Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WGI
World Governance Index
Why Should World Governance Be
Evaluated, and for What Purpose?
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
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/
World
Governance Index
Why Should World Governance Be Evaluated,
and for What Purpose?
Version 2.0
2011 Report
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
World Governance Index - WGI. .
Usefulness and Uses of the WGI. .
5
. 5
. 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Overview
romoting, on a world scale, a legitimate, effective, and democratic governance, and forming a responsible, plural, and united community within
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 ideological 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
make it possible to get out of our current dead-end situation.
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-indicatorsa total of 13
sub-indicators are usedand 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 dimensionit tries to provide as true a
reflection as possible of the state of world governanceand an operational
dimensionit 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 makers, 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,
Rethinking Global
Governance, 2007,
http://www.worldgovernance.org/spip.
php?article15&lang=en
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 selection 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 degreessome rely on facts
(number of inhabitants, for example) and others on perceptions (opinionpoll 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 limits inherent to indicators. Like all indicators, the WGI informs, warns, and enables
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 regional rankings of the countries included in the survey, a ranking factoring in the
changes that have occurred since the first 2008 version of the index. For practical
reasonsavailability and reliability of the datait covers only 179 countries (of
the 192 UN Member States). In the medium run, it should cover all the countries.
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.
Part I
Developin g t h e Wo r l d
Governanc e I n d e x
10
World-governance goals
and fields
To get a precise picture of the goals of world governance, its situation, and its evolution, all of the fundamental domains in which it is exercised need to be
taken into account.
These fundamental domains were originally written into the two texts considered as the basic texts
of world governance: the Charter of the United Nations, signed on June 26, 1945, and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948.
To save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war . . . and to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and the worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and
of nations at large, and to establish conditions under
which justice and respect for the obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law
can be maintained, and to promote social progress
and better standards in larger freedom: these were,
in the wake of World War II, the guidelines for world
governance.
Three years later, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to reinforce the Charter and constitute, in the minds of the leaders from all over the
world who adopted it, the roadmap to ensuring every
persons rights, in all places and at all times.
We would have to wait until 1992 for the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, to jump start awareness of
the importance of the fundamental domains of world
governance. As discussions developed, as the idea of
interdependence in the global village took hold, the
thinking expanded from considering only environmental assets (air, water, and forests) to including the
whole of humankinds common goods: health, education, and human rights. This was the appearance
of global common goods, which Riccardo Petrella,
formerly Head of the European Commissions FAST
program, was to define as: the goods and services
that should be seen as essential to the security of living together at the global level.
Taking into account the geopolitical upheavals ensuing from the end of the Cold War, the Millennium
Declaration, in 2000, confirmed the thinking on global governance and reinforced the view that the different domains were all linked with one another. The
goals ensuing from the Millennium Declaration constitute a blueprint for the advent of a world everyone
hopes will be better.
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
6 to 8, 2000, acknowledged their collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity,
equality and equity at the global level and set out to
defend them. They restated their determination to
support all efforts [for the] resolution of disputes by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles
of justice and international law, . . . respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the
Reducing inequalities
Sustainable development cannot be achieved by
reserving the natural resources of the planet for
a small minority that has the economic means to
acquire them and the military means to hold onto
them. Reducing inequalities is therefore not only
a moral duty or an act of compassion; it is also
a duty of justice and a condition for long-term
peace. Finding ways to conciliate the freedom of
all with respect of the dignity of all is the second
objective assigned to world governance.
11
Indicator
Sub-indicator
Index
Peace and
Security
National Security
Conflicts
Refugees and Asylum seekers
Displaced Persons
Public Security
Political Climate
Degree of Trust among Citizens
Violent Crime
Homicides per 100,000 inhabitants
Rule of Law
Body of Laws
Ratification of Treaties
Property Rights
Judicial System
Independence
Effectiveness
Settlement of Contractual Disputes
Human Rights
and Participation
Corruption
Participation
Gender
Discrimination /
Inequality
12
Sustainable
Development
Economic Sector
Social Dimension
Environmental
Dimension
Human
Development
Development
Human Development
Well-being and
Happiness
Subjective Well-being
Happiness
Quality of Life
pation, Sustainable Development, and Human Development, which are the mathematical average of
the sub-indicators composing them. Only the Peace
and Security indicator was weighted. It is made up
for two-thirds of it by the National Security sub-indicator and for one-third of it by the Public Security
sub-indicator.
As a final result, the World Governance Index is the
mathematical average of the 5 indicators that constitute it.
