Open Government Partnership’s first birthday

26 September 2012

This week is the first anniversary of the Open Government Partnership. An ‘infographic’ on the Open Government blog gives a helpful picture of progress during the year. The founding membership involved eight national governments. Since then, another 49 states have committed to the partnership.

New Zealand and Australia remain aloof despite (or because?) the Worldwide Governance Indicators show that both rate better on all indicators than most of the OGP membership ( although Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are part of the OGP.)

The British Minister for the Cabinet Office has commented enthusiastically about the transparency movement, championed by the OGP.

“…Open data is driving growth and prosperity. Data is the raw material of the 21st century and a resource for a new generation of entrepreneurs. But transparency is not just about economics. Transparency shines a light on underperformance and inefficiencies in public services. It allows citizens and the media to hold governments to account, strengthening civil society and building more open societies…”

“…As lead co-chair of the Open Government Partnership, the United Kingdom will lead by example. Data.gov.uk, our web portal, is already the largest data resource in the world with over 40,000 files online. We’ve also ensured that every British government department has specific new open data commitments in their business plans. But we aren’t stopping there. Alongside our international work through the partnership, Britain will keep driving forward our domestic transparency agenda…”

“…The open data revolution is having real and measurable impacts on public services and citizen choice in Britain. To take just one example from an OGP commitment, we now release information showing GP practice performance in handling cancer cases. This allows patients to compare survival rates between neighbouring practices and make decisions about their care…”

http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/2012/09/open-government-partnership-first-year-infographic/

www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/sep/26/francis-maude-open-government-partnership

Is lobbying different in Europe?

25 September 2012

Corporate Europe Observatory is a pressure group committed to raising awareness of the influence of big business on the European Commission.  It promotes itself as exposing the power of corporate lobbying on the EU law making process. It wants much tighter protection of “the public interest”.

That the Commission’s budget relating to expert groups which comment on draft legislation has been blocked by MEPs, is an acknowledgment of wider concern about improper influence.  

Corporate Europe Observatory has posted a video on its website about the way officials are subjected to vested interests and how lobbying is effective in shaping the way laws are drafted. The group is concerned that the extent of the problem is not recognised by some at the Commission.

“… some within the Commission do not see any problem with this state of affairs. They seem to think that taking advice from a room full of bankers does not influence their perception of what needs to be done…” The claim is that business interests are influencing EU directives that govern much of the legislation of member states. The commercial sector supplies the experts on how business should be done and who “….not surprisingly seek to influence the rules in their own interests…”

Joint research by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation and Corporate Europe Observatory into banking and finance sector regulation suggests that EU reforms were heavily influenced by leading bankers sitting on expert advisory groups. The research supports the position that corporate interests dominate a number of areas of the Commission’s work.

Corporate Europe Observatory seeks a “…profound change in attitude and working culture.  The Commission has to demonstrate that it is not in the pocket of big business and that it does not take decisions only in the interests of a small minority ( “the 1%”) but for society at large..”

The  private member’s bill on Lobbying Disclosure currently with the Government Administration Committee seeks “… to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure around the lobbying activity directed at members of Parliament and their staff, and in so doing to enhance trust in the integrity and impartiality of democracy and political decision making…”

 

http://corporateeurope.org/blog/after-first-round-expert-groups-battle

http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2012/commission-must-act-tackle-business-lobbyists-expert-groups

www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/MakeSub/b/f/4/50SCGA_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL11278_1-Lobbying-Disclosure-Bill.htm

 

 

New catalogue of indices

24 September 2012

Survey statistics provide some sort of guide to the nature of governance and social conditions – and a way of comparing national characteristics and the state of “good government”.  The Economist “Pocket  World of Figures 2013”  collates  national rankings on a range of social circumstances ‘‘… from boozing and banking, travel and TV habits, politics, population and Nobel Peace Prize winners..”

The part of the Economist promotion reported by New Zealand media is that New Zealand has slipped from being the country with the highest level of gifting to charity, to falling behind the United States and Australia.

