• Save
Governance and development   international comparisons
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Governance and development international comparisons

on

  • 2,831 views

This presentation depicts graphically some indicators of development (average per capita income, poverty rate and income inequality), as well as some governance indicators (government effectiveness, ...

This presentation depicts graphically some indicators of development (average per capita income, poverty rate and income inequality), as well as some governance indicators (government effectiveness, control of corruption, voice and accountability, and rule of law). Major regions and countries around the world are portrayed in comparative terms.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,831
Views on SlideShare
2,074
Embed Views
757

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
0
Comments
3

6 Embeds 757

http://build.tripod.lycos.com 370
http://www.jimwes.com 250
http://jimwes.com 116
http://quivillaperu.tripod.com 15
http://www.linkedin.com 4
https://twitter.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Gracias a los dos, los datos están en la página web del Banco Mundial por si quieren Uds usarlos de otra manera.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Thanks Roberto, your presentation is very clare, congratulations from University of Valparaíso, Chile www.uv.cl
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • wow, the document is really great. I love graphics, specially these graphics, the research is just fantastic. congratulations
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Governance and development   international comparisons Governance and development international comparisons Presentation Transcript

  • GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT: SOME INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS ROBERTO VILLARREAL August 2012
  • CONTENTS• This presentation depicts graphically some indicators of development (average per capita income, poverty rate and income inequality), as well as some governance indicators (government effectiveness, control of corruption, voice and accountability, and rule of law).• Their definitions and sources are indicated in the respective slides.• Major regions and countries around the world are portrayed in comparative terms.• The order in which slides are presented is as follows: – Major regions of the world – Arab countries – East and South Asia and Pacific countries – Eastern Europe and CIS countries – Latin America and Caribbean countries – OECD countries – Sub-Saharan African countries ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONSMAJOR REGIONS AROUND THE WORLD ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INCOME PER CAPITA*, SELECTED REGIONS AND WORLD AVERAGES, 1990-2006 40000 1 35000 30000 25000 1 North America 2 Europe 20000 3 World 4 Central America and Caribbean 5 South America 15000 6 Middle East and North Africa 7 Asia (excluding Middle east) 2 8 Sub-Saharan Africa 10000 3 5000 4 5 6 7 0 8 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 * GDP per capita, constant US dollars (Constant 2000 US$ per person) SOURCE: Prepared with data from http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-640.html, Development Data Group, The World Bank. 2008. 2008 World Development Indicators Online. Washington, DC: The World Bank. See also http:// go.worldbank.org/UOFSM7AQ40 ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX, BY MAJOR REGIONS, 1985-20100.75 EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 0.7 EAST ASIA & PACIFIC0.65 ARAB STATES 0.60.55 SOUTH ASIA 0.5 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA0.45 0.40.35 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 SOURCE: Prepared with data from the Human Development Report Database, United Nations Development Program. http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/ The HDI is a composite indicator that combines measurements of per capita income, schooling and life expectancy. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • AVERAGE INCOME AND POVERTY IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2005 1,2 100 300 dollars 625 dollars 1,250 dollars 2,500 dollars 5,000 dollars 10,000 dollars 20,000 dollars per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita 90Percentage of the population living under 1.25 dollars a day Tanzania 80 Burundi Rwanda Nepal Zwaziland 70 Niger Madagascar 60 Sierra Leone Dem. Rep. Congo Angola Uganda Mali 50 of Congo Bangladesh Lesotho 40 Ethiopia Togo India Senegal Micronesia 30 Ghana South Africa Cote d’Ivoire Honduras Saint Lucia 20 Bolivia Kenya Indonesia Colombia China Belize Yemen Panama 10 Nicaragua Guatemala Paraguay Salvador Venezuela Egypt TunisiaBrazil Mexico 0 Argentina Jordan Romania 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 Gross National Income per capita (logarithm base 10) 1 Latest available data up to year 2005 2 PPP data for 2005 SOURCE: Prepared with data from the Human Development Report database, United Nations Development Program, http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/ ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INCIDENCE AND DEPTH OF POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, MAJOR REGIONS*, 1995-2010 East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, Sub-Saharan AfricaMillions of persons Average income shortfallbelow the povety line relative to the poverty line (%) 1000 30 900 25 800 700 20 600 500 15 400 10 300 200 5 100 0 0 East Asia & Pacific East Asia & Pacific South Asia 1990 South Asia 2005 Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africa 1990 2005 1990 2005 * The bars respresent the number of persons living under 1.25 dollars a day (adjusted for international purchasing power parity) and their magnitude is measured on the left axis in millions of persons. The dots indicate the average percentage shortfall from the poverty line and the magnitude is expressed on the right axis in percentage. SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank Development Indicators Database, http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INCIDENCE AND DEPTH OF POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, MAJOR REGIONS*, 1995-2010 Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Central AsiaMillions of persons Average income shortfallbelow the povety line relative to the poverty line (%)60 650 540 430 320 210 1 0 0 Latin America & Latin America & Middle East & Middle East & Europe & Central Europe & Central Caribbean 1990 Caribbean 2005 North Africa 1990 North Africa 2005 Asia 1990 Asia 2005 * The bars respresent the number of persons living under 1.25 dollars a day (adjusted for international purchasing power parity) and their magnitude is measured on the left axis in millions of persons. The dots indicate the average percentage shortfall from the poverty line and the magnitude is expressed on the right axis in percentage. SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank Development Indicators Database, http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INCOME AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2005 70 LOW INCOME Latvia HIGH INCOME 65 HIGH INEQUALITY HIGH INEQUALITY Swaziland 60 Brazil Poland Angola Colombia HondurasBelize South Africa 55 Bolivia Thailand Liberia Rwanda Sao Tome e Guatemala Panama Principe Paraguay 50 Nicaragua Dominican Mexico Rep.Income inequality 1 Madagascar Kenya El Salvador Argentina Dem. Rep. Mozambique 45 Philippines Malaysia of Congo Jamaica Uganda Cambodia Russian Fed. Morocco China Gabon United States Qatar 40 Ghana Mauritania India Jordan Tunisia Turkey Guinea Lithuania Italy Tanzania Algeria Iran 35 Lao Indonesia Croatia Spain Belgium Kyrgyzstan Albania Switzerland Burundi Niger Togo Greece Egypt Kazahstan Hungary 30 Bangladesh Timor Canada France Leste Armenia Romania Austria Ethiopia Tajikistan Serbia Estonia Germany 25 Ukraine Finland Belarus Norway LOW INCOME Sweden HIGH INCOME Chile 20 LOW INEQUALITY Seychelles LOW INEQUALITY 150 dollars 300 dollars 625 dollars 1,250 dollars 2,500 dollars 5,000 dollars 10,000 dollars 20,000 dollars 40,000 dollars 80,000 dollars 15 per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 Average income level 2 1 Latest available value of the income Gini coefficient in the period 1995-2009. 2 Gross National Intome per capita, 2005. Scale in logarithm base 10. SOURCE: Prepared with data from the Hhuman Development Report database, United Nations Development Program, http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/ ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2010 2.5 Higher Finland effectiveness Singapore Denmark in government Sweden 2 Austria Canada Australia New Belgium Luxemburg Barbados UK Zealand Netherlands 1.5 France Germany Iceland Israel Estonia USA Japan Ireland Malaysia Korea Cayman Is Chile Portugal 1 Czech RepSlovenia Spain Qatar Croatia Hungary Dominica Bahamas Italy Oman Uruguay Greece0.5 Poland Antigua and South Botswana Barbuda Less control Mexico Africa Costa Rica More control of corruption China Colombia Tunisia Brazil Puerto Rico of corruption Armenia 0 Rwanda Argentina Saudi -2 -1.5 Peru -1 -0.5 0 Arabia 0.5Cuba 1 1.5 2 2.5 Russia Kenya Egypt Morocco Kyrgystan -0.5 Lesotho Uzbekistan Syria Cambodia Zambia Iraq Burundi Madagascar -1 Angola Nigeria Liberia Djibouti Zimbabwe CentralAfghanistan Chad Togo African Eritrea -1.5Myanmar Haiti Rep Equatorial CongoDemRep Comoros Guinea North Korea -2 Lower Somalia effectiveness in government -2.