A1262504755MQwOB

1
A-C, Governance and Transparency Experiences and
Illustrations from around the world
Presentation for the Government Ethics Training
Course for Director-Generals in Local Supervisory
Bureaus Daniel Kaufmann, Francesca Recanatini
and The WBI Global Governance Team December 21,
2004 www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance
2
????????????????????
???????????????? ??? ????????????????? ????????
????? 2004?12?21? www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance
3
Objective

• To discuss cross-country and in-country
  methodologies developed by the World Bank
  Institute to assess governance and transparency
  and promote action planning
• To present some preliminary evidence from
  countries around the world

4
??

• ?????????????????????????????????????
• ????????????

5
Main Results

• Governance is linked to development
• Participatory collective action and voice are
  key for sustainable policy changes
• Accurate information and rigorous analysis are
  key inputs for strategy development
• Transparency, incentives and prevention play a
  role in improving governance

6
????

• ?????????
• ??????????????????????
• ?????????????????????
• ?????????????????????

7

Empirically Assessing Governance and Corruption
Key Themes

1. Governance can be measured, analyzed, monitored
2. Measuring and Assessing Governance at 3 Levels
   Macro (or Aggregate) Mezzo Micro (or
   diagnostics)
3. Governance Matters for Development and Security
4. Lessons from differences across countries
   institutions
5. Learning from in-depth diagnostics within a
   country
6. New Methodological Approaches based on
   Transparency
7. Some Key Findings and Addressing Misconceptions
   

8

???????????????

1. ??????????????
2. ???????????????(???)????(????)
3. ?????????????
4. ???????????????
5. ???????????????
6. ????????????
7. ????????-?????

9
Governance A working definition

• Governance is the process and institutions by
  which authority in a country is exercised
• (1) the process by which governments are
  selected, held accountable, monitored, and
  replaced
• (2) the capacity of governments to manage
  resources efficiently, and to formulate,
  implement, and enforce sound policies and
  regulations and,
• (3) the respect for the institutions that govern
  economic and social interactions among them

10
?? ?????

• ???????????????
• (1) ?????,????,????????
• (2) ????????,???????????????????
• (3) ????????????????????

11
Operationalizing Governance Unbundling its
Definition into Components that can be measured,
analyzed, and worked on

• Each of the 3 main components of Governance
  Definition is unbundled into 2 subcomponents
• Voice and External Accountability
• Political Stability and lack of ViolenceTerror
• Quality Regulatory Framework
• Government Effectiveness
• Control of Corruption
• Rule of Law

We measure these six governance components
12
????? ?????????????????????

• ????????
• ????,????????
• ????????
• ????
• ????
• ??

?????????
13
Changes in Control of Corruption, 1998-2001
From Top 20 (selected countries)
Major Deterioration
Insignificant Change
Major Improvement
From Bottom 20 (selected countries)
Rankings were calculated on the basis of the
differences in country estimates from 1998 and
2001 data, divided by the standard deviations of
2001. Sources KKZ98 / KKZ01
14
???????(1997/98-2000/01)
?20?(??)
?????
??????
?????
?20?(??)
?????1998?2001??????????,??2001????????? KKZ98 /
KKZ01
15
Who Should take the lead in a National
Governance/Anticorruption Program?
Percentage of Respondents
A-C Anti-Corruption
16
?????????????????
???????
A-C ???
17
Number of World Bank Operations with Explicit
Anti-Corruption Components, 1997-2003
200
40
186
31
172
28
155
Number of Projects
150
20
14
14
12
0
100
1997-98
1999-00
2001
2002
2003
2002-03
1997
1998-2001
World Bank projects with Anti-Corruption
components (Annual Averages)
World Bank projects with Governance Components
(Annual Averages)
Source World Bank Business Warehouse, 2003
18
????????????????? 1997-2003?
200
40
186
31
172
28
155
????
150
20
14
14
12
0
100
1997?
1998-2001?
2002-03?
1997-98?
1999-00?
2001?
2002?
2003?
????????????? (????)
????????????? (????)
?????????????,2003?
19
Empirical Approach to Governance

• Macro Worldwide Aggregate Governance
  Indicators 200 countries, 6 components,
  periodic.
• Mezzo Cross-Country Surveys of Enterprises
• Micro Specialized, in-depth, in-country
  Governance and Institutional Capacity
  Diagnostics Includes surveys of i) user of
  public services (citizens) ii) firms, and iii)
  public officials

On Aggregate/Macro Level first
20
??????????

