インド

The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) analyzes and evaluates the quality of democracy, a market economy and political management in 128 developing and transition countries. It measures successes and setbacks on the path toward a democracy based on the rule of law and a market economy flanked by sociopolitical safeguards. Within this framework, the BTI publishes two rankings, the Status Index and the Management Index. Countries are further categorized on the basis of these status index and management rankings/scores. For instance, countries are categorized in to 5 groups – viz; 5 or failed, 4 or very limited, 3 or limited, 2 or advanced, and 1 or highly advanced—based on their status index score of 1 to 10. A country with a high score, 8.5 and above, is categorized as highly advanced. A country with a low score, below 4, is categorized as failed. A country is categorized as ‘very limited’ if it has a status index score between 4 and 5.5. A score between 5.5 and 7 means the country is categorized as ‘limited’ and a country is categorized as ‘advanced’ for a score between 7.1 and 8.5. On the basis of the democratic status ranking, countries are further categorized as 5 or ‘hard - line autocracies,’ 4 or ‘moderate autocracies,’ 3 or ‘highly defective democracies,’ 2 or ‘defective democracies,’ and 1 or ‘democracies in consolidation.’ A country with a democratic status ranking below 4 is categorized as a hard line autocracy. A democratic status score between 4 and 5 means that the country is part of the ‘moderate autocracy’ group. A country is grouped as a ‘highly defective democracy’ for a score between 5 and 6. A country is recognized as a ‘defective democracy’ for a score between 6 and 8, and a score of 8 and above earns a country the status of a ‘democracy in consolidation.’ Countries are also categorized in to 5 groups based on their market economy status ranking. The countries are categorized as ‘rudimentary’ or group 5, ‘poorly functioning’ or group 4, ‘functional flaws’ or group 3, ‘functioning’ or group 2, and ‘developed’ or group 1. A country is recognized as a member of the ‘developed’ group with a market economy status ranking/score of 8 and above. A country is grouped as ‘functioning’ if it has a score between 7 and 8. A market economy status ranking between 5 and 7 means the country is categorized to group 3 or the ‘functional flaws’ group. A score between 3 and 5 means that the country is ‘poorly functioning’ and a score below 3 means the country enjoys a ‘rudimentary’ status. Based on the management index ranking, countries are categorized as 5 or failed, 4 or weak, 3 or moderate, 2 or good, and1 or very good. A country is categorized as ‘very good’ for a score of 7 and above. It is categorized as ‘good’ for a score between 5.6 and 7, and as ‘moderate’ for a score between 4.4 and 5.5. A score between 3 and 4.3 means a country is categorized as ‘weak,’ and a score below 3 means the categorization of a country as ‘failed.’ Countries are ranked between 1 and 10 on the basis of the level of difficulty they face. The level of difficulty is further categorized as 5 or negligible, 4 or minor, 3 or moderate, 2 or substantial, and 1 or massive. A score of 8.5 and above means the categorization of the country’s level of difficulty as ‘massive, and a score below 2.5 means the categorization of the level of difficulty faced by the country as ‘negligible.’ The level of difficulty score of 2.5 to 4.4 means a country faces a ‘minor’ level of difficulty and a score between 4.5 and 6.4 means the level of difficulty faced by a country is ‘moderate.’ A country with a score of 6.5 to 8.4 faces a ‘substantial’ level of difficulty.

The World Bank's Country Policy and Institutional Assessment is done annually for all its borrowing countries. It has evolved into a set of criteria, which are grouped in four clusters: (a) economic management; (b) structural policies; (c) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (d) public sector management and institutions. The number of criteria, currently sixteen, reflect a balance between ensuring that all key factors that foster pro-poor growth and poverty alleviation are captured, without overly burdening the evaluation process. Ratings for each of the criteria reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments. They focus on the quality of each country's current policies and institutions - which are the main determinant of present aid effectiveness prospects. To fully underscore the importance of the CPIA in the IDA Performance Based Allocations, the overall country score is referred to as the IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI)

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.

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 World Bank’s IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI) is based on the results of the annual CPIA exercise that covers the IDA eligible countries.The CPIA rates countries against a set of 16 criteria grouped in four clusters: (a) economic management; (b) structural policies; (c) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (d) public sector management and institutions. The criteria (pdf) are focused on balancing the capture of the key factors that foster growth and poverty reduction, with the need to avoid undue burden on the assessment process. To fully underscore the importance of the CPIA in the IDA Performance Based Allocations, the overall country score is referred to as the IRAI. 