In some very rare cases, absence of data for one or
several countries was compensated, as needed, by assigning to them the reported regional average.
13
Part II
14
12
11
22
0.832
0.830
0.826
0.825
0.813
0.807
0.806
0.801
0.801
0.796
0.788
0.778
0.758
0.758
0.752
3 Finland
4 Iceland
5 Denmark
6 New Zealand
7 Netherlands
8 Switzerland
9 Australia
10 Germany
11 Austria
12 Canada
13 Ireland
14 Luxemburg
15 France
16 Belgium
17 Japan
0.750
0.749
0.738
19 Spain
20 Costa Rica
21 Portugal
0.724
0.723
0.723
28 Singapore
29 Slovenia
30 Estonia
23
0.733
0.731
26 Bahamas
0.733
25 Chile
27 Barbados
24
0.733
24 Uruguay
42
26
33
16
32
20
23 Malta
31
0.736
0.736
22 Czech Republic
30
19
18
17
14
21
15
13
10
0.843
0.844
2 Sweden
2008
Rank
1 Norway
0.699
0.700
0.702
0.703
0.714
0.714
0.720
0.720
0.660
56 Bulgaria
60 Namibia
59 Romania
58 Seychelles
57 Albania
0.650
0.651
0.653
0.653
0.658
0.658
55 Peru
0.662
0.662
0.668
0.671
0.671
0.674
0.678
0.678
0.679
0.685
0.686
0.686
0.687
0.692
53 Jamaica
52 Brazil
51 Cyprus
50 Croatia
49 Israel
48 Belize
47 Grenada
46 Cape Verde
45 Greece
44 Latvia
43 Dominica
42 Panama
41 Saint Lucia
40 Argentina
38 Italy
37 Poland
36 Slovakia
35 Hungary
34 South Korea
33 Lithuania
32 United States
31 Mauritius
56 113 Morocco
53 114 Venezuela
0.616
0.616
0.614
0.611
0.609
0.609
50 80 Ghana
28 81 Nicaragua
69 82 Surinam
71 83 Tunisia
59 84 Fiji
60 85 Thailand
0.571
0.572
93 148 Russia
79 119 Tanzania
0.607
63 89 Kirghizstan
82 143 Bangladesh
97 138 Nepal
86 136 Uganda
98 135 Zambia
77 134 Uzbekistan
99 132 Libya
52 127 Mali
96 126 Benin
78 125 Cambodia
37 88 Lesotho
0.578
2008
Rank
0.472 151
0.480 159
0.486 156
0.490 141
0.496 162
0.503 153
0.505 166
0.445 171
0.447 167
0.528 158
AVERAGE
0.616
0.293 179
0.408 176
0.408 175
0.413 174
0.424 161
0.425 178
0.432 172
0.433 173
0.508 148
0.506 155
0.509 163
0.512 165
0.514 154
0.518 143
0.520 150
0.522 164
0.525 142
2008
Rank
0.526 160
83 117 Colombia
0.609
0.578
0.578
0.582
0.583
0.584
0.585
0.585
0.586
0.587
0.589
0.589
0.592
0.592
0.593
0.594
0.594
0.594
0.595
0.595
0.596
0.598
0.599
0.599
0.600
0.605
2008
Rank
0.576
72 116 Mozambique
92 115 Azerbaijan
67 112 Armenia
64 111 Georgia
70 110 Malawi
75 109 Jordan
0.617
0.617
45 78 Kuwait
54 79 Bahrain
94 108 Tajikistan
61 105 Tonga
84 104 Maldives
88 106 Philippines
0.627
41 75 Mongolia
91 107 Belarus
0.628
51 74 Botswana
0.619
0.632
36 73 Dominican Rep.