• ??????????200????6?????,???
• ????????
• ????????????????????????????????????1)???????
  ?(??)2) ??3)?????

???/??????
21
Sources of Governance Data

• Data on governance from 25 different sources
  constructed by 18 different organizations
• Data sources include cross-country surveys of
  firms, commercial risk-rating agencies,
  international organizations, government agencies,
  think-tanks, etc.)
• Over 200 proxies for various dimensions of
  governance
• Organize these measures into six clusters
  corresponding to definition of governance, for
  four periods 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002,
  covering 199 countries

22
??????

• 18????????25??????????
• ??????????????????????????????????????
• ?????????200??????
• ??????????????????,????,?1996??1998??2000??2002?,?
  ?199????

23
Building Aggregate Governance Indicators

• Use Unobserved Components Model (UCM) to
  construct composite governance indicators and
  margins of error for each country
• Estimate of governance weighted average of
  observed scores for each country, re-scaled to
  common units
• Weights are proportional to precision of
  underlying data sources
• Margins of error of the aggregate indicator
  reflect (a) number of sources in which a
  country appears, and, (b) the precision of
  those sources

24
????????

• ????????(UCM)????????????????
• ????????????????????,????????
• ????????????????
• ????????????1)??????????????2)???????????

25
Precision vs. Number of Sources, KKZ Governance
Estimates, 2000/01

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Margin of Error
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Note See explanatory details in this slides
note
Number of Sources Per Country
26
?????????? KKZ?????,2000/01?

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
????
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
???????????????
?????????
27
Governance can be measured an
illustrationControl of Corruption, Selected
Countries (KK, 2002)
Good Control Corruption
Bad Control Corruption
Source for data Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi
M., Governance Matters III Governance
Indicators for 1996-2002, WP 3106, August 2003.
Units in vertical axis are expressed in terms of
standard deviations around zero. Country
estimates are subject to margins of error
(illustrated by thin line atop each column),
implying caution in interpretation of the
estimates and that no precise country rating is
warranted.
28
??????? ????????? (KK, 2002?)
??????
??????
????Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi M.,
??????(??) 1996-2002??????,WP
3106,2003?8??????????????????????????????(???????
?????),?????????????,??????????????
29
Governance World Map Rule of Law, 2002
Source for data http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/gove
rnance/govdata2002 Map downloaded from
http//info.worldbank.org/governance/kkz2002/govma
p.asp Colors are assigned according to the
following criteria Red, 25 or less rank worse
( bottom 10 in darker red) Orange, between 25
and 50 Yellow, between 50 and 75 Light
Green between 75 and 90 Dark Green above 90
30
????????,2002?
???? http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govd
ata2002 ????? http//info.worldbank.org/govern
ance/kkz2002/govmap.asp ??????????????25???(?
??10??????)??25?50????50?75????75?90?
???90???
31
Governance World Map Voice and Accountability,
2002
Source for data http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/gove
rnance/govdata2002 Map downloaded from
http//info.worldbank.org/governance/kkz2002/govma
p.asp Colors are assigned according to the
following criteria Red, 25 or less rank worse
( bottom 10 in darker red) Orange, between 25
and 50 Yellow, between 50 and 75 Light
Green between 75 and 90 Dark Green above 90
32
????????????,2002?
???? http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govd
ata2002 ?????http//info.worldbank.org/governanc
e/kkz2002/govmap.asp ??????????????25???(???1
0??????)??25?50????50?75????75?90???
?90???
33
Governance World Map Government Effectiveness,
2002
Source for data http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/gove
rnance/govdata2002 Map downloaded from
http//info.worldbank.org/governance/kkz2002/govma
p.asp Colors are assigned according to the
following criteria Red, 25 or less rank worse
( bottom 10 in darker red) Orange, between 25
and 50 Yellow, between 50 and 75 Light
Green between 75 and 90 Dark Green above 90
34
??????????,2002?
????http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govda
ta2002?????http//info.worldbank.org/governance/
kkz2002/govmap.asp ??????????????25???(???10
??????)??25?50????50?75????75?90????
90???
35
The Dividend of Good Governance
Note
The bars depict the simple correlation between
good governance and development outcomes. The
line depicts the
predicted value when taking into account the
causality effects (Development Dividend) from
improved governance to better
development outcomes. For data and methodological
details visit http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/governa
nce.
36
?????
Note
????????????????????????????????????????????(De
velopment Dividend)
?????????????????? http//www?worldbank?org/wbi/go
vernance?
37
Control of Graft and Freedom of the Press
High
Control of Graft kkz
r .68
Low
Low
High
Freedom of the Press (Freedom House)
38
?????????
?
???? kkz
r .68
?
?
?
???? (Freedom House)
39
Governance Improving Worldwide? -- Mixed

