イタリア

Source: UNECE Statistical Database, compiled from national official sources Definition: An ambassador is a diplomatic official accredited to a foreign sovereign or government, or to an international organisation, to serve as the official representative of his or her own country. In everyday usage it applies to the top ranking government representative stationed in a foreign country. .. - data not available Country: Belarus Including consuls genaral Country: Cyprus Reference period (2008): data refer to 2009 Country: Cyprus Territorial change (2006 onward): Government controlled area only. Country: Finland Reference period (2013): situation in March 3, 2014 Country: Georgia Territorial change (1995 onward): Data do not cover Abkhazia AR and Tskhinvali Region. Country: Iceland Data refers to number at end of year. Country: Kazakhstan 1990: data refer to 1992-1994; 1995: data refer to 1999. Country: Latvia Change in definition (1995 - 2012): Data refer to Ambassadors, Ambassadors-at-large, Consuls General, Vice Consuls. Country: Montenegro 2008: data refer to 2009. Country: Slovakia Reference period (2015): Data refer to October 20, 2015. Data refer to heads of Diplomatic missions of the Slovak Republic (Ambassadors, Charge d?affaires, Consul General etc.) Country: Spain 2013 data correspond to 24 January 2014. 2015 data correspond to 15 July 2015. Country: Switzerland Change in definition (1980 - onwards): Data include only heads of missions, i.e. exclude collaborators with ambassador title.

Source: UNECE Statistical Database, compiled from national official sources. Definition:The Central Bank is the institution which is charged with regulating the amount of the money supply in a country, the availability and cost of credit, and the foreign exchange value of its currency. The boards of Central Banks are the decision making bodies. General note: Data on any fixed date of the year. .. - data not available Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina Data refer to: Governor and members of Governing Board. Country: Croatia Additional information (2013): Since 2013, Central Bank has 8 (instead of previously 14) board members. Country: Cyprus Reference period (2011): data refer to 2012. Country: Cyprus Government controlled area only. Country: Czechia Reference period (2008): Data refer to June - July. Country: Georgia Territorial change (2000 onward): Data do not cover Abkhazia AR and Tskhinvali Region. Country: Germany Additional information (1990): The structure of the Deutsche Bundesbank and the maximum number of members of the decision making body was reorganized in 1992. Country: Germany Additional information (2002): The structure of the Deutsche Bundesbank and the maximum number of members of the decision making body was reorganized in 2002. Country: Hungary Change in definition (1995 onward): Data refer to President and deputy presidents. Country: Iceland Change in definition (1980 onward): Data refer to Board of governors. Country: Kazakhstan 1990: data refer to 1993. Country: Latvia Additional information (1995 - 2013): The Bank of Latvia is administered by the Council of the Bank and the Board of the Bank. Country: Latvia Change in definition (1995 - 2013): Data refer to the Council of the Bank. Country: Portugal Banco de Portugal is included. Country: Slovakia 2015 data refer to 20 November 2015. Country: Sweden Change in nomenclature from ISCO-88 to ISCO-08 between 2013 and 2014. Country: Switzerland Reference period: as of 1st January

Data cited at: International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association-ILGA World 

The OECD Digital STRI heterogeneity indices complement the recently published Digital STRI's and presents indices of regulatory heterogeneity based on the rich information in the Digital STRI regulatory database. The indices are built from assessing – for each country pair and each measure – whether or not the countries have the same regulation. For each country pair and each sector, the indices reflect the (weighted) share of measures for which the two countries have different regulation.

Imputed observations are not based on national data, are subject to high uncertainty and should not be used for country comparisons or rankings. The employed comprise all persons of working age who, during a specified brief period, were in the following categories: a) paid employment (whether at work or with a job but not at work); or b) self-employment (whether at work or with an enterprise but not at work). Data are disaggregated by economic activity, which refers to the main activity of the establishment in which a person worked during the reference period. The series is part of the ILO modelled estimates and is harmonized to account for differences in national data and scope of coverage, collection and tabulation methodologies as well as for other country-specific factors. For more information, refer to the ILOSTAT pages on concepts and definitions and ILO modelled estimates and projections.