89 102 Kazakhstan
95 101 Guatemala
0.632
99 Brunei
98 Algeria
97 Cuba
96 Indonesia
95 Oman
94 Turkey
93 Senegal
80 100 Honduras
55
58
104
73
87
92 Bhutan
91 Ukraine
35 77 Moldavia
0.632
47 72 Serbia
38 68 South Africa
34 71 Bolivia
81
0.641
0.638
48 67 Malaysia
0.635
0.641
46 66 Mexico
0.633
0.643
39 65 Montenegro
25 69 Qatar
0.646
40 64 Macedonia
43 70 Paraguay
124
0.648
44 63 Ecuador
57
0.648
65
0.649
2008
Rank
27 62 Guyana
29 61 El Salvador
2008
Rank
15
0.720
0.678
0.653
0.650
0.638
0.628
0.616
0.609
0.609
0.607
0.599
0.585
0.578
0.572
0.566
0.566
0.561
0.561
0.560
0.559
0.556
0.556
0.555
0.551
0.542
0.539
0.536
0.535
0.532
0.528
0.520
0.514
0.512
0.509
0.508
0.506
0.505
0.503
0.496
0.486
0.467
0.447
0.445
0.432
0.408
0.551
0.844
0.843
0.832
0.830
0.826
0.825
0.813
0.807
0.806
0.801
0.801
0.796
0.788
0.778
0.758
0.758
0.752
0.750
0.750
0.738
0.736
0.736
0.723
0.723
0.720
0.714
0.714
0.703
0.702
0.700
0.699
0.685
0.679
0.671
0.668
0.658
0.651
0.641
0.599
0.744 Average
Eu oecd
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
Denmark
New Zealand
Netherlands
Switzerland
Australia
Germany
Austria
Canada
Ireland
Luxemburg
France
Belgium
Japan
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Czech Republic
Malta
Slovenia
Estonia
United States
Lithuania
South Korea
Hungary
Slovakia
Poland
Italy
Latvia
Greece
Israel
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Romania
Mexico
Turkey
Average
0.655
16
Africa
Mauritius
Cape Verde
Seychelles
Namibia
South Africa
Botswana
Ghana
So Tom and Prncipe
Gabon
Lesotho
Senegal
Malawi
Mozambique
Tanzania
Burkina Faso
Gambia
Benin
Mali
Madagascar
Rwanda
Zambia
Uganda
Comoros
Mauritania
Liberia
Togo
Congo
Kenya
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Swaziland
Guinea Bissau
Nigeria
Ivory Coast
Niger
Equatorial Guinea
Angola
Cameroon
Burundi
Ethiopia
Central Africa Republic
Erythrea
Chad
Zimbabwe
DRC
Average
Average
Asia Pacific
Singapore
Malaysia
Mongolia
Fiji
Thailand
Bhutan
Indonesia
Brunei
East Timor
Maldives
Tonga
Philippines
Salomon Islands
Viet Nam
Papua New Guinea
Laos
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
Nepal
China
Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
Iran
North Korea
Afghanistan
Myanmar
0.561
0.724
0.641
0.627
0.609
0.609
0.600
0.596
0.594
0.592
0.592
0.589
0.589
0.575
0.571
0.569
0.568
0.562
0.560
0.554
0.549
0.541
0.525
0.480
0.472
0.433
0.424
0.413
Average
Arab States
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Bahrain
Tunisia
Oman
Algeria
Jordan
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Egypt
Lebanon
Djibouti
Syria
Yemen
Gaza / West Bank
Iraq
Sudan
Somalia
0.539
0.635
0.620
0.617
0.617
0.611
0.598
0.595
0.585
0.582
0.561
0.558
0.557
0.543
0.536
0.518
0.490
0.438
0.425
0.408
0.293
Average
0.601
Afghanistan
South Africa
Albania
Algeria
Germany
Angola
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central Africa Republic
Chile
China
Cyprus
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
North Korea
South Korea
Costa Rica
Ivory Coast
Croatia
Cuba
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Egypt
El Salvador
United Arab Emirates
Ecuador
Erythrea
Spain
Estonia
United States
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
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
0.409
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
0.351
0.803
0.492
0.714
0.479
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
0.540
0.489
0.306
0.741
0.741
0.729
0.409
0.505
0.866
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
0.547
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
0.388
0.665
0.287
0.671
0.477
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
0.459
0.643
0.278
0.800
0.741
0.769
0.348
0.421
0.891
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
0.402
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
0.308
0.715
0.644
0.726
0.725
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
0.665
0.657
0.378
0.761
0.619
0.762
0.328
0.647
0.797
S
De ust
ve ain
lo a
p
meble
nt
De Hu
ve m
a
l
o
pm n
en
t
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
0.536
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
0.589
0.583
0.529
0.550
0.597
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
0.498
0.573
0.497
0.569
0.589
0.483
0.579
0.563
0.641
Pe
Se ace
cu an
rit d
y
R
of ule
La
w
H
Riguma
ht n
s
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
0.913
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
0.699
0.897
0.791
0.680
0.600
0.876
0.850
0.801
0.939
0.913
0.828
0.916
0.880
0.957
0.916
0.867
0.840
0.831
0.940
0.878
0.778
0.878
0.924
0.856
0.765
0.911
0.965
WG
I
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
0.561
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
0.467
0.733
0.549
0.668
0.576
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
0.620
0.648
0.447
0.750
0.723
0.720
0.486
0.609
0.832
France
Gabon
Gambia
Gaza / West Bank
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Equatorial Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Salomon Islands
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Iran
Ireland
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kirghizstan
Kuwait
Laos
Lesotho
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malaysia
Malawi
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Morocco
Mauritius
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldavia
Mongolia
Montenegro
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
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
0.327
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
0.564
0.637
0.410
0.359
0.357
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
0.539
0.536
0.522
0.449
0.297
0.618
0.438
0.495
0.419
Pe
Se ace
cu an
rit d
y
R
of ule
La
w
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
0.545
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
0.864
0.927
0.736
0.852
0.892
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
0.873
0.895
0.913
0.903
0.704
0.912
0.804
0.863
0.820
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
0.350
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
0.365
0.612
0.532
0.280
0.611
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
0.541
0.576
0.612
0.323
0.455
0.533
0.480
0.611
0.281
S
De ust
ve ain
lo a
p
meble
nt
De Hu
ve ma
l
o
n
p
me
nt
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
0.486
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
0.568
0.599
0.533
0.583
0.559
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
0.556
0.564
0.548
0.589
0.480
0.520
0.517
0.505
0.542
H
Riguma
ht n
s
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
0.417
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
0.677
0.652
0.505
0.634
0.370
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
0.587
0.562
0.617
0.625
0.129
0.669
0.530
0.605
0.477
Nigeria
Norway
New Zealand
Oman
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Netherlands
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
DRC
Dominican Republic
Czech Republic
Romania
United Kingdom
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Lucia
So Tom and Prncipe
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
Sudan
Sri Lanka
St Vincent and the Grenadines
Sweden
Switzerland
Surinam
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Chad
Thailand
East Timor
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Turkey
Ukraine
Uruguay
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Averages
WG
I
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
0.425
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
0.607
0.685
0.543
0.542
0.558
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
0.619
0.627
0.643
0.578
0.413
0.650
0.554
0.616
0.508
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
0.582
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
0.337
0.443
0.769
0.864
0.810
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
0.595
0.514
0.725
0.345
0.420
0.392
0.466
0.366
0.528
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
0.564
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
0.583
0.664
0.645
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
0.557
0.562
0.599
0.520
0.549
0.535
0.521
0.551
0.558
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
0.639
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
0.536
0.800
0.827
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
0.586
0.538
0.671
0.687
0.613
0.466
0.378
0.151
0.577
WG
I
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
0.651
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
0.697
0.843
0.807
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
0.599
0.605
0.733
0.578
0.571
0.490
0.556
0.432
0.616
H
Riguma
ht n
s
S
De ust
ve ain
l
o
pmable
en
t
De Hu
ve ma
lo n
p
me
nt
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
0.569
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
0.340
0.444
0.742
0.937
0.798
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
0.460
0.523
0.720
0.542
0.390
0.272
0.515
0.384
0.557
Pe
Se ace
cu an
rit d
y
R
of ule
La
w
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
0.899
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
0.566
0.713
0.855
0.951
0.954
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
0.795
0.886
0.949
0.798
0.882
0.787
0.902
0.710
0.859
17
18
Patrick Cabin, The Queue, 2007 ADAGP, Banque dimages, Paris 2011
EU / OECD Figures
19
20
Africa Figures
21
22
23
24
Vassily Kandinsky, The Fat and the Thin ADAGP/BPK, Berlin, Dist.RM N/ image BStGS
CONCLUSION
25
The challenge will be different when it comes to other players. In France, the recent and significant malfunctioning of a French NGO accused of trafficking
children early in 2008, amply conveyed by the media, has contributed to rekindling the debate on the
governance of non-state actors. It is therefore natural
to raise the question of governance within this fuzzy
mass of organizations.
In the same way that the five indicators of this survey
make it possible to assess the performance of nationstates in the area of governance, other indicators
should be able to make it possible to evaluate the
impact of IGOs, NGOs and enterprises of global dimension. Evaluating the responsibility and accountability of these players should not stop at theory. The
idea is to assess the way in which these players commit to factoring their beneficiaries needs into their
decisions, and the way in which they fulfill this commitment.
26
COPYRIGHT APPENDIX
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.
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 balance of power by reaching a compromise among different national
interests, but to manage the planet collectively, including in its
environmental dimension.
28
www.world-governance.org
This Proposals Paper is published with the support of the Charles Lopold Mayer Foundation