• On average, over the past 8 years some progress
  on Voice and Democratic Accountability, but
  little if any on the quality of rule of law and
  control of corruption
• However, the variation across countries is very
  large
• For instance, some countries in Eastern
  Europe have improved. In each region there is
  significant variation across countries. Good
  Chile, Costa Rica, Botswana
• Important to unbundle governance and
  corruption improvement in some dimensions,
  deterioration in others
• Where corruption is systemic, unrealistic to
  expect that Bank projects/lending could be
  totally immune

40
??????????????-- ????

• ????,????????????????????????,???????????????????
  ????
• ??,???????????,???????????????,??????????????????
  ????????????????
• ?????????????????????,????????
• ???????????,??????/??????????????

41
The Mezzo Level of Governance Measurement

• Based on cross-country surveys, mainly of
  enterprises such as the EOS of the WEF, BEEPS
  and WBES of the WB, etc.
• Thousands of firms interviewed on a range of
  issues especially on governance
• More detailed unbundling of governance and
  corruption phenomena than aggregate indicators
• Relatively broad country coverage, but less than
  aggregate governance indicators

42
?????????

• ????????????,?????????(WEF)?????????(EOS)?????????
  ?????(BEEPS)?????????(WBES)??
• ????????????,????????????
• ???????,??????????????????
• ????????????,??????????

43
Control of judicial bribery over timeEOS
19982004
Good
Bad
Source EOS 1998-2004. Question In your
industry, how commonly firms make undocumented
extra payments or bribes connected to getting
favorable judicial decisions? common / never
occur.
44
????????????????19982004?
??
??
????EOS 1998-2004?????????,????????????????????
????????????????/?????
45
Governance Variables for Selected Countries
(View of the Firm, EOS 2003) - Percentage Firms
Reporting Low Governance
Bad
Good
Source EOS (firm survey), 2003. Y-axis
displays percentage of firms who reported low
Governance (1-3) in each governance dimension.
46
????????? (?????,???????? 2003?) - ????????????
??
??
????EOS(????),2003??Y-????????????????????(1-3)??
??????
47
Politics Can be Measured as WellInequality of
Influence a major governance challenge
48
????????????????????????
49
Frequency of bribery at home and abroad, EOS 2004
Source EOS 2004. The percentage of firms that
report bribery takes place within its group in
the country is depicted in each case. EOS
Question on which these calculations are based
In your industry, how commonly would you
estimate that firms make undocumented extra
payments or bribes connected with the following
public utilities, tax payments, awarding of
public contracts? very common (1) / never occur
(7). Any firms reporting answers 1 through 5
were considered to be reporting at least some
frequency of bribery, while answers of 6 and 7
were not.
50
????????????,????????, 2004?
???? EOS 2004????????????????????????????????????
??EOS??????????????????,????????????????????????
?????????????????????(1)/?????(7)??????????(1)?(5
)??,?????????????????,?(6)?(7)???????????
51
Global vs Domestic Governance Challenges Firms
Report High Cost of Terrorism and Crime, EOS 2004
Firms Report High Cost of
Source EOS 2004. A firm is considered as
reporting high cost when rated the question as
unsatisfactory (1,2, or 3) in the scale of 1 to
7. Questions were, respectively The threat of
terrorism in your country, incidence of common
crime and violence (e.e. street muggings, firms
being looted), organized crime (mafia-oriented
racketeering, extortion) in your country impose /
does not impose significant costs on business?
In your country the diversion of public funds to
companies, individuals or groups due to
corruption is common / never occurs.
52
???????????????????????????(),????????,2004?
???????????()
????EOS 2004?????????1?7????????????(1?2??3)???,?
??????????????????????,?????????????????(???????
???)?????????(??????????????)?????/?????????????
??,????????????????????????????/??????
53
From research to policy in-country focus

• A demand-driven process to improve governance,
  build local capacity and consensus among key
  stakeholders
• Key elements participation, transparency and
  analytical rigor
• Outcomes greater local capacity, new policy
  actors, baseline governance data, and action plan
  for policy reform

54
??????????

