Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009 -  - ebook

Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009 ebook

0,0

Opis

Despite the limiting effects of growing interdependencies in a globalized world, national governments still have a considerably broad scope of action when it comes to ensuring sustainable policy outcomes. The key question is, however, to what extent governments can identify, formulate and implement effective reforms that render a society well-equipped to meet future challenges. The goal of the "Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009" (SGI) project is to answer this question for all 30 member states of the OECD. The composite indicators used to systematically measure the need for reform and the capacity for reform in these countries will be updated biennially. The vast set of quantitative and qualitative data collected and analyzed by a network of more than 100 renowned international experts provides an unprecedented opportunity for cross-national comparative studies. This publication of the inaugural edition of the SGI includes essays on the key findings, methodology and on issues related to reform, such as the state of social justice in the OECD. "I am sure that the new approach taken by the SGI will foster public debate on good governance and encourage governments to further engage in peer-review mechanisms and evidence-based policymaking. Thus, the SGI is a very useful instrument for nourishing public debate and might contribute to generating societal support for change." (Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General)

Ebooka przeczytasz w aplikacjach Legimi na:

Androidzie
iOS
czytnikach certyfikowanych
przez Legimi
Windows
10
Windows
Phone

Liczba stron: 322

Odsłuch ebooka (TTS) dostepny w abonamencie „ebooki+audiobooki bez limitu” w aplikacjach Legimi na:

Androidzie
iOS
Oceny
0,0
0
0
0
0
0



Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
© 2010 E-Book-Ausgabe (EPUB) © 2009 Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh
Responsible: Dr. Stefan Empter, Dr. Leonard NovyEditorial team: Andrea Kuhn, Dr. Leonard Novy, Daniel Schraad-Tischler,Tom UlbrichtTranslation: Barbara Serfozo, BerlinCopy editor: Josh Ward, BerlinProduction editor: Christiane RaffelCover design: Nadine HumannCover illustration: Andreas Recek, ardesign, BielefeldTypesetting and Printing: Hans Kock Buch- und Offsetdruck GmbH, Bielefeld
ISBN : 978-3-86793-256-1
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.org/publications