This dataset contains the latest monthly summary of all services (taluk wise) rendered by Departments covered under Karnataka Sakala Services Act 2011.  Act: Karnataka Sakala Services Act 2011  

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  

Privatization Database provides information on privatization transactions of at least US$1 million in developing countries from 2000 to 2008. Prior to this effort the most comprehensive information could be found in the World Bank’s Privatization Transactions database, which covered the years 1988 through 1999.

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

Title: Rank-wise Police strength   Description: The data refers to State/UT-wise Police strength by rank. The various ranks in Police covered are IG, DIG, SSP/SP/ Ad.SP, ASP/ DySP, Inspector, Sub Inspector, Asst. Sub Inspector, Head Constable, Below HC above Constable and Constables.   Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)   Contributor: Ministry of Home AffairsDepartment of StatesNational Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)   Keywords: Police; Strength; Rank; Crime   Group: Crime Statistics   Sectors: Statistics; Police; Home Affairs and Enforcement   Note: Figures are in number; Source: Crime in India 2012, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

Title: Rank-wise women Police strength   Description: The data refers to rank-wise women police strength by State/UT.   Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)   Contributor: Ministry of Home AffairsDepartment of StatesNational Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)   Keywords: Crime; Women; Strength   Group: Crime Statistics   Sectors: Statistics; Police; Home Affairs and Enforcement   Note: Figures are in number. Source: Crime in India 2013, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

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.

Title: Crime in India - 2019   Description: Catalog contains data of Crime in India - 2019. Get information on Cognizable crimes registered, IPC crimes, SLL cases, Violent crimes, Murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Victims of murder, Victims of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Murdered by use of fire arms, Unidentified dead bodies recovered and inquest conducted, Victims of kidnapping & abduction, Disposal of crime cases, Charge sheet of crimes, Complaint received and case registered under IPC and SLL, Conviction rate , Detail of courts and period of trials, Crimes committed against women, Victims of rape cases, Offenders relation and nearness to rape victims, Crimes committed against children, Crime committed against scheduled castes and schedule tribes, Property stolen & recovered and percentage recovery, Vehicles stolen, Recovered and co-ordinated, Dacoity cases, Robbery cases, Burglary cases, Theft cases, Cultural property (including antiques) stolen and recovered, Cognizable crime registered & their disposal, Juvenile delinquency under different crime heads, Juveniles apprehended, Disposal of juveniles arrested, Classification of juveniles arrested, Recidivism amongst persons arrested, Disposal of persons arrested, Deaths in police custody /lockup, Escapes from police custody, Reported custodial rape cases and their disposal, Persons arrested under custodial ,Rape and their disposal by police and courts, Event wise persons killed or injured under police firing, Police personnel killed or injured on duty, Police personnel died (natural deaths) while in service, Police personnel committed suicide while in service, Rank wise police personnel killed or injured on duty, Complaints/cases registered against personnel, Incidence of human right violation by police, Sanctioned and strength of civil police including district armed police, Information on police housing, Sanctioned and actual strength of home guards and auxiliary force, Equipments and transport support, Police stations by volume of crime, Police stations by strength of personnel, Organization setup, Representation of SCs/STs and muslims in police etc.   Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)   Contributor: Ministry of Home AffairsDepartment of StatesNational Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)   Keywords: Murder; Kidnapping; Police; Crime; Rape; Theft; Importation; Girl; Offender; Victim; Culpable; Homicide; Abduction; Infrastructure; Facility; Suicidal; Death; Trial   Group: Crime   Sectors: Police; Home Affairs and Enforcement   Note: ++: Crime Rate is calculated as Crime per one lakh of population; +: Population Source: Registrar General of India estimated population of 2017 based on 2001 Census; Rank is based on Incidence (Col.8) as well as on the Crime Rate (Col.11). Both should be

For Detailed Methodology, please check here: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/statisticalcapacity/SCIdashboard.aspx

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.

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 Integrity Report is an essential guide to anti-corruption institutions and mechanisms around the world, intended to help policymakers, advocates, journalists and citizens identify and anticipate the areas where corruption is more likely to occur. The Report evaluates both anti-corruption legal frameworks and the practical implementation and enforcement of those frameworks, and takes a close look at whether citizen can effectively access and use anti-corruption safeguards. The Report is prepared by local researchers, journalists and academics using a double-blind peer review process. More than 1,000 local contributors have participated in preparing the Report since 2004. The Global Integrity Report 2011 covers 31 countries examining transparency of the public procurement process, media freedom, asset disclosure requirements, conflicts of interest regulations, and more.

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)

Note: The data is no longer available to the Public. It requires an account with WCCD to access data. 

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