• ??????????????????????????????????
• ????????????????
• ???????????????????????????????????

55
Listening to Stakeholders Analysis of Responses
on Donor Aid and Anti-Corruption
56
??????????????????????????
?????????????????????
????????????????,http//www.wbigf.org/hague/hague
_survey.php3????2,427????????
57
Key Features of Governance and Anticorruption
Diagnostic Surveys

• Three surveys households, firms, and public
  officials
• Questions can be chosen to focus on experience
  and/or perceptions
• Specially designed and tested closed questions,
  adapted to local realities
• Rigorous technical requirements in implementation
• Local institution implements, with guidance from
  international experts

58
???????????????

• ??????????????
• ??????????????(?)???
• ?????????????????????
• ?????????????
• ???????,???????

59
The process
Challenge poor governance and corruption
7. Monitoring and Evaluation of NAS
Country Implemented
6. Implementation by Government
5. Revision of the NAS
4. Public dissemination discussion
WBI Technical Assistance
Experiential data from 3 sources on quality
of governance
3. Draft of the NAS
2. Diagnostic surveys analysis
1. Establishment of Steering Committee
Key Partnership Government Civil Society
60
??
?????????
???????? ????
61
Type of information elicited (1)

• Households
• Experience on interactions with state bodies when
  requesting services.
• Bribes solicited, where, how much and how
  frequently
• Clarification of what people consider to be
  corruption, their sources of information on
  corruption, extent of knowledge of their rights,
  duties, and possible recourse

62
???????(1)

• ??
• ??????????????????
• ?????????????
• ?????????,?????????,??????????????????????

63
Type of information elicited (2)

• Enterprises
• Experience with customs, tax, procurement,
  courts, inspections, licenses and permits
• Illegal payments solicited, where, how
  frequently, how much paid
• Quality of govt. services, level of red tape
• Ways in which firms make their views known (e.g.
  through business associations)
• Private sector perspectives on state initiatives

64
???????(2)

• ??
• ???????????????????????????
• ?????????????????
• ???????,??????
• ?????????(??????)
• ?????????????

65
Type of information elicited (3)

• Public officials
• How human, financial and information resources
  are handled
• How hiring and firing decisions are made
• What complaint mechanisms or public consultations
  exist
• What types of problem and risks officials
  perceive as the worst affecting their
  organizations

66
???????(3)

• ????
• ???????????????
• ??????????
• ?????????????????
• ????????????????????????????

67
A few Illustrations
Honduras CNA report and strategy to newly
elected gov (January 2001) integration of
strategy in the 2002-2006 government plan
Challenge poor governance and corruption
Country Implemented
Guatemala Highly fragmented civil society Joint
effort (CMU, SDV, WBI) to build consensus
68
????
?????????
Country Implemented
5. NAS???
???????? ????
69
Additional stories

• Ghana report and strategy (2000), integration of
  results into Bank projects, dissemination at
  national and regional level
• Colombia report (2001). Strategy in progress,
  collaboration between government and steering
  committee
• Bolivia report (2001) country reform policy for
  Judiciary and procurement

70
????

• ?? ???????(2000),?????????,??????????
• ????????( 2001),??????,????????????
• ????????(2001),?????????????

71
The power of diagnostic data and key dimensions
for analysis

1. Unbundle corruption by type administrative,
   capture of the state, bidding, theft of goods and
   public resources, purchase of licenses and
   regulations
2. Identify both weak institutions (in need of
   reform) and strong institutions (example of good
   governance)

72
????????????????

1. ????????,?????????????????????????????????
2. ?????????(????)????????(???????)?

73
Key dimensions Cont.

• Assess the cost of each type of corruption on
  different groups of stakeholders
• Identify key determinants of good governance
• Develop policy recommendations

74
????(?)

• ?????????????????????
• ?????????????
• ???????