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/verlag

Inhaltsverzeichnis
Titel
Impressum
Preface
Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009- Introduction
The unique challenge of measuring reform
Policy performance and executive capacity in the OECD
The infrastructure of an international project
Sustainable Governance in the OECD- An Overview of Findings
A look at what’s behind the figures
The need for reform and reform capacity
Status Index: The need for reform in 30 OECD countries
Management Index: Reform capacity in the 30 OECD countries
Needs and capacities to reform: How sustainable are the OECD states?
References
Designing Sustainable Governance Indicators- Assessment Criteria and Methodology
Introduction
Concepts, questions and indicators
Measurement
Weighting and aggregation
Acknowledgement
References
Appendix
The Sustainable Governance Indicators in Cross-national Comparison
Introduction
Criteria for the assessment of reform indices
Description of the reform indices
A comparison of the individual indices
Concluding assessment of the SGI
References
Does Executive Governance Matter? Executives and Policy Performance
Introduction
System status and steering: a preliminary appraisal
Democratic models, patterns of government and performance
Executive capacity and performance in detail
Executive capacity in high-performing states
Conclusion
References
Measuring Social Justice and Sustainable Governance in the OECD
Introduction
The normative question: What conceptions of social justice do theories of ...
The methodological question: Dimensions and indicators of justice
The empirical question: How just are the societies of the OECD states?
The relational question: Correlations and Regression Analysis
References
Appendix
The Authors
The SGI Board
Regional Coordinators and Affiliated Board Members
The Country Experts
Acronyms
Preface
Globalization is testing our collective talent and our ability to work together. It demands better policies and better multilateral cooperation. The recent financial crisis has made joint efforts for better governance ever more pressing.
In order to respond effectively and strategically to global challenges such as the functioning of financial markets, growing social inequalities, demographic change and resource scarcity, national governments must continuously adapt and improve their strategic steering capabilities.
I welcome this new undertaking of the Bertelsmann Stiftung, which will facilitate a comparison of the sustainability of democracies and market economies as well as governmental management activities. We expect that the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) developed for these market economies, together with future work, can help OECD member countries diagnose their capacities in these areas and succeed with their structural reforms.
I am sure that the new approach taken by the SGI will foster public debate on good governance and encourage governments to further engage in peer-review mechanisms and evidence-based policy-making. Thus, by addressing the diverse audience of policy makers, public service practitioners and academic researchers worldwide, the SGI is a very useful instrument for nourishing public debate and might contribute to generating societal support for change.
The OECD is involved in projects on modern, democratic and sustainable governance, such as the ongoing work on regulatory reform, the forthcoming “Governance at a Glance” publication and the project on “Making Reform Happen,” a multidisciplinary and cross-national analysis of successes and failures in structural reforms.
In view of our shared commitment to the crucial objectives of promoting economic growth and social progress, we look forward to deepening the partnership and fruitful collaboration between the OECD and the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Only by working and thinking together we can facilitate a better-that is, a more fair, balanced and inclusive-globalization process.
Angel Gurría OECD Secretary-General
Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009- Introduction
Change is a permanent feature of market-based democracies. As societal, economic and cultural frameworks change, so too do government policies and the administrative structures and processes through which they are formulated and implemented. A systematic look at the political systems of the 30 OECD member states reveals that policy-making generally takes its cue from economic and social developments. Economies and societies change more rapidly-and, to some extent, more erratically-than political systems, which deal with the provision of public goods and lasting structures.
The globalized world is characterized by an increased dynamic and pace of change. The more quickly economies and societies change, the more serious are the consequences of the political delays in adapting to these changes. At the same time, interdependencies in political processes and the complexity of their interconnectedness weigh all the more heavily upon the steering capacity that governments have to shape change. As a result, the lag time between political change as opposed to economic and social change seems to be widening more quickly than ever, and the threat of crises in performance and legitimacy deficits lurks as a growing political reality of modern governance.
OECD member states therefore have good reason to adapt to this changing environment the reach, orientation, pace and depth of their traditional approach to reform. Although the concept of reform has to some extent fallen into public disfavor, the changes affecting market-based democracies have become the focus of much discussion. It is no longer simply a question of how to render the welfare state financially sustainable but, rather, of: how to determine what constitutes “welfare” in a globalized world; how to manage issues relating to labor markets, education or security in a context of globalization; and how to find adequate standards for allocating public goods, when such standards are influenced by international dynamics.
The strategies employed to address these challenges as well as their outcomes and potency constitute the substance of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009 (SGI). For more than three years, over 100 experts from around the world have worked together to establish a differentiated inventory of the need for reform, the ability of governments to steer reform and their performance in doing so among the OECD’s market-based democracies.
Throughout this process, special emphasis has been placed on the qualitative assessment of political processes rather than on simply pooling quantitative data into indices. Actual results are not to be found in specific numbers or rankings but, rather, in the systematic, transparent and comparative analysis of the various assessments provided for an individual country. This publication is therefore meant to serve as an introduction to the project as a whole. The contributions and data summaries presented here draw upon the knowledge of experts, their assessments and a vast wealth of data and findings-all of which can be found on the project’s Web site, www.sgi-network.org.