Data cited at:  CBS StatLine databank https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/portal.html?_la=en&_catalog=CBS Publication: Invest.climate;functioning of government international comparison 1990-2012 https://opendata.cbs.nl/portal.html?_la=en&_catalog=CBS&tableId=71159eng&_theme=974 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   This Dataset provides an international overview of several aspects of how the government functions in relation to the investment climate. The functioning of the apparatus of government is about two roles, namely: (1) the government corrects markets that do not work well. It is expressed by the degree in which the government exerts influence on economic activity (for example by state control, sect-oral and ad hoc state support and rules for starting up a business); (2) the government as a market party, for example as a supplier of online basic public services. Note: Comparable definitions are used to compare the figures presented internationally. The definitions sometimes differ from definitions used by Statistics Netherlands. The figures in this table could differ from Dutch figures presented elsewhere on the website of Statistics Netherlands.    

The FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index (FDI Index) measures statutory restrictions on foreign direct investment across 22 economic sectors. It gauges the restrictiveness of a country’s FDI rules by looking at the four main types of restrictions on FDI: 1) Foreign equity limitations; 2) Discriminatory screening or approval mechanisms; 3) Restrictions on the employment of foreigners as key personnel and 4) Other operational restrictions, e.g. restrictions on branching and on capital repatriation or on land ownership by foreign-owend enterprises. Restrictions are evaluated on a 0 (open) to 1 (closed) scale. The overall restrictiveness index is the average of sectoral scores. The discriminatory nature of measures, i.e. when they apply to foreign investors only, is the central criterion for scoring a measure. State ownership and state monopolies, to the extent they are not discriminatory towards foreigners, are not scored. The FDI Index is not a full measure of a country’s investment climate. A range of other factors come into play, including how FDI rules are implemented. Entry barriers can also arise for other reasons, including state ownership in key sectors. A country’s ability to attract FDI will be affected by others factors such as the size of its market, the extent of its integration with neighbours and even geography among other. Nonetheless, FDI rules can be a critical determinant of a country’s attractiveness to foreign investors.

Experts commonly support the notion that access to information is integral to the promotion of participation, transparency and accountability in any given society. A freedom of information framework aims at improving the efficiency of the government and increasing the transparency of its functioning by: 1. Regularly and reliably providing government documents to the public; 2. Educating the public on the significance of transparent government;3. Facilitating appropriate and relevant use of information in the lives of individuals

The GID-DB is a database providing researchers and policymakers with key data on gender-based discrimination in social institutions. This data helps analyse women’s empowerment and understand gender gaps in other key areas of development.Covering 180 countries and territories, the GID-DB contains comprehensive information on legal, cultural and traditional practices that discriminate against women and girls.

The intra-EEA Services Trade Restrictiveness Index identifies and catalogues which policy measures restrict trade within the European Economic Area (EEA) for 25 OECD EU member countries. It complements the existing STRI, which quantifies multilateral services trade restrictiveness, allowing to track the progress of regional services integration across 19 major services sectors.

The intra-EEA Services Trade Restrictiveness Index identifies and catalogues which policy measures restrict trade within the European Economic Area (EEA) for 25 OECD EU member countries. It complements the existing STRI, which quantifies multilateral services trade restrictiveness, allowing to track the progress of regional services integration across 19 major services sectors.

Data cited at: Open data research Network  Lisence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

  Political Terror Scale Levels 1 - Coun­tries un­der a se­cure rule of law, people are not im­prisoned for their views, and tor­ture is rare or ex­cep­tion­al. Polit­ic­al murders are ex­tremely rare. 2 - There is a lim­ited amount of im­pris­on­ment for non­vi­ol­ent polit­ic­al activ­ity. However, few per­sons are af­fected, tor­ture and beat­ings are ex­cep­tion­al. Polit­ic­al murder is rare. 3 - There is ex­tens­ive polit­ic­al im­pris­on­ment, or a re­cent his­tory of such im­pris­on­ment. Ex­e­cu­tion or oth­er polit­ic­al murders and bru­tal­ity may be com­mon. Un­lim­ited de­ten­tion, with or without a tri­al, for polit­ic­al views is ac­cep­ted. 4 - Civil and polit­ic­al rights vi­ol­a­tions have ex­pan­ded to large num­bers of the pop­u­la­tion. Murders, dis­ap­pear­ances, and tor­ture are a com­mon part of life. In spite of its gen­er­al­ity, on this level ter­ror af­fects those who in­terest them­selves in polit­ics or ideas. 5 - Ter­ror has ex­pan­ded to the whole pop­u­la­tion. The lead­ers of these so­ci­et­ies place no lim­its on the means or thor­ough­ness with which they pur­sue per­son­al or ideo­lo­gic­al goals.   Note- NA_Status_A, NA_Status_H, and NA_Status_S corresponds to  PTS_A, PTS_H, and PTS_S respectively0= The value ‘0’ is assigned where the respective human rights report was available and has been coded66= The value ‘66’ is reserved for missing PTS scores due to missing reports 77=The value ‘77’ is assigned where reports no-longer exist, or do not exist yet88=The value ‘88’ is assigned for units that exist  but no report was published and thus no PTS score is assigned99= The value ‘99’ is assigned where human rights report was published but no PTS score was assigned  

DUE TO CHANGES IN THE METHODOLOGY THE 2018 PMR VALUES CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS VINTAGES. The 2018 OECD Indicators of Product Market Regulation (PMR) are a comprehensive and internationally-comparable set of indicators that measure the degree to which laws and policies promote or inhibit competition in areas of the product and service market where competition is viable. These indicators measure the de iure regulatory environments in 34 OECD countries and in a set of non-OECD countries in 2018. The economy-wide indicators cover the extent to which the involvement of the state in the economy can generate distortions to competition and the level of the barriers to entry and expansion to domestic and foreign firms in different sectors of the economy. Users of the data must be aware that they may no longer fully reflect the current situation in fast reforming countries.

Financial declarations or income and asset disclosures (IADs) are quickly becoming an important tool for anticorruption agencies and governments to fight corruption. IAD systems can play two important roles within a broader framework of good governance: prevention and enforcement. In an effort to discover how best to design and implement an IAD system, the analysis conducted suggests that countries ultimately must design a system that best complements the environment in which it will function. However, there are several key principles that policy makers and practitioners need to consider: limit the number of filers to improve the odds of success, set modest and achievable expectations, provide resources commensurate with the mandate, prioritize verification procedures to align with available resources, and balance privacy concerns with public access to declaration.

The main objective of the research is to address the theoretical and empirical problems of how political institutions of high quality can be created and maintained. The second objective is to study the effects of Quality of Government on a number of policy areas, such as health, environment, social policy, and poverty. Data citation: Teorell, Jan, Aksel Sundström, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Natalia Alvarado Pachon, Cem Mert Dalli, Rafael Lopez Valverde & Paula Nilsson. 2024. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan24. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, https://www.gu.se/en/quality-government doi:10.18157/qogstdjan24

The OECD indicators of regulation in energy, transport and communications (ETCR) summarise regulatory provisions in seven sectors: telecoms, electricity, gas, post, rail, air passenger transport, and road freight. The ETCR indicators have been estimated in a long-time series and are therefore well suited for time-series analysis. The ETCR time series was updated, revised and now cover 34 OECD countries and a set of non-OECD countries for 2013. Users of the data must be aware that they may no longer fully reflect the current situation in fast reforming countries. Not all data are available for all countries for all years.

The OECD cross-section sectoral indicators measure regulatory conditions in the professional services and retail distribution sectors. The retail indicators cover barriers to entry, operational restrictions, and price controls. These indicators were updated and revised; they are now estimated for 34 OECD countries for the years 1998, 2003, around 2008 and 2013 and for another set of non-OECD countries for 2013. Users of the data must be aware that they may no longer fully reflect the current situation in fast reforming countries. Not all data are available for all countries for all years.