75
Misgoverned vs. well Governed Agencies in Ecuador
(as ranked by public officials, 2000 diagnostic)
76
?????????????????(?????????,2000?????)
77
Personnel and budget decisions in public
institutions (as reported by public officials,
2001)
Personnel
Budget
78
???????????? (???????,2001?)
??
??
79
Extent of corruption (diagnostic surveys
1999-2003)
80
???? (?????,1999-2003?)
81
Public funds are mismanaged (Sierra Leone, 2003)
of Public Officials that said
irregularities/misappropriations are frequent
82
???????? (????,2003?)
??????????????????????()
83
Vulnerabilities of Corruption Reporting
Complaint Mechanisms(as reported by public
officials various countries, 1999-2001)
84
????????????(?????????1999-2001?)
85
National and municipal agencies are ridden by
different types of corruption(based on public
officials' responses, a Latin American country,
2001)
86
????????????????(????????????????????,2001?)
87
Corruption acts as a regressive tax, and small
firms pay more in bribes( of gross monthly
revenue paid in bribes, as reported by managers
2001)
88
????????????,??????????(??????????????,2001?)
89
Corruption increases inequality
By household income
Note figures are calculated out of those users
who contacted the agency, and they are weighted
by income level
90
???????
???????
????????????????????????,??????????????
91
Bribery Does Not Increase Service Quality
(Citizens Responses, Ecuador 2000)
92
?????????? (?????????,2000?)
93
External Accountability/Feedback Improve Access
of Public Services to the Poor (Bolivia
diagnostic)
Based on Public Officials Survey. The sample of
institutions includes 44 national, departmental,
and municipal agencies which are a prior
anticipated to be accessible to the poor
94
????/?????????????? (????)
????????????????????44????,?????????????????
95
Corruption Restricts Access to Medical Services
Discouraged Poor Users Due to Bribes (as
reported by public service users, 2001)
Note The figure shows the percentage of
discouraged users not using medical service
because a bribe is too high.
96
?????????????????????????(????????????????,200
1?)
????????????????????????????????
97
Comparing agencies (Peru, 2001)
98
????(??,2001?)
99
Indonesia A country case illustrating the Bank
seen as part of the problem in the past towards
part of the solution now
Late 1990s
100
????????????,??????????????????????????
Late 1990s
101
2004 Indonesias Country Assistance Strategy
(CAS) Harnessing the entire Bank portfolio on
Anti-Corruption (A-C)

• Strategy Fully Mainstreaming Governance/A-C in
  the CAS
• Processspecifics
• Lending volumes linked to governance/A-C progress
• Anti-corruption plans for all projects
• Selecting projects linked to governance
  challenges
• Picking winners at the local leveldecentralized
  strategy
• Staffing
• Resident Governance Leader/Advisor
• A-C Committee collaboration w/ civil society
• In-house Fiduciary team Investigators Project
  advisors

102
2004?????????????( CAS)-- ???????????????

• ???CAS????/????????
• ?? ????
• ???????/???????
• ????????????
• ??????????????
• ?????????? -- ??????
• ????
• ???????/??
• ?????????????
• ??????????????????

103
Indonesia A-C Action Plans

• Bank-funded projects must have an A-C plan,
  approved by the A-C Committee to include
• Disclosure
• Civil society oversight
• Complaints mechanism
• Anti-collusion
• Sanctions and remedies
• Strengthened financial controls
• Recent actions
• Mis-procurement has been declared, funds
  returned
• Funds have been suspended or cancelled

104
?????????????
?????????????????????????,???? 1) ?????? 2) ???
????? 3) ???? 4) ????? 5) ??????? 6) ??????
??? ???? 1) ??????????,????? 2) ???????????
105
ALBANIA Effectiveness of transparency in curbing
corruption The Tirana Transparency Project

• Pre-2000 long lines and several visits to
  obtain information and permits bribery was very
  common
• In 2000, Mayor requests WB assistance to improve
  transparency, citizen participation and quality
  of public service delivery in Tirana.
• Establishment of automated Public Information
  Center, and Citizens Report Cards to monitor and
  evaluate delivery of public services.

106
???????????????????-- ????????

• 2000??? ?????????????????????????????
• 2000?,????????????,???????????????????????????????
  
• ????????????????????????????????????

107
ALBANIA The Tirana Transparency Project, Contd

• Achievements so far
• Time frame to provide information shortened by 10
  days
• Better mechanisms to control petty corruption
  more staff and cameras
• Increased civil society capacity to inform itself
  and engage in decision-making and monitoring of
  public services at the local level
• More accountable municipal government citizen
  empowerment.

108
?????????????(?)

• ?????????
• ??????????10?
• ???????????? -- ?????????
• ??????????????????????????????
• ?????????? -- ??????

109
Argentina Promoting accountability in
procurement by price comparisons

• NGO Poder Ciudadano recorded monthly expenditures
  of public hospitals in Buenos Aires
• It produced a simple method for monitoring
  variation in prices paid and conditions of
  service.
• Results showed substantial variations in prices
  paid
• Minister of Health reviewed results with hospital
  directors and results were posted on the internet
• Prices for standard goods dropped considerably
  for ex., the avg. price for dextrose fell by 25
  over 4 months

110
????????????????