A more substantial collation of statistics also released this month is the Global Observatory Catalogue of Indices.  This lists 30  open-source measures ranging from human rights to conflict,  from governance to gender,  with the  ranking of countries according to their score.  This is the first packaging in this way – which will be a helpful source of references for this blog.

The 30 indices are organised in six categories:

1. Conflict, Fragility, and Instability
2. Environment
3. Freedoms and Rights
4. Gender
5. Governance
6. Socio-Economics

The indices covered by the catalogue are:

Failed State Index by The Fund for Peace

Global Peace Index  by Institute for Economics and Peace

Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger by University of Maryland

Political Instability Index  by the Economist Intelligence Unit

State Fragility Index  by George Mason University

Country Indicators for Foreign Policy: Failed and Fragile States by Carleton University

Environmental Performance Index by Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy

Freedom in the World Index  by Freedom House

Press Freedom Survey by Freedom House

Worldwide Press Freedom Index  by Reporters without Borders

Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database by David L. Cingranelli (Binghamton University,  and David L. Richards, University of Memphis

Economic Freedom in the World Index by the Fraser Institute

Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal

Gender Inequality Index  by the United Nations Development Programme

Global Gender Gap index  by the World Economic Forum

Corruption Perceptions Index  by Transparency International

Democracy Index  by the Economist Intelligence Unit

The World Bank Governance Indicators

Bertelsmann Transformation Index (Status Index) by Bertelsmann Stiftung

Bertelsmann Transformation Index (Management Index) by Bertelsmann Stiftung

Gallup Global Wellbeing (thriving) Index by  Gallup

Global Hunger Index   by International Food Policy Research Institute, Concern Worldwide

Human Development Index (HDI) by The United Nations Development Programme

Multidimensional Povert y Index  by The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative  and UNDP Human Development Report Office

World Bank Ease of Doing Business Indicators  by World Bank International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Global Competitiveness Index by World Economic Forum

Impunity Index on the Murder of Journalists by the Committee to Protect Journalists

Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)/ International Development Association (IDA) Resource Allocation Index by the World Bank

In scrolling down the indices, New Zealand rates in the top five of many on which countries would wish to appear.

www.theglobalobservatory.org/indices/351-indices.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6201977/100-world-facts-from-the-Economists-Pocket-World-In-Figures.html

Corrupting influence of sex in Singapore

 21 September 2012

 

Singapore is concerned that recent ‘sex for favour’ scandals will have an effect on its reputation for integrity.  Prime Minister Lee “… has vowed to punish corrupt officials, no matter how senior… Anyone who breaks the rules will be caught and punished. No cover-up will be allowed, no matter how senior the officer or how embarrassing it may be.”

At the 60th anniversary of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau he indicated that instilling public officials with right values was important because “no system can completely stop a determined cheat.”

Incidents this year involving the chief of the Narcotics Bureau, the head of the Civil Defence Force and a law professor at the National University of Singapore have caused national embarrassment. The Prime Minister commented that …”it’s far better to suffer the embarrassment and keep the system clean for the long-term, than to pretend that nothing has gone wrong and to let the rot spread.”

Singapore is ranked as the fifth least corrupt public administration on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, after New Zealand, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. .On the 2012 Worldwide Governance Indicators, Singapore is rated 9th on the Control of Corruption indicator. Although it is in the 90th percentile for the Rule of Law indicator (top 20 places), it is placed in the 50 =75th percentile on the Voice and Accountability indicator.

To remove temptation, Singapore has a policy of high pay for its civil service. And its ministers are the highest paid politicians in the world. The Prime Minister’s salary is US$2.4 million compared with the United States President ‘s  $400,000.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/singapore-pm-tolerate-corruption-17268054#.UFoQ4q6caAh

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/sc_chart.asp

Does size affect the quality of governance?

20 September 2012

It seems appropriate when considering public sector integrity to lump the “old” Commonwealth together – to equate ethical standards in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – and to assume that British standards of propriety are shared.  There is even a propensity to question the standards of countries that for periods have chosen to opt out of the traditional Commonwealth consensus – places like Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Fiji.

What the 2012 Worldwide Governance Indicators show is a difference that exists in the governance standards even among the “old” Commonwealth.