Data cited at:  The World Justice Project (WJP) The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index® is a quantitative assessment tool designed by the World Justice Project to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. Factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index include: 1. Constraints on Government Powers 2. Absence of Corruption 3. Open Government 4. Fundamental Rights 5. Order and Security 6. Regulatory Enforcement 7. Civil Justice 8. Criminal Justice (Data is collected for a 9th factor, Informal Justice, but it is not included in aggregated scores and rankings. This is due to the complexities of these systems and the difficulties in measuring their fairness and effectiveness in a matter that is both systematic and comparable across countries.) Every year WJP collects data from representative samples of the general public and legal professionals to compute the index scores. The data, once collected, are carefully processed to arrive at country-level scores. The respondent level data is first edited to exclude partially-completed surveys, suspicious data, and outliers. Individual answers are then mapped on to the 44 sub-factors of the index. Answers are coded so that all values ​​fall between 0 (least rule of law) and 1 (most rule of law), and aggregated at country level using the simple, or unweighted, average of all respondents. Note: 2012-2013 values ​​given for year 2013 and 2017-2018 given for year 2018.

The OECD STRI heterogeneity indices complement the existing STRI's and presents indices of regulatory heterogeneity based on the rich information in the STRI regulatory database. The indices are built from assessing – for each country pair and each measure – whether or not the countries have the same regulation. For each country pair and each sector, the indices reflect the (weighted) share of measures for which the two countries have different regulation.

The subnational government finance dataset presents data on the institutional organisation at local and regional levels as well as on public finance. Financial data cover the general government sector and subnational government subsector (state and local government levels) in the 35 OECD member countries and in the EU. Four main dimensions are presented: expenditure (including investment), revenue, budget balance and debt. The dataset is released as a beta version. Data at country level are derived mainly from the OECD National Accounts harmonised according to the new standards of the System of National Accounts (SNA) 2008, implemented by most OECD countries since December 2014. They are complemented by data from Eurostat, IMF (Australia, Chile), and national statistical institutes for some countries or indicators (in particular, territorial organisation). Data were extracted in February 2017 and are from 2015, unless otherwise specified

The SGI is a platform built on a cross-national survey of governance that identifies reform needs in 41 EU and OECD countries. The SGI brings together a broad network of experts and practitioners aiming to understand what works best in sustainable governance. Advocating the exchange of best practices, we offer full access to our data set and enable the comparisons that generate innovation in governance.

Data cited at: The World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/ Topic: The Global Enabling Trade Report 2016 Publication URL: http://reports.weforum.org/global-enabling-trade-report-2016/ License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode   The Enabling Trade Index (ETI) was developed within the context of the World Economic Forum’s Transportation Industry Partnership program, and was first published in The Global Enabling Trade Report 2008. The ETI measures the extent to which individual economies have developed institutions, policies, and services facilitating the free flow of goods over borders and to destination. The structure of the Index reflects the main enablers of trade, breaking them into four overall issue areas, captured in the subindexes: 1) The market access subindex measures the extent to which the policy framework of the country welcomes foreign goods into the economy and enables access to foreign markets for its exporters. 2) The border administration subindex assesses the extent to which the administration at the border facilitates the entry and exit of goods. 3) Infrastructure subindex takes into account whether the country has in place the transport and communications infrastructure necessary to facilitate the movement of goods within the country and across the border. 4) The business environment subindex looks at the quality of governance as well as at the overarching regulatory and security environment impacting the business of importers and exporters active in the country. Each of these four subindexes is composed in turn of a number of pillars of enabling trade, of which there are seven in all. These are: 1) Domestic market access; 2) Foreign market access; 3) Efficiency and transparency of border administration; 4) Availability and quality of transport infrastructure; 5) Availability and quality of transport services; 6) Availability and use of ICTs; 7) Operating environment. Each indicator and sub-indicator is given a score on a scale of 1 to 7 that corresponds to the worst and best possible outcome, respectively.