The unique challenge of measuring reform

Reforms as such cannot be measured in isolation. The term “reform” is conceptually neutral, and it refers to the attempt to resolve problems through planned changes to extant conditions. Such changes can be readily observed-but only after the fact, that is, after a reform measure has taken full effect. Differences only become tangible by comparing current and former states of affairs. However, in the absence of a standard against which to measure a given difference, the mere presence of difference has little explanatory power.
Although consensus might be reached on some standards, others make reaching an agreement far from easy. Low unemployment rates, for example, are clearly preferable to high unemployment rates in the same way that efforts to limit environmental impact are more desirable than heavy pollution. However, when it comes to establishing which levels of state spending could be deemed appropriate or which system of public health care to prefer, we run into considerable difficulty. Even in cases where clear goals can be set, the means of achieving these goals remain a subject of debate. Indeed, an informed discussion about the most appropriate and effective means to an end is the purpose of serious political debate.
It is thus easier to establish a consensus on which pressing problems should receive top priority than it is to establish consensus on the actual content of policy reforms. In securing their future sustainability, OECD states currently face four key challenges: economic globalization, demographic change, new security risks and the growing scarcity of resources. As challenges that should be addressed by policy, these four broader issues can also be broken down into specific areas in which deficits can be clearly identified. Weighing the strengths and weaknesses in a given state yields a rather precise understanding of its need for reform.
In contrast to identifying problems, assessing the extent to which political activity and specific reform measures can guarantee success is less straightforward. This has to do not only with the fact that reforms are only measurable ex post and difficult to assess without a standard of measurement, but also because the outcome of reforms is not exclusively dependent on the intent of the actors involved. In situations marked by less favorable circumstances-which arise more frequently than will be readily admitted by politicians, who tend to overestimate their power to effect change-external events or developments can weaken the goals of reform or even reverse their trajectories. By nature, any serious assessment of reform performance is to some extent diffuse. Even if it were plausible to insist upon a strict definition of what constitutes “good” reform, it would not be possible to determine whether the appropriateness of the reform or the larger environment in which it was carried out yielded a given measure’s success or failure.
It is also extremely difficult to identify which actors are singularly responsible for the success or failure of reform. In modern democracies, numerous actors are involved in formulating, adopting and implementing reforms. The actions of each person involved in the process co-determine whether stated goals are reached. However, some actors clearly have a greater degree of influence and a broader scope of action than others. National governments, which pool together the preferences and resources of countless other actors in the act of governing, stand out as a key participant in the political process.
Evaluating the activity of governments in terms of future demands or upcoming reforms would be a futile endeavor. Doing so would first require a consensus on both the goals and the means of achieving these goals, which would mean taking a biased perspective. However, it is possible to assess the extent to which a government carries out its declared goals without advocating a particular ideology. Doing so presupposes, in turn, that a government has the proper processes and structures at its disposal that it needs to act effectively and satisfy its own standards. Conclusions about a government’s reform capacity can thus be drawn by assessing the framework within which it acts.
This formal view of government is informed by the field of public administration. The focus here is on the capacity of governments to effectively implement the policies they pursue rather than on the specific substance of these policies. The questions addressed and explored in detail are: What is the organizational architecture of the government bureaucracy? How smooth are the procedures both within and between specific departments? Is the interaction between the government and other political actors-such as parliament, parties and interest associations-characterized by productive cooperation or by conflict and gridlock? How and to what extent does the government respond to a changing international environment? The answers to these questions indicate the extent to which a government is capable of carrying out its intended reforms.
The SGI is based on the premise that governments with a greater capacity for reform are more likely to effectively address the need for reform and to likewise improve the political, economic and social state of affairs in their country-both in the medium- and long-term. This hypothesis presupposes an observable, though weak, causality between government performance and policy outcomes. It in no way suggests that a reform-competent government necessarily carries out the “correct” reform (assuming there is such a thing) that will achieve the best possible results. However, it does suggest that the need for reform should abate in countries whose governments demonstrate a strong capacity for reform and vice versa. Only time will tell whether this is a valid hypothesis for OECD member states.

