An error occured. Details Hide
You have unsaved pages. Restore Cancel

Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • High Representative:Valentin Inzko
  • Prime Minister:Denis Zvizdić
  • Capital city:Sarajevo
  • Languages:Bosnian (official) 52.9%, Serbian (official) 30.8%, Croatian (official) 14.6%, other 1.6%, no answer 0.2% (2013 est.)
  • Government
  • National statistics office
  • Population, persons:3,507,017 (2017)
  • Area, sq km:51,200 (2017)
  • GDP per capita, US$:5,181 (2017)
  • GDP, billion current US$:18.2 (2017)
  • GINI index:32.7 (2015)
  • Ease of Doing Business rank:86 (2017)

Governance

All datasets:  A C F G I N O P Q R S T U W
  • A
    • April 2019
      Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 16 April, 2019
      Select Dataset
      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.
  • C
    • April 2019
      Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 09 April, 2019
      Select Dataset
      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
    • June 2018
      Source: World Bank
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 19 July, 2018
      Select Dataset
      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)
  • F
    • April 2012
      Source: Agi Data
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Select Dataset
      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
  • G
    • April 2019
      Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 16 April, 2019
      Select Dataset
      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 economic empowerment and understand gender gaps in other key areas of development. Covering 160 countries, the GID-DB contains comprehensive information on legal, cultural and traditional practices that discriminate against women and girls.
    • December 2013
      Source: Transparency International
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 20 February, 2014
      Select Dataset
      Data cited at: Global Corruption Barometer (2013) by Transparency International is licensed under CC-BY-ND 4.0 Global Corruption Barometer is the largest world-wide public opinion survey on corruption - See more at: http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/in_detail#sthash.hey9okGH.dpuf
    • June 2018
      Source: Open Knowledge International
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 13 June, 2018
      Select Dataset
  • I
    • March 2018
      Source: International Development Association
      Uploaded by: Pallavi S
      Accessed On: 29 March, 2018
      Select Dataset
      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 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.
  • N
    • June 2018
      Source: Freedom House
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 19 October, 2018
      Select Dataset
      Note: The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. Nations in Transit is Freedom House’s research project on democracy in the 29 formerly communist countries from Central Europe to Central Asia. The flagship of the project is an annual survey of democratic reform that has been published since 1995, and with the same methodology since 2003. Nations in Transit also publishes briefs on topics relevant to democratic reform in the region. The Nations in Transit annual report researchers score the countries on a scale of 1 to 7 in seven categories:National Democratic Governance. Considers the democratic character and stability of the governmental system; the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of legislative and executive branches; and the democratic oversight of military and security services. Electoral Process. Examines national executive and legislative elections, electoral processes, the development of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the political process.Civil Society. Assesses the growth of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), their organizational capacity and financial sustainability, and the legal and political environment in which they function; the development of free trade unions; and interest group participation in the policy process. Independent Media. Addresses the current state of press freedom, including libel laws, harassment of journalists, and editorial independence; the emergence of a financially viable private press; and internet access for private citizens. Local Democratic Governance. Considers the decentralization of power; the responsibilities, election, and capacity of local governmental bodies; and the transparency and accountability of local authorities. Judicial Framework and Independence. Highlights constitutional reform, human rights protections, criminal code reform, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and compliance with judicial decisions. Corruption. Looks at public perceptions of corruption, the business interests of top policymakers, laws on financial disclosure and conflict of interest, and the efficacy of anticorruption initiatives.  These category scores are straight-averaged to create a country’s “Democracy Score” on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the most democratic, and 7 the least.   Freedom House contracts independent researchers from academia, journalism, and civil society for each country to draft the country reports and make the initial scoring. These draft country reports and score proposals are sent to between three and six reviewers per country per year for comments. After researchers have a chance to respond to the comments, Nations in Transit and its advisors meet to finalize scores for each country. Where possible, scores reflect the consensus of researchers, reviewers, advisors, and Freedom House, but Freedom House has the final vote on all score changes. The annual report is currently funded through a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has no say in the methodology or conclusions of the report.
  • O
    • June 2018
      Source: Open Data Research Network
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 14 June, 2018
      Select Dataset
      Produced by the World Wide Web Foundation as a collaborative work of the Open Data for Development (OD4D) network and with the support of the Omidyar Network, the Open Data Barometer (ODB) aims to uncover the true prevalence and impact of open data initiatives around the world. It analyses global trends, and provides comparative data on countries and regions using an in-depth methodology that combines contextual data, technical assessments and secondary indicators. Covering 115 jurisdictions in the fourth edition, the Barometer ranks governments on:Readinessfor open data initiatives.Implementationof open data programmes.Impactthat open data is having on business, politics and civil society. After three successful editions, the fourth marks another step towards becoming a global policymaking tool with a participatory and inclusive process and a strong regional focus. This year’s Barometer includes an assessment of government performance in fulfilling the Open Data Charter principles. The Barometer is a truly global and collaborative effort, with input from more than 100 researchers and government representatives. It takes over six months and more than 10,000 hours of research work to compile. During this process, we address more than 20,000 questions and respond to more than 5,000 comments and suggestions.  