Of that group, New Zealand rates best on all six indicators. Australia is ranked “next” on four standards with Canada following. On the two indicators where Canada is in second place, Australia is third. The United Kingdom ranks behind New Zealand, Australia and Canada on all six indicators.

If the commitment to integrity and democracy is common, should there be any substantial difference in compliance with governance standards?  Although  the United Kingdom and Australia are rated in the 90th percentile ( top 20 countries ) along with New Zealand and Canada for five of the indicators, they are both rated in the 2012 report only in the 50 -75th percentile on the indicator relating to Political Stability and Absence of Violence.

Australia trails New Zealand to a statistically significant degree. Australia is in the top ten places only for Regulatory Quality (7th)  Rule of Law (8th) and  Controlling Corruption (8th).  The reluctance of South Australian parliamentarians to come to agreement on the framework for a setting up a Corruption Commission – in the same way the Victoria took years to decide –  may be indicative attitudes generally. Neither Canada nor the United Kingdom make the “top ten”.

Could the answer be a matter of size?  No large countries are assessed by Transparency International as being among the least corrupt public sectors.  The least corrupt all have fewer than 10 million people – Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, Singapore, Sweden, Norway etc.

Big countries like the United States, India, China and Russia may have some basis for claiming that there is a statistical prejudice in favour of small countries.   However if that were the case, why do the microstates of the Pacific – where there are strong religious and ethical traditions – score so badly on the WGI?

  http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/mc_chart.asp

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/appointment-stalling-icac-bill-sa-govt/story-fn3dxiwe-1226475947912

https://integritytalkingpoints.com/2012/09/18/2012-wgis-are-poor-for-much-of-the-pacific-forum/

Survey indicates corruption risks in international trade

19 September 2012

The Deloitte Australia and New Zealand bribery and corruption survey published last week highlighted the risks facing businesses operating in jurisdictions where “money talks”.

Many responses suggest that the commitment required of State sector agencies to ensure staff are familiar with integrity obligations, is not well developed in companies operating internationally. Extractive industries seem to be most at risk.

The experience of the Australian Reserve Bank subsidiary Note Printing Australia with senior staff making improper payments of millions of dollars to obtain contracts – on top of the earlier oil for food scandal involving the Australian Wheat Board – confirm that all areas of trade are susceptible.

Deloiite advised companies looking for growth and new business opportunities offshore that “engaging in corrupt behaviour in high-risk countries, because it is seen as the way business is done, will no longer be tolerated as an excuse, …Stakeholders including governments, regulators, law enforcement agencies and customers are demanding the strongest commitment to ethical business dealings. Ignorance and inactivity … exposes directors, senior executives and employees to increasingly serious sanctions…”
The survey indicated that 80% of businesses with offshore operations did not regard foreign bribery and corruption as a high or relevant risk, A consequence is that companies are ill-equipped to identify, manage and prevent the inevitable corruption challenges.

It is apparent that in Australasia the legal profession has yet to latch on to the revenue stream flowing from promoting compliance with provisions like the Bribery Act (UK) and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (US) as have their British and American counterparts – although that work has not precluded the imposition of some of the largest penalties by Britain and the United States authorities on companies from the least corrupt jurisdictions.

In the latest Worldwide Governance Indicators, the countries in the 90th percentile for control of corruption (21 from the 213 assessed) were: New Zealand. Denmark. Netherlands, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Greenland, Australia, Canada, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg ,Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Singapore and Chile.

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1209/S00463/corruption-and-bribery-in-new-zealand-organisations.htm

www.smh.com.au/national/qampa-20120913-25v8s.html?skin=text-only

 

www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/opposition-takes-up-attack-over-securency-bribery-allegations-20120918-264sz.html

 

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp

2012 WGIs are poor for much of the Pacific Forum

18 September 2012

The Worldwide Governance Indicators for the member states of the Pacific Forum are concerning.

Perhaps most alarming are the ratings for the Regulatory Quality indicator. All (except Tokelau and New Caledonia for which there are no statistics) are “in the red” showing that they are below the 25th percentile of the 215 countries assessed.  The Cook Islands, Tuvalu and Kiribati are rated below the 10th percentile.

