«We have entered the knowledge and learning based economy and society. Beyond the national and international statistics available to states, a ...»
The IMD World annual report provides for national competitiveness an approach comparable with the one of the World Bank in terms of good governance. Methodology relates in fact to "good competitiveness". The scope is 59 countries or areas (Rosselet-Mac Cauley, 2003) and the analysis is published without a break since 1989. Three hundred and twenty criteria are retained with the participation of 52 data suppliers partners.
It is interesting to note that the choices of synthetic indicators retained for the competitiveness indicators can be highlighted. There are four dimensions of indicators or interest which, for some of them are found in the good governance indicators.
- The economic performance (75 criteria) concerning the macro-economic level, the international trade, the international investment, employment and the prices,
- the performance or the efficiency of the firms (69 criteria) which includes productivity, management and attitudes and values indicators,
- the scientific, technological infrastructure and human resources (96 criteria),
- the efficiency of the government (81 criteria) which introduces the public finance and the tax policy, the regulatory framework, the businesses and markets legislations and the societal policies.
The fourth competitiveness measurement dimension is obviously close to the dimension of good governance. One finds there gathered knowledge and appreciations on the conditions which enable competition to be expressed without coming up against too much state interventionism (that one previously found in the quality of the regulation). The macro-social conditions must minimize the political risk (which was found in the indicator of good gouvernance), with two specificities however: the stress laid here on the flexibility of the government to reform its policies in an international and changing government; and the stress laid on the education and the quality of the formation as bases of a knowledge based economy.
6 Specificities of the competitiveness indicators are explained by the needs for fast economic adjustment, which are expressed today in the worldwide economy. The competitiveness approach, as we can see, if it seems comparable in certain connections with that of the good governance, off-set the accent towards the economic issues, the wealth creation, the territories attractiveness and the environment favorable to the firms and their valorization.
4. Measurements and appreciations of good governance:
discussion of the arbitrations between a scientific approach and the use of conventional judgements.
The good governance approach is based on knowledge of what is good for a society, in terms of economic, social, cultural and in fine political success.
Beyond the firms and nations competitiveness measurement (Porter, Mr., 1990), it is a matter of appreciating the democracy and its consequences on the standard of living, the life quality or even the lifestyle. It is done through measurement but also through more qualitative or hazier appreciations. Some presuppositions for the ones are certainties for others. Thus, Michael Porter explained the American performance superiority compared to the one of the European Union by using two arguments. One was rather measurable, the competitive pressure. The other was hazier, the idea that the European institutions and beliefs were not good. This idea is evoked in the ambivalent cultural expression of Europe, more precisely: "the excessive intrusion of the governments in the economy in Europe, the absence of competitive pressures and a cultural ambivalence towards the capitalism with a suspicion of antisocial feature" (Porter, Mr., 2001). A priori, given what is known at the moment, there is not one single good social model. At the opposite, it will not be paid attention to the post modernism or to the socio-economies incomparability postulate.
Measurement on universal reference marks (at least on a given geographical scale) thus will be necessarily completed with the locating of the position in such or such scale of conventions or of socio-political or economic beliefs (assumptions still not completely tested or testable). Quantitative measurement is a priori more trusted because of precision, apparent certainty and... the magic of the figure. In fact, an assessment resorting only to the quantitative measurement of the public policies regulations impact and, more generally of the good governance compared to universals, would imply to be confronted with a system having several
1°) writing of the best model of governance. Possible writing of a distinction between the exogenous variables (regulation for example or public policy) and the endogenous variables.
2°) Writing of the testable relationships.
3°) Production of convincing results as a result of the empirical tests;
4°) possible experimentations of news governances, laws or policies with possible comparisons of the results with regard to reference scenarios or similar situations (production of a "contractual" or reference solutions)… 7 Main usual methodology consists in doing "as if" these modelling conditions were observed. One writes a model inside of which one or several impact logical diagrams are set, i.e., the causes to effects relationships for each cause and for the whole effects. Then one asks oneself the question the range of such a diagram purely logical at the start. One tests the crucial links in the transmission of the effects created by the initial impulse. This methodology corresponds to the usual process of an applied science implementation. One deduces universals: causal relationships leading to the good effects: this governance produces better effects...
But considering on the one hand the systems complexity, on the other hand the lack of universal reference frames in all the fields, more conventional appreciations are necessary. A second method, more qualitative and closer to the “measurement of a mirror-effect” or to a more subjective individual or collective appraisal (conventional) consists in collecting the results of individual inquiries, sometimes the experts statements (that is to say in gathering as much specialized knowledge as possible but also scattered knowledge). The experts statements can be completed or confronted with observations. Such investigations in various conventional reference frames are thus the basic material for 14 World Bank sources (Afrobarometer, Business environnement risk intelligence, Country Policy and Institutional assessment, State capacity survey for developed and developing countries, Economist Intelligence Unit, for example). We are far from plain and simple measurement in a single reference frame. Often besides the same questions asked in the inquiries can be differently interpreted depending on socio-economic or cultural context, depending on social norms in force. So the investigations have to be adapted to each state. Thus, the inquiry cost goes up and at the same time its results are less comparable. Moreover, in the poorest countries, reliable statistics resulting from real individual inquiries are less numerous. Finally, the specific problems of in transition economies deserve a particular attention and methodology, because in those countries, the reference is often much more difficult to construct.
It is impossible to discuss precisely the conventional appreciations benefits and drawbacks because of the too large gap, which separates them. The measurement uncertainty degree generated in particular by the “as if” hypothesis of the first approach can not be compared with the inaccuracy degree and the hazy or “self-maintained” feature of the second method more conventional judgements. Therefore one can only recommend directly to seek if necessary and when it is feasible, the crosschecking of methods. One will not attribute in fine a complete confidence to the results which will be obtained at the time of the knowledge synthesis. Rather significant confidence intervals must be retained.
8 5. Appreciations examples see the World Bank website
6. Econometric problems of the qualitative appreciation method.
The World Bank approach raises the following problems:
- Choice of the items or values dimensions number and their grouping in six synthetic categories.
- Weights choice.
- Heterogeneity of the quality, of the availability and of the field covered by the sources.
- Heterogeneous indicators in experts’ appreciations, dependence on the national contexts.
- Heterogeneous indicators aggregation problems.
- Logical circularity between "good governance” and “good statistics”.
… The authors indicate very clearly that the six governance dimensions are appreciated not in a very precise way: the standard deviations are rather significant. The size of the confidence intervals varies according to the various countries and one represents it by a vertical line for the confidence interval at 90 %. Few countries have a measurement which holds on a quartile. It means that one cannot compare the countries governance for which measurements are close. As for the evolutions of the indicators which can be observed in time
series, they can be explained in three manners:
- changes of a source real perception,
- changes in the weights assigned to the various sources,
- changes in the sets of sources.
Bibliographie d’appui :
• Site http://weforum.org/site ; (worldeconomic forum)
• Site http://wwwo2.imd;ch
• Site http://www.regionalobservatories.org.uk
• Site http:www.worldbank.org/public sector/indicators.htm et site http://infoworlbank.org/governance
• Site http://www.oecd.org
• Coface (2003), Le colloque Risque pays, site http://www.coface.fr
• Commission européenne. Livre blanc sur la gouvernance (juillet 2001) Voir aussi working papers de la cellule de prospective
• Convention européenne. Travaux du groupe de travail sur la gouvernance économique (politique monétaire, politique économique, questions institutionnelles) (2002-2003) Cf. http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat general/sgc/ consultation/index_fr.htm
BASLÉ, M. (2003), « Bonnes gouvernances publiques en Europe et Évaluation. Introduction d’un débat de socio-économie politique de l’évaluation », Revue d ’économie publique et de recherches - n°10, février.
GARELLI, S. (2003), « Competitiveness of Nations : the fondamentals », site IMD International Lausanne.
FUKUYAMA F. (1995), Social virtues and the creation of prosperity, New York, The Free Press;
KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A., (2003), Growth without Governance, Draft Paper KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A., ZOIDO-LOBATON, P. (1999) « Agregating governance Indicators. World Bank Working Paper», n° 2195, et idem, Gestion des affaires politiques. De l ’évaluation à l ’action. Idem Banque mondiale (février 2002) Governance matters II. Updated indicators for 2000/2001.
Policy Research Working Paper, n° 2772 KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A., MASTRUZZI, M., (2003), « Governance matters III : Indicators for 1996-2002 ». Présentations at the World Bank, may.
See http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance KAUFMANN, D., (2003), « Rethinking Governance. Empirical lessons Challenge Orthodoxy », Discussion Draft, march.
KNACK, S., KEEFER, P., (1995), « Institutions and Economic Performance :
cross-country tests using alternative institutional measures », Economics and Politics, volume 7, pp. 207-227.
National economic and social forum, (2003), The policy implications of social capital, Dublin, mai, Isln 1-899276-32-7 PORTER, M.. (1990), The competitive advantage of Nations, creating and sustaining superior performance, PORTER, M. (2001), Restructuring : is Europe out of the Woods ? ; Annual meeting du World Economic Forum, site http://www.weforum.org
WEISS, T.G., (2000), « Governance, good governance and global governance :
conceptual and actual challenges », Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, n°5, pp.