  • P
    • December 2018
      Source: Political Terror Scale
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 30 January, 2019
      Select Dataset
      citation: Gib­ney, Mark, Linda Cor­nett, Reed Wood, Peter Hasch­ke, and Daniel Arnon. 2016. The Polit­ic­al Ter­ror Scale 1976-2015. Date Re­trieved, from the Polit­ic­al Ter­ror Scale website: ht­tp://www.polit­ic­al­ter­rorscale.org.   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.
    • June 2015
      Source: World Bank
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 25 January, 2017
      Select Dataset
      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.
    • April 2012
      Source: Agi Data
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Select Dataset
      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.
  • Q
    • January 2019
      Source: Quality of Government Institute
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 01 February, 2019
      Select Dataset
      Data cited at: The Quality of Government Institute; Teorell, Jan, Stefan Dahlberg, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Natalia Alvarado Pachon & Richard Svensson. 2018. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan18. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, http://www.qog.pol.gu.se doi:10.18157/QoGStdJan18   In the QoG Standard TS dataset, data from 1946 to 2018 is included and the unit of analysis is country-year (e.g. Sweden-1946, Sweden-1947 and so on).    
  • R
    • March 2019
      Source: World Justice Project
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 01 April, 2019
      Select Dataset
      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.
  • S
    • July 2017
      Source: Johannes Kepler University
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 12 March, 2019
      Select Dataset
      Data cited at: Shadow Economies around the World: New Results for 158 Countries over 1991-2015 by Friedrisch SCHNEIDER. Working Paper No. 1710 July 2017   Abstract: This paper is a first attempt to estimate the size and development of the shadow economy of 158 countries over the period 1991 up to 2015. Using the Multiple Indicators, Multiple Causes (MIMIC) method we apply for the first time (i) the light intensity approach instead of GDP avoiding the problem that quite often GDP is used as a cause and indicator variable, (ii) the Predictive Mean Matching (PMM) method, and (iii) a variety of robustness tests. Results suggest that the average size of the shadow economy of these 158 countries over 1991-2015 is 32.5% of official GDP, which was 34.82% in 1991 and decreased to 30.66% in 2015. The lowest size of the shadow economy East Asian countries with 16.77% averaged over the period 1991- 2015, then follows OECD countries with 18.7% and the highest value have Latin American and sub-Saharan African countries with values above 35%.
    • August 2016
      Source: Actionable Governance Indicators Data Portal
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 30 August, 2016
      Select Dataset
      Statistical Capacity Indicator has three dimensions: a). Statistical Methodology b). Source data and c). Periodicity and timeliness. For each dimension, a country is scored against specific criteria, using information available from the World Bank, IMF, UN, UNESCO, and WHO. A composite score for each dimension is calculated by adding criteria scores, ranges from 0 to 1, and multiplying by 10. And an overall score combining all three dimensions are derived for each country on a scale of 0-100 by taking average of these three dimensions. A score of 100 indicates that the country meets all the criteria. The first dimension, statistical methodology, Countries are evaluated against a set of criteria such as use of an updated national accounts base year, use of the latest BOP manual, external debt reporting status, subscription to IMF’s Special Data Dissemination Standard, and enrolment data reporting to UNESCO. The second dimension, source data, reflects whether a country conducts data collection activities in line with internationally recommended periodicity, and whether data from administrative systems are available and reliable for statistical estimation purposes. Specifically, the criteria used are the periodicity of population and agricultural censuses, the periodicity of poverty and health related surveys, and completeness of vital registration system coverage. The third dimension, periodicity and timeliness, looks at the availability and periodicity of key socioeconomic indicators, of which nine are MDG indicators. This dimension attempts to measure the extent to which data are made accessible to users through transformation of source data into timely statistical outputs. Criteria used include indicators on income poverty, child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, primary completion, gender equality, access to water and GDP growth.
  • T
    • March 2017
      Source: World Economic Forum
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 01 March, 2017
      Select Dataset
      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.
    • March 2012
      Source: Global Integrity
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Select Dataset
      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.
    • June 2018
      Source: Walk Free Foundation
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 23 July, 2018
      Select Dataset
      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 CC - 20 to 29.9 C - 10 to 19.9 D - <0 to 9.9
    • April 2018
      Source: International Budget Partnership
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 23 April, 2018
      Select Dataset
      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.
  • U
    • July 2018
      Source: United Nations Public Administration Country Studies
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 13 August, 2018
      Select Dataset
      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)
  • W
    • May 2012
      Source: International Labour Organization
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Select Dataset
      Wages and Employment
    • May 2018
      Source: Reporters Without Borders
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 18 May, 2018
      Select Dataset
      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. The range of score to access the press freedom.  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  
    • August 2018
      Source: World Bank
      Uploaded by: Knoema
      Accessed On: 27 September, 2018
      Select Dataset
      The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for over 200 countries and territories over the period 1996–2017, 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