On the Government Effectiveness indicator, Forum countries falling below the 25th percentile are: Kiribati, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Cook Islands, Niue, Timor-Leste and the Marshall Islands.

Fiji, Cook Islands and Timor Leste are below the 25th percentile for the Rule of Law indicator.

The indicators suggest that States in which New Zealand has a particular interest are not well governed.  The Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tuvalu are worse now than the data from 2006. Tonga has made some progress since the centre of Nuku’alofa was torched during civil disruption and agitation linked to the democracy movement.

Fiji and Timor-Leste have made marginal improvement in the political stability indicator over the last six years but in general, the other indicators have deteriorated.

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap_start.asp?allcountries=1

The following chart is my collation from the dataset.

                2012 Worldwide Governance Indicators for Top Ten States in the Pacific Forum
Voice and Accountability Political Stability Government Effectiveness Regulatory Quality Rule of Law Control of Corruption
1 Palau Kiribati American Samoa Guam American Samoa Guam
2 Marshall Islands Tuvalu Samoa American Samoa Guam American Samoa
3 Nauru Fed States of Micronesia Guam Fiji Palau Vanuatu
4 Fed States of Micronesia Vanuatu Vanuatu Papua New Guinea Samoa Kiribati
5 American Samoa Nauru Tonga Tonga Tuvalu Samoa
6 Kiribati Palau Nauru Vanuatu Nauru Nauru
7 Guam American Samoa Palau Palau Vanuatu Cook Islands
8 Tuvalu Tonga Fiji Fed States of Micronesia Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
9 Vanuatu Samoa Fed States of Micronesia Niue Kiribati Tonga
10 Samoa Guam Papua New Guinea Marshall Islands Tonga Fed States of Micronesia

Worldwide Governance Indicators

17 September 2012

The World Bank in publishing the latest Worldwide Governance Indicators last week, has advised that some changes have been made to the component data although the same sources have been used for the 2012 update as for previous years.

However “… because of these revisions to data from previous years, this update of the entire WGI dataset supersedes previous versions for all years. The overall effect of these revisions to the historical data over the period 1996-2010 is minimal. The median correlation between the original and revised data (across all six indicators over the entire time period) is 0.999. There are no cases where these revisions resulted in a statistically significant change in the governance estimate for a country…”

As noted in the preceding blog post, the New Zealand data has the effect of improving its placement compared with the 2010 indicators, although the interactive tool cautions that there has been no statistically significant change.

My earlier post about Denmark “pipping” New Zealand on the control of corruption indicator needs qualification.  Both are rated at 100%  and both now show as having the same 96 -100% confidence rating (whereas in the previous report Denmark had a marginally higher confidence rate.) Despite this, Denmark is depicted in the chart produced by the interactive tool as marginally better than New Zealand for control on corruption although the “pop up” data on the world map pictorial image shows them scoring equally. 

Confusingly, the latest, 2012, WGIs relate to 2011 data.

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/c168.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp

New Zealand rates well in latest Worldwide Governance Indicators

15 September 2012

The 2011 Worldwide Governance indicators prepared jointly by the Brookings Institute and the World Bank were published ( belatedly ) on Friday – which was International Democracy Day.

The latest report covers 215 countries including new states like South Sudan and countries with small populations and a dearth of data, like Greenland and Tuvalu. The indicator scores are derived from more than 30 sources by collating data from hundreds of disaggregated questions.

The indicators evaluate six elements –

1. Voice and Accountability: captures perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association and a free media.

2. Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism: captures perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including politically-motivated violence and terrorism.

3. Government Effectiveness: captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies.

4. Regulatory Quality: captures perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development.

5. Rule of Law: captures perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.

6. Control of Corruption: captures perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by elites and private interests.

New Zealand has improved its rating and placement since 2010, recovering the ground it lost that year. Ironically the only indicator score which was lower than in 2010 was for controlling corruption – on which in all previous years it had been the most highly rated. Denmark has moved ahead of New Zealand. ( This appears to be a consequence of Transparency International data reflected in the 2010 global corruption barometer – where in what seems an incredible claim, almost one in four surveyed New Zealanders said that they, or a family member had paid a bribe in the preceding 12 months.)