The Global Slavery Index, the flagship report of the Walk Free Foundation. The Global Slavery Index estimates the number of people in modern slavery in 167 countries. It is a tool for citizens, non government organisations, businesses and public officials to understand the size of the problem, existing responses and contributing factors, so they can build sound policies that will end modern slavery. The Global Slavery Index answers the following questions: What is the estimated prevalence of modern slavery country by country, and what is the absolute number by population? How are governments tackling modern slavery? What factors explain or predict the prevalence of modern slavery? Government Response Rating by Country A - 70 to 79.9 BBB - 60 to 69.9 BB - 50 to 59.9 B - 40 to 49.9 CCC - 30 to 39.9 DC - 20 to 29.9 C - 10 to 19.9 D - <0 to 9.9

The Open Budget Index assigns countries covered by the Survey a transparency score on a 100-point scale using 92 questions from the Survey — these questions focus specifically on whether the government provides the public with timely access to comprehensive information contained in eight key budget documents. The Open Budget Index measures the overall commitment of countries to transparency and allows for comparisons among countries.   "These materials were developed by the International Budget Partnership. IBP has given us permission to use the materials solely for noncommercial, educational purpose"

Data cited at: UN E-Government Knowledgebase - https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/ 1. The EGDI is based on a comprehensive Survey of the online presence of all 193 United Nations Member States, which assesses national websites and how e-government policies and strategies are applied in general and in specific sectors for delivery of essential services. The assessment rates the e-government performance of countries relative to one another as opposed to being an absolute measurement. The results are tabulated and combined with a set of indicators embodying a country’s capacity to participate in the information society, without which e-government development efforts are of limited immediate use. Although the basic model has remained consistent, the precise meaning of these values varies from one edition of the Survey to the next as understanding of the potential of e-government changes and the underlying technology evolves. This is an important distinction because it also implies that it is a comparative framework that seeks to encompass various approaches that may evolve over time instead of advocating a linear path with an absolute goal. 2. E-Government Development Index-EGDI Very High-EGDI (Greater than 0.75) High-EGDI (Between 0.50 and 0.75) Middle-EGDI (Between 0.25 and 0.50) Low-EGDI (Less than 0.25)

The Range of Score to Access the Press Freedom. (New Scale) From 85 to 100 points: Good From 70 to 85 points: Satisfactory From 55 to 70 points: Problematic From 40 to 55 points: Difficult From 0 to 40 points: Very Serious   The Range of Score to Access the Press Freedom. (Old Scale) From 0 to 15 points: Good From 15.01 to 25 points: Fairly good From 25.01 to 35 points: Problematic From 35.01 to 55 points: Bad From 55.01 to 100 points: Very bad Note: Negative value is available for 2012 only and it represents the country in top* The press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders publishes every year measures the level of freedom of information in nearly 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It is based partly on a questionnaire that is sent to our partner organizations (18 freedom of expression NGOs located in all five continents), to our network of 150 correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The 179 countries ranked in this year's index are those for which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from various sources. Some countries were not included because of a lack of reliable, confirmed data. A score and a position are assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned. This year's index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.   * In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year's questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year. Although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country's evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the table refer to – a country's change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.      

The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for over 200 countries and territories over the period 1996–2020, for six dimensions of governance:Voice and AccountabilityPolitical Stability and Absence of ViolenceGovernment EffectivenessRegulatory QualityRule of LawControl of Corruption The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are a research dataset summarizing the views on the quality of governance provided by a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. These data are gathered from a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and private sector firms. The WGI do not reflect the official views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. The WGI are not used by the World Bank Group to allocate resources. Measure description: Estimate:-Estimate of governance (ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) governance performance) Standard error (StdErr):-Standard error reflects variability around the point estimate of governance. Number of sources (NumSrc):-Number of data sources on which estimate is based Rank:-Percentile rank among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank) Lower:-Lower bound of 90% confidence interval for governance, in percentile rank terms Upper:-Upper bound of 90% confidence interval for governance, in percentile rank terms