Policy performance and executive capacity in the OECD

How well do the 30 OECD member states examined by the SGI fare in terms of the need for reform and reform capacity? What are their respective strengths and weaknesses? Leonard Novy, Martin Brusis, Andrea Kuhn and Daniel Schraad-Tischler answer these questions in their contribution “Sustainable Governance in the OECD-An Overview of Findings” (pp. 19-69). The differentiated comparison carried out shows clearly that the sustainability of OECD member states depends on fundamental structural conditions that can be shaped by government action. Even in a globalized world with its wide range of interdependencies, governments continue to have considerable maneuverability in formulating and implementing effective and sustainable policies. The institutional layout of government bureaucracies is, however, in no way the only decisive factor in shaping a government’s steering capacity. The SGI underscores much more the importance of incorporating societal actors within the democratic process as effectively and productively as possible in order to ensure a broad base of knowledge and feedback upon which the government can draw in decision-making.
Martin Brusis’s contribution describes in detail the conceptual framework and method behind the SGI (pp. 71-100). He outlines the theoretical foundations upon which the operationalization of the SGI and its 149 (both qualitative and quantitative) indicators are based and how they carefully avoid the pitfalls of normative bias. More than 100 renowned international scholars participated in the SGI’s multilevel assessment and calibration process, which was guided by a standardized set of indicators for all 30 OECD states. Executive governance was therefore evaluated not in terms of the content of specific reform agendas but, rather, on the basis of these experts’ insights into what constitutes good governance practices in terms of governmental organization and the extent to which the executive incorporates societal actors and potential veto players into the decision-making process.
Uwe Wagschal and Sebastian Jäckle also underscore the innovative aspects of the SGI in their comparison of other available international indices (pp. 101-143). By comparing the SGI directly with some of the established rankings-such as the World Bank’s Governance Indicators, the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index and the International Institute for Management Development’s World Competitiveness Yearbook -, Wagschal and Jäckle show that the issue of reform capacity within OECD states has received precious little attention in the available international rankings.
Within the landscape of reform indices, the SGI likewise stands out for the standard it sets in addressing the issue of the need for reform. Unlike other international indices, the SGI does not focus exclusively on the economic aspects of reform or on issues related to international competitiveness. Instead, the SGI employs a more holistic approach that is concerned with the sustainability of OECD states in terms of a broad spectrum of policy sectors, including areas such as education, environmental sustainability, social affairs and security. The combination of quantitative indicators with qualitative expert assessments yields an exceptionally broad base of data that allows evidence-based conclusions to be drawn.
The vast set of data generated by the SGI-which can be accessed free of charge at the SGI Web site (www.sgi-network.org)-lends itself to in-depth analysis, such as that presented by Werner Jann and Markus Seyfried in this volume (pp. 145-186). In their SGI-based study of the causal relationships between executive steering capacity (Management Index) and policy performance (Status Index), the authors explore the question of whether governance matters. The differentiated correlations resulting from their study underscore the innovative potential embodied by the SGI as a measuring tool and lead to some interesting conclusions. For example, the authors show that certain standard distinctions within the field of political science-such as those between majoritarian and consensus democracies or between federal and unitary systems-do not per se explain discrepancies in political and economic performance. They also show that strong-performing states often feature core executives that share similar organizational characteristics, such as capacities for institutional learning and self-monitoring. Finally, Jann and Seyfried demonstrate that an OECD state’s quality of democracy has a profound influence on policy outcomes.
In their contribution exploring issues of social justice in the OECD, Wolfgang Merkel and Heiko Giebler vividly demonstrate the scholarly relevance of the SGI and how its data can be used in other studies and political debates (pp. 187-215). Relying substantially upon SGI data, Merkel and Giebler have developed and tested their “Index of Social Justice” for OECD states. Addressing one of the oldest issues to be discussed by philosophy-which has become a hot-button issue in political circles once again-Merkel and Giebler examine social justice in clear empirical terms. Drawing upon the concept of participatory justice as outlined by John Rawls and Amartya Sen and applying this to specific SGI dimensions, Merkel and Giebler navigate the complexities of determining which factors positively influence social justice in OECD states. In so doing, they reach the striking conclusion that a high level of reform capacity-or good governance-and, in particular, the quality of a specific democratic system in OECD states is much more important than economic growth when it comes to achieving specific levels of social justice.