The improvement in the other five of the six indicators restores New Zealand’s position as one of the top ten countries on all six indicators. Not surprisingly Finland and Denmark are consistently the highest scoring countries.

The evaluation means that measures specified in the New Zealand Auditor General’s Statement of Intent for evaluating “trust in Government”are met – this required that New Zealand was ranked in the 90th percentile for each of the six Worldwide Governance Indicators ( not a challenging requirement having regard to the New Zealand ratings since the WGI began in 1996. )

The World Bank website with the results has an interactive tool which enables a comparison of ratings by year or years for a country or by a particular indicator. It is not helpful in identifying the countries with the top rating for each indicator.

More generally the results show that governance has not improved in extractive-rich countries, where corruption is often worsening. “…And we know that governance matters. Past research has pointed to a very high payoff for governance reforms, which we have characterized as the ‘300 percent development dividend of good governance’. Improvements in governance (by one standard deviation) have been causally associated with about a three-fold increase in a country’s income per capita on average….”

However from a New Zealand perspective, a heartening result in what is the most comprehensive dataset from which good government comparisons can be made – and presumably released on International Democracy Day because of that connection.

The chart is my extract from the dataset, showing the top ten countries in the six indicators.

Voice and Accountability Political Stability Government Effectiveness Regulatory Quality Rule of Law Controlling Corruption
Switzerland Liechtenstein Finland Denmark Finland Denmark
Norway Finland Denmark New Zealand Sweden New Zealand
Denmark New Zealand Sweden Luxembourg Denmark Sweden
Sweden Luxembourg New Zealand Netherlands New Zealand Finland
Luxembourg Switzerland Switzerland Sweden Norway Luxembourg
Liechtenstein Sweden Netherlands Singapore Netherlands Netherlands
Finland Iceland Norway Australia Luxembourg Norway
New Zealand Singapore Liechtenstein Finland Australia Australia
Netherlands Netherlands Australia Ireland Ireland Singapore
Iceland Denmark Luxembourg Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/c168.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/sc_chart.asp#

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

www.oag.govt.nz/2012/draft-soi-2012-2015/part1.htm

www.un.org/en/events/democracyday/

Many see serious corruption in New York politics

 
14 September 2012
 
 
Among survey results published this week by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute were the views that New Yorkers have about their politicians.
 
In response to a query about corruption, 77 percent described the problem as “very serious” or “somewhat serious,” while only 2 percent said corruption is “not a problem at all.” A wry blogger observed that “… it might be possible that 2 percent of the state’s total population currently consists of public officials being investigated for criminal misconduct…”

Apparently a survey in October 2007 produced a very similar level of concern about corruption.

And as corroboration, in the latest CREW annual Most Corrupt politicians “awards”, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington organisation named three members of Congress from New York among those it identified from across the United States as the 12 most corrupt ( two are from Florida ).

The CREW commentary is that “…the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has unleashed an unprecedented flood of money into politics, providing new opportunities for corruption, and the investigative bodies responsible for making sure government acts in the best interests of the public must do a better job. The president needs to nominate new commissioners to the FEC and make sure they’re willing to enforce the law. Further, the House should retain the OCE and Congress must reform its ethics process, rendering it more transparent and accountable to the people…”

Closer to home is the concern expressed by media about the threat of corruption in Australia. Although the OECD report on enforcement of the Anti Bribery Convention published this month recognises measures being taken by Australian agencies to investigate bribery allegations, the information being made public about the Reserve Bank subsidiary has disquietened many. Facilitation payments to Asian interests to gain banknote printing contracts suggests connivance at very senior levels. The Age advocates reinvigorating “… the fight against bribery and corruption at home and abroad. The federal government, for example, needs the capacity to prevent, detect and investigate serious corruption that does not fit easily under the limited Australian Public Service misconduct regime…”

http://politicker.com/2012/09/poll-new-yorkers-havmaking payments to e-figured-out-their-government-is-corrupt/

www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/about-the-report

www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-fight-against-bribery-and-corruption-is-far-from-won-20120913-25v0h.html