• ?????Poder Ciudadano???????????????????
• ?????????????????????????
• ??????????????
• ??????????????????,????????????
• ???????????,?????????????????25?

111
SLOVAKIA Reducing corruption using low cost and
low tech method

• Rampant incidents of police corruption cause
  Interior Ministry to issue directives requiring
  that all city, traffic, border and customs police
  representatives to wear name tags instead of
  identification numbers
• Purpose to allow citizens identify and report
  police representatives who demand bribes
  thereby giving public more power to control
  police conduct
• It is a quick, cheap and visible stop-gap measure.

112
??????????????????

• ??????????,?????????????????????????????????????
• ???????????????????,???????????????
• ?????????????????

113
To sum a few salient lessons

• Governance and A-C (GAC) studies affect the
  policy debate and serve as an input in the design
  of a National A-C Strategy
• Transparency and public dissemination of the
  results are key
• The approach must be participatory at each stage
  of the process

114
??????

• ??????(GAC)??????????,????????????????
• ??????????????????
• ??????????????????

115
A Few Salient Lessons, cont.

• To unbundle corruption and institutional
  weaknesses allows to identify key areas for
  reform
• Quality control and use of rigorous analytical
  methods enhance the credibility of the results

116
????(?)

• ????????????????????????
• ???????????????????????????

117
For a Good Government Anti-Corruption (GGAC)
Strategy TIP Synthesis -- Integrating 4 Process
Components
International Experience GGAC TK IP LE
CA   i) TK Transparent Information and
Knowledge -- with rigorous diagnostic, empirical
analysis and monitoring with IT tools, and
disclosure on financial information  ii) IP
Incentives for Prevention -- meritocracy within
institutions, transparency/disclosure civil
service reforms, external accountability
enforcement  iii) LE Leadership example
from the top  iv) CA Collective Action --
participatory and consensus-building approach,
with all key groups in society, inside and
outside government (incl. private sector)
118
???????????? TIP ??? ????????

• ???? GGAC TK IP LE CA
•  
• TK ????(T)???(K)-?????????????????????,??????
  
  unbundlehuilu/fubay/
  guanxi
•  ii) IP ??(P)?????(I)-???????,???/???????????,
  ??????? no
  rules/intrnl
•  iii) LE ??(LE)???????
•  iv) CA ????(CA)???????????,????,????(??????).

119
(No Transcript)
120
(No Transcript)
121
Evidence challenges some popular notions

1. Country first needs to get to higher incomes to
   reach good governance and control of corruption?
2. Legal-Historical or Cultural Origins as
   Determinants?
3. Transplants from rich OECD institutions, codes?
4. Anticorruption by adopting laws?
5. Anticorruption by focusing on enforcement?
6. Anti-Corruption through Campaigns and Agencies?

122
????????????

• ????????????,??????????????
• ???????-?????????
• ??????????????????????
• ?????????
• ???????????
• ????????????

123
Lessons from Evidence International Experience

• Data Power/Metrics Diagnostics Matter
• Governance Anti-corruption for fighting poverty
• External Accountability Mechanisms (voice)
• Transparency Mechanisms (egovernance, data)
• Incentives as drivers, Prevention (e.g.
  Meritocracy)
• The Role of the Firm and Elites (influence,
  capture)
• Political Reforms -- domestically generated led
• For Donor Countries, IFIs i) Aid Effectiveness
  ii) Trade iii) access to World Econ. Clubs

124
????????????

1. ?????/??????????
2. ??????????????
3. ??????(???)
4. ?????(???????)
5. ?????????,??(?,????)
6. ??????????(?????)
7. ??????-???????
8. ?????,??????1)??????2)??3)??????????

125
Data for Analysis and informing Policy Advise,
not for Precise Rankings

• Data in this presentation is from surveys and
  expert polls and subject to a margin of error.
• It is not for precise comparative rankings across
  countries, but to illustrate performance
  measures to assist in drawing implications for
  strategy. It does not reflect official views on
  rankings by the World Bank or its Board of
  Directors. Errors are responsibility of the
  authors, who benefited in this work from
  collaboration with Bank staff and outside
  experts.

126
???????????????,?????????

• ????????????????,???????? ? ?????????????????,???
  ?????????????,????????????????????????????????????
  ????????????????????????????????
• ??????? www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance