (security of capital investments).
The final score is derived by rescaling all of the above
categories and taking the simple average of the five sub-indices;
separately, the scores for each individual sub-index can
show companies where the threats lie in each country and
whether they might be able to seek legal redress. The
writers of the Opacity Index conclude that, which few
exceptions, "higher levels of opacity strongly correlate
with slower growth and less foreign direct investment
in all markets." In fact, the analysis shows, for
every 1-point increase in a country's opacity based on
the Index, per capital increase falls by $986.
Transparency
International (TI) is a non-governmental organization
dedicated to combating corruption on a global scale. Internationally,
TI "raises awareness about the damaging effects of
corruption, advocates policy reform, works towards the implementation
of multilateral conventions and subsequently monitors compliance
by governments, corporations and banks." The TI network
also includes more than 85 national chapters around the
world that monitor institutions and advocate reforms within
countries.
In
the 2003 version of its annual Global
Corruption Report, Transparency International
focused its analysis on the right of access to information
as an integral part of the struggle against corruption.
The report includes regional assessments, data and research,
and shorter reports on different right to information
issues.
TI's
conclusions are based in part upon its Corruption
Perception Index (CPI), a composite index
first introduced in 1995 as a means to "captur[e]
the degrees of corruption perceived by international and
domestic business communities." The CPI draws on
a number of different surveys from institutions that poll
individuals and decision-makers about the extent to which
they believe public power is misused in their countries.
Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights
Annual
Report, 2003 (Office of the Special
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression)
Within
its Annual Report, the Office
of the Special Rapporteurincludes a "Report
on Access to Information in the Hemisphere." This
section outlines the IACHR's framework for the establishment
of access to information regimes that comply with the
requirements of the convention on access to information.
In addition, the report examines the status and success
of access to information laws and practice in the member
countries.
The
findings in this survey are based on official questionnaires
issued to each of the permanent missions of the OAS
member states, requesting information about constitutional
and legal provisions as well as implementation and actual
procedure relevant to access to information; the analysis
also includes some additional research by media organizations
and NGOs. In particular, the questionnaire asked about
constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, and pending
measures that protect or restrict the right to access
information; jurisprudence of tribunals allowing or
denying access to information; campaigns to educate
the public about the right to information; and systems
for submitting requests for public information. Although
the resulting report does not draw any subjective conclusions
about the standing of access to information rights in
the IAC countries, the objective data provides a valuable
guide for using official sources to evaluate information
freedoms.
Philippine
Center for Investigative Journalism/ Southeast Asian Press
Alliance
Access
to Information in Southeast Asia (Sheila Coronel,
ed.) Buy
the book
In the book Access to Information in Southeast Asia,
published in 2001, editor Sheila Coronel presents a survey
of eight countries in Southeast Asia that indexes and
compares the availability of public records in each country.
The survey looks at the freedom of information laws and
the accessibility of 45 different categories of public
records in each country, and on this basis ranks the countries
according to their openness. The appendices of the book
include a cross-country comparison of access to various
types of records, as well as country-by-country summaries
(for the eight Southeast Asian states) that include the
same categories, but also describe the agency or government
body that maintains each type of record and the availability
of such records from non-governmental sources.
The
categories of records assessed include:
1. Macroeconomic data (e.g. GNP, GDP, balance of payment,
current account deficits)
2. General social data (e.g. literacy rate, poverty
rate, infant mortality rate, employment rate)
3. Population census data
4. Environment data (e.g. forest cover, air/water quality,
coral reef destruction)
5. Copies of laws
6. Copies of government directives & circulars
7. National government budget (revenues and expenditures)
8. Local gov't budgets
9. Military expenditures
10. Gov't loans & contracts
11. Military loans & contracts
12. Official audit reports of gov't agencies
13. Records of congressional or parliamentary proceedings
14. Reports of official investigation on the conduct
of gov't officials
15. Police investigation reports
16. Military/police intelligence reports
17. Credit investigations
18. Court records
19. Resume of gov't officials
20. Bank records of gov't officials
21. Election contributions & expenditures
22. Registration of other forms of property of gov't
officials (aircraft, yachts, cars)
23. Financial disclosure reports that show assets and
liabilities of gov't officials
24. Corporate registration records
25. Financial statements of publicly listed companies
26. Financial statements of companies not listed on
the stock exchange
27. Corporate tax records
28. Business licenses & permits
29. Civil registry records (e.g. birth, marriage, divorce,
death records)
30. Gov't service records
31. Military personnel records
32. Academic records
33. Land registration records
34. Real estate tax records
35. Licenses & permits (license to own and carry
firearms)
36. Vehicle registration
37. Driver's license
38. Alien information (e.g. date of entry, manner of
arrival; addresses; occupation; age)
39. Voter registration records
40. Medical records
41. Income tax returns
42. Industry or professional listings/directories (e.g.
bar associations, chambers of commerce)
43. National ID records
44. Professional licensing record
45. Civil service exams and related information
