Presentation held by Scott W. Lyons Democracy Specialist/ Anticorruption Advisor U.S. Agency for International Development Batumi, within the Regional Workshop on Georgia's anti-corruption and public service delivery reforms (22-24 September 2011).

1. Public Service Delivery of the Future –
Combating Corruption, Streamlining Performance
What Can Be Learned from Country-Based
Rankings Conducted by Various International
Institutions
Scott W. Lyons
Democracy Specialist/ Anticorruption Advisor
U.S. Agency for International Development
Batumi, September 22-24, 2011
1

2. Summary
Country-Based Rankings: Creation &
Meaning
Modern Trends: Objective Standards &
Local Initiatives
International Expectations & Usage of
Rankings
What Can Countries Do To Improve Their
Rankings
2

3. Country-Based Rankings:
Creation & Meaning
+ -
Often Created from Aggregate Subjective
Perception Surveys &
(often <10 surveys) Not for Cross-Comparison
Views from Business, Experts, and Not all Countries are Ranked in
Public Opinion Each Index Survey
For Awareness Raising – Influenced by Political/Economic
Encouragement to Improve Cycles like Stability and Recession
Perception Government is Making Despite Caveats, can Influence
a Difference can Reflect Reality Donor Aid and Foreign Investment
Can Sometimes Help Identify Uncertain Causal Linkages
Public Service Sectoral Targeting between Scores and Specific
Factors – Not Diagnostic
3

4. Modern Trends: Objective Standards & Local Initiatives
LOCAL OBJECTIVE
www.ipaidabribe.com (India) Doing Business Survey
www.transparencyreporting.net (World Bank)
New Open Government
(The Philippines) - Pera Natin ’to
Look Partnership
www.mipanamatransparente.com
(Multilateral Initiative)
(Panama)
www.bribespot.com
Objective Standards
(Worldwide)
Provide Good Guidance,
but can have irregular
results
Local projects can lead to
internal snapshots, but questions
of bias, impact, and follow-up
4

5. International Expectations & Usage of Rankings
(usually shame and blame, except examples from)
1. Millennium Challenge Corporation 2. Open Government Partnership
of Rankings
Uses Worldwide Governance Objective indicators: laws for
Indicator’s (WGI) “Control of budgets, information access,
Corruption” to assess every year disclosures, civil liberties
Corruption is the only “Hard Hurdle” Laws demonstrating commitment in
– only factor that failure to be the four areas is the key criteria for
above median precludes funding eligibility
Low income countries compared to Inconsistent results:
each other and low/middle income Pakistan, El Salvador, Russia (in)
compared to each other Argentina (out)
Country with “Compact” can be Once pass eligibility criteria, deliver
dropped if fall below median due to action plan and commit to reporting
serious changes in policy
So far only drops for democratic Just started this week
backsliding
5

6. What Can Countries Do To Improve Their Rankings
For Objective Rankings and Surveys:
• Pass relevant Freedom of Information laws, asset disclosure,
civil law criminalization of corrupt acts, whistle-blower
protections
• Improvement in Public Service Sector Business Reforms such
as easing permitting and business/property registry
For Subjective Rankings and Surveys:
• Highly visible actions like prosecution of corrupt officials
• Civil Society Strengthening
• Improvement at point of access of public service delivery –
reduction in petty bribery within police, registry and permitting
services, and tax administration – where citizens and
businesses frequently interact with the government
Tangible Benefit: Increased International Investment
6

7. Thank You!
7