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political ROBERTO VILLARREALpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2010 3 More control of corruption 2.5 New Zealand Denmark Singapore Finland Sweden Australia Norway 2 Iceland Luxemburg Germany Austria Qatar Japan 1.5 Antigua and Chile France Barbuda Belgium Bahamas UK United Arab Cayman United States Emirates Islands Portugal Spain Bhutan 1 Botswana Martinique Brunei Slovenia Cuba Rwanda Israel Grenada Costa Rica Oman Kuwait 0.5 Namibia Korea PolandLower voice and Lesotho Higher voice and accountability Saudi Arabia Bahrain Ghana accountability Malaysia Hungary Jordan Brazil South Africa Swaziland 0 Tunisia Belize Georgia Mexico -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 Argentina 0.5 Greece1 1.5 2 Algeria Sri Lanka Viet Nam -0.5 Marshall Eritrea China Egypt Armenia India Islands Iran Belorus Nepal Benin Mali Yemen Russia -1 Lybia Kenya Uzbekistan Chad Pakistan Sudan Papua and North Korea Haiti New Guinea Turkmenistan Zimbabwe Iraq Angola -1.5 Equatorial Less control Myanmar Guinea Afghanistan Somalia of corruption -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as fredom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, RULE OF LAW AND VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2009 2 Higher Voice and Accountability Denmark Iceland Sweden 1.5 Belgium France St Lucia New Zealand Portugal Canada Australia Marshall Is NauaruCosta Rica Micronesia Japan Italy UK 1 USA Grenada Mauritius Anguilla Chile Belize Tuvalu Kiribati Brazil Vanuatu Israel Korea Rep Jamaica Hong Kong SAR China 0.5 Bulgaria Benin Romania Suriname Antigua Barbuda Botswana Papua New Guinea Namibia Netherland Macedonia Worse Rule of Law Timor Leste Mexico Seychelles s Better Rule of Law Bolivia 0 Tonga -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 Kenya -0.5 0 Turkey 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Ecuador Burkina Faso Bangladesh Singapore Nicaragua -0.5 Malaysia Haiti Uganda Kuwait Guinea Bissau Morocco Bhutan Bahrain Brunei Venezuela Nigeria Cambodia Kyrgyztan Rusia Armenia Jordan Qatar Angola -1 Azerbaijan United Arab Emirates Iraq Oman Cote D’Iivoire Egypt Afghanistan Yemen Rwanda Tunisia Congo DR Iran Syria Chad Belarus -1.5 Zimbabwe Guinea Lao Sudan China Equatorial Guinea Cuba Saudi Arabia Libya Turkmenistan Uzbekistan -2 Somalia Myanmar Korea DR -2.5 Lower Voice and AccountabilitySOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Rule of Law” indicator measures the degree to which actiorshave confidence in and abide by the rules of sociery, including contract enforcement, property rights, police, and courts, as well as the ROBERTO VILLARREALlikelihood of crime and violence. It is represented by the size of the circles, solid ones denote positive values and clear ones negative; theirsize is proportional to the absolute value.
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS ARAB COUNTRIES ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN ARAB COUNTRIES, 2010 1.5 Higher effectiveness in government 1 Qatar United Arab Bahrain Emirates Oman 0.5 Less control Tunisia More control of corruption Jordan Kuwait of corruption 0 Morocco -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 Saudi 0.5 1 1.5 2 Lebanon Arabia Egypt -0.5 Syria Algeria Yemen -1 Lower Iraq effectivenessSudan Libya in government -1.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨¨Government Effectiveness¨indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to suchpolicies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN ARAB COUNTRIES, 2010 2 More control of corruption Qatar 1.5 United Arab 1 Emirates 0.5 Oman Kuwait Lower voice and Bahrain Higher voice and accountability Saudi Arabia Jordan accountability 0 -2.5 -2 -1.5 Tunisia -1 Morocco -0.5 0 -0.5 Egypt Algeria Lebanon -1 Syria Yemen Libya Less control Sudan of corruption Iraq -1.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONSEAST AND SOUTH ASIA AND THE PACIFIC ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF EAST ASIA, 2010 2.5 Higher effectiveness Singapore in government 2 1.5 Malaysia 1 Brunei 0.5 Less control China Thailand More control of corruption of corruption 0 Phillipines -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Indonesia Vietnam -0.5 Cambodia Mongolia -1 Laos -1.5 Myanmar North Korea -2 Lower effectiveness in government -2.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such ROBERTO VILLARREALpolicies.
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF EAST ASIA, 2010 2.5 More control Singapore of corruption 2 1.5 1 Brunei 0.5 Lower voice and Higher voice and accountability Malaysia accountability 0 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Thailand -0.5 China Vietnam Indonesia Mongolia Philippines Laos -1 Cambodia North Korea -1.5 Myanmar Less control of corruption -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF SOUTH ASIA, 2010 1 Higher effectiveness in government Bhutan 0.5 India 0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 Sri Lanka 0 0.5 1 Less control of corruption Maldives More control of corruption -0.5 Iran Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal -1 Afghanistan -1.5 Lower effectiveness in government -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to suchpolicies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF SOUTH ASIA, 2010 1 More control Bhutan of corruption 0.5 Lower voice and Higher voice and accountability accountability 0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Sri Lanka -0.5 Maldives India Nepal Iran Bangladesh -1 Pakistan -1.5 Afghanistan Less control of corruption -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF THE PACIFIC, 2010 Higher effectiveness in government 0 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Less control Samoa More control of corruption -0.2 of corruption Tonga Vanuatu -0.4 Tuvalu -0.6 Papua and Fiji New Guinea Micronesia -0.8 Solomon Islands Kiribati -1 -1.2 Lower Marshall effectiveness Islands -1.4 in governmentSOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such ROBERTO VILLARREALpolicies.
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF THE PACIFIC, 2010 0.6 More control of corruption 0.4 Vanuatu 0.2 Lower voice and Samoa Higher voice and accountability accountability 0 Kiribati -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Micronesia 1.5 -0.2 Tuvalu Tonga -0.4 Marshall Islands Solomon Islands -0.6 -0.8 Fiji -1 Papua and New Guinea -1.2 Less control of corruption -1.4SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS EASTERN EUROPE AND COUNTRIES OF THECOMMUNITY OF INDEPENDENT STATES (CIS) ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF EASTERN EUROPE AND CIS, 2010 1 Higher effectiveness Latvia in government Lithuania 0.5 Croatia Georgia Less control More control of corruption Bulgaria of corruption 0 Serbia -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 Romania 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Kazahstan Armenia Macedonia Russia Albania -0.5 Kyrgystan Uzbekistan Azerbaijan Moldova Ukraine Bosnia Albania Herzegovina Tajikistan -1 Belarus -1.5 Turkmenistan Lower effectiveness in government -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such ROBERTO VILLARREALpolicies.
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN EASTERN EUROPEAN AND CIS* COUNTRIES, 2010 0.4 More control of corruption Lithuania 0.2 Latvia Croacia 0 Macedonia -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 Georgia 0 Romania 0.5 1 1.5 -0.2 Bulgaria Lower voice and Serbia Higher voice and Bosnia-Herzegovina accountability accountability -0.4 Albania -0.6 Armenia Moldova Belarus -0.8 Kazakhstan Ukraine -1 Kyrgystan Russia Azerbaijan Tajikistan -1.2 Uzbekistan -1.4 Turkmenistan Less control of corruption -1.6* Community of Independent States, formed after the Soviet Union.SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONSLATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBEAN ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, 2010 1.5 Higher French effectiveness Guiana Chile in government 1 Uruguay 0.5 Costa Rica Mexico Less control Colombia El Brazil More control of corruption Panama Salvador of corruption 0 -1.5 -1 Guyana -0.5 Suriname 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Argentina Peru -0.5 Honduras Bolivia Belize Ecuador Guatemala Paraguay Nicaragua -1 Venezuela Lower effectiveness in government -1.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to suchpolicies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, 2010 2 More control of corruption 1.5 Chile Uruguay French Guiana 1 Costa Rica 0.5 Lower voice and Higher voice and accountability Brazil accountability 0 Belize -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 El Salvador Peru 0.5 1 1.5 Mexico Panama Colombia Argentina Suriname Guatemala -0.5 Bolivia Guyana Nicaragua Paraguay Honduras Ecuador -1 Venezuela Less control of corruption -1.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES, 2010 2 Higher effectiveness in government 1.5 Cayman Barbados Islands Bermuda 1 St. Lucia Bahamas Martinique Dominica Antigua and 0.5 Barbuda Jamaica Puerto Rico St. Vincent St. Kitts Less control Trinidad and the and Nevis More control of corruption and Tobago Grenada Grenadines of corruption 0 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Cuba -0.5 Dominican Republic -1 -1.5 Lower Haiti effectiveness in government -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to suchpolicies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, 2010 2 More control of corruption 1.5 Antigua and Barbados Bahamas Bermuda Barbuda Cayman St. Lucia Islands St. Kitts St. Vincent and 1 and Nevis the Ggrenedines Martinique Dominica Cuba 0.5 Puerto Rico Grenada 0 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Lower voice and Jamaica Trinidad and Higher voice and accountability Tobago accountability -0.5 Dominican -1 Republic Haiti Less control of corruption -1.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OECD* COUNTRIES * Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN OECD COUNTRIES, 2010 2.5 Higher effectiveness Finland in government Denmark 2 Sweden Switzerland Austria Canada New Zealand Norway Belgium Netherlands Australia Luxembourg 1.5 United Kingdom Iceland United States Germany France Japan Israel Estonia Korea Rep. Ireland Czech Rep Chile 1 Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Hungary Poland Greece0.5 Italy Turkey MexicoLess control More controlof corruption 0 of corruption-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to suchpolicies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN OECD COUNTRIES, 2010 2.5 More control New Zealand Denmark of corruption Netherlands Sweden Finland Canada Norway 2 Australia Iceland Switzerland Luxembourg Germany Ireland Austria Japan United 1.5 Chile Kingdom Belgium France United States 1 Portugal Spain Slovenia Estonia Israel 0.5 Korea Poland Hungary Lower voice and Slovakia Czech Rep Higher voice and accountability accountability 0 Turkey Italy -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Greece 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Less control of corruption Mexico -0.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS SUB- SAHARAN AFRICA ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF SUBSAHARAN AFRICA, 2010 1 Higher effectiveness Mauritius in government Botswana 0.5 South Africa Seychelles Ghana Namibia 0 Rwanda -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Cape 1 1.5 Verte More control Less control Ethiopia Malawi Lesotho of corruption of corruption Senegal Mozambique Kenya Tanzania -0.5 Swaziland Uganda Benin Burkina Faso Niger Gambia Sao Tome e Principe Cameroon Gabon Zambia Mali Madagascar Mauritania -1 Angola Burundi Djibouti Guinea Guinea Bissau Sierra Leone Congo Nigeria Liberia Cote d’Ivoire Central Eritrea Chad Togo African Zimbabwe -1.5 Republic Equatorial Dem Guinea Rep Comoros Congo -2 Somalia Lower effectiveness in government -2.5SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds toperceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms ofcorruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨¨Government Effectiveness¨indicator reflectsperceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from politicalpressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to suchpolicies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN SUBSAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES, 2010 1.5 More control of corruption 1 Botswana Cape Verte Rwanda Mauritius 0.5 Seychelles Lower voice and Namibia Higher voice and Lesotho Ghana accountability South Africa accountability 0 Swaziland -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 Madagascar -0.5 Malawi Mozambique 0 0.5 1 1.5 Djibouti Burkina Faso Eritrea Sao Tome e Principe Gambia Mauritania Niger Liberia -0.5 Tanzania Zambia Mali Ethiopia Senegal Benin Central African Rep Gabon Comoros Sierra Leone Cameroon Togo Nigeria Uganda Kenya -1 Guinea-Bissau Cote d’Ivoire Burundi Chad Congo Guinea Angola Equatorial Guinea Zimbabwe Congo Dem. Rep. -1.5 Somalia Less control of corruption -2SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicatorsdatabase, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions ofthe extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom ofassociation and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power isexcercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. ROBERTO VILLARREAL
  • END OF PRESENTATION ROBERTO VILLARREAL