The infrastructure of an international project

The roots of the SGI are to be found in the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index, a project now in its third edition. The Transformation Index focuses on 125 countries-all of which are transitioning to a market-based democracy or potentially headed in that direction-and assesses the extent to which political management in each fulfills criteria regarding sustainability, democracy founded on the rule of law, social integration and welfare. During the early conceptual stage of the Transformation Index, member states of the former Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) found themselves undergoing the most profound process of transformation in their history. Yet, at that point in time, there was very little comparative systematic research available that could provide these countries effective support in managing the challenges they faced.
Thus, the demand for an exchange of best practices among countries engaged in the process of transformation was high, as experts and practitioners from around the world were brought together to establish the benchmarks now used in the Transformation Index. What appeared to have been a rhetorical issue 15 years ago has now acquired the truth of experience: Due to the increasing pressures of globalization, reform capacity is today as important to consolidated market-based democracies as it is to those nations engaging in systemic change and transformation. However, it would be misleading to apply the same measurement tool to an assessment of OECD member states. Although the Transformation Index is especially useful in examining various stages in a process of transformation toward market-based democracy, a more precise tool is needed to draw out the differences among more advanced, consolidated democracies.
Our first step was to develop a similar but sufficiently contextappropriate assessment scheme for OECD member states. This publication details the fundamental issues and definitions underlying the project and the findings resulting from its first assessment cycle. The contributions presented here point to the monumentality of this undertaking and the grand scale of consultations that took place throughout the process of establishing the international survey. We would therefore like to thank the members of the SGI Board, who have- through numerous meetings, preparatory analyses and model calculations-contributed not only their expertise and experience, but also their time. A full list of all of the scholars, experts and practitioners who have participated in the SGI is provided at the end of this publication.
A project of this caliber and complexity would not have been possible without the commitment and Herculean motivation of our team. To get the project off the ground, team members at both the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Center for Applied Policy Research (CAP) have contributed in numerous ways. The list includes: creating countless preparatory materials, conducting dozens of methodology analyses and empirical studies, managing technical operations, planning national and international events, providing support to participating experts throughout the world, testing and checking mountains of data, editing hundreds of manuscripts, developing a conceptual framework for our database, designing project communication and distilling results for use in the SGI Web site.
We would therefore like to extend our thanks and appreciation to the following people, our project staff, for a job well done: Martin Brusis, Oliver Heilwagen, Andrea Kuhn, Anna Naab, Leonard Novy, Isabell Rink, Daniel Schraad-Tischler, Jörg Siegmund and Tom Ulbricht. We also thank Matthias Chardon, Sabine Feige, Thomas Fischer, Roman Maruhn and Jörg Ramel for their support and contributions in conceptual or operational matters at various points throughout the process.
Much praise is also in order for the team of regional coordinators, who were tasked with analyzing SGI results and ensuring the comparability of data. They proved tireless in what proved to be a laborious process of validating and compiling the SGI’s 90 country reports. For their commitment and generosity of spirit, we thank Frank Bönker, Cesar Colino, Aurel Croissant, Detlef Jahn, Martin Große Hüttmann, Kai-Uwe Schnapp and Martin Thunert.
Given the global nature of this project and the need to work offsite, the project team developed an interactive database for use in gathering the qualitative data. The database provided the participants a platform through which to communicate, manage and monitor their work and engage with the data collected. Our thanks go here to Dieter Dollacker and Dirk Waldik for their steadfast support and creative engagement with the database and for developing and designing our Web site (www.sgi-network.org). Thanks go as well to Barbara Serfozo for her work in managing the editorial process for the country reports and the translation of various texts.
The period under review for the flagship edition of the Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009 ended in March 2007. As much as we would have liked to publish our results at an earlier date, we also wanted to afford the project the attention and care often required of maiden voyages. No number of model calculations and pretests can anticipate or resolve all the challenges that arise in the course of an ambitious undertaking of this nature. Members of the project team and the SGI Board have put in a considerable amount of additional effort to ensure that the project meets the high standards aimed for by all. It is our hope that the product of these efforts resonates among the broader public.
Whether or not the SGI succeeds in facilitating lively debate about the challenges involved with sustainable governance in OECD states depends not only on the reach of its reception, but also on the critical response of international scholars, experts and practitioners. It is in this spirit that we invite all interested readers to join in the discussion and contribute to the continued development of the SGI, which will be updated and published on a biannual basis.
Dr. Stefan Empter Senior Director Evidence-based Policies Bertelsmann Stiftung
Josef Janning Senior Director International Governance Bertelsmann Stiftung
Sustainable Governance in the OECD- An Overview of Findings
Leonard Novy, Martin Brusis, Andrea Kuhn, Daniel Schraad-Tischler

A look at what’s behind the figures

The Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) project, which is available online at , is much more than a substantial set of figures and calculations. Its products encompass more than three and a half thousand pages of assessment reports, along with the collective expertise of an international team of nearly 100 scholars. In this chapter, we will provide an overview of the wealth of data gathered as a part of the SGI, present the central findings and turn an analytical eye on some surprising correlations.

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!

Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!