Global Integrity Index

Yet Another Index? — How the Global Integrity Index is Unique

The Global Integrity Index is different from other governance and corruption indices in
important ways.

First, no one else publishes quantitative data on key national-level anti-corruption mechanisms.
The Global Integrity Index does not measure the disease of corruption, but rather the medicine
that citizens and governments are using to fight it: openness, accountability, and citizen
oversight. Because of this, it is an inherently solution-oriented tool that provides an actionable
roadmap for reform.

This approach avoids the typical frustration often experienced by local stakeholders - both in and
outside of government - who feel they are unable to make an impact on their country's scores on
various international indices. Because of its highly disaggregated nature, a discussion of the
Global Integrity Index naturally flows to a discussion of the more than 300 Integrity Indicators
that serve as its source material. These highly specific questions and answers, framed by unique
scoring criteria and blindly reviewed by a panel of local experts, serve as a road map to small,
incremental steps that can be taken towards improved governance. Click here to download the
Integrity Indicators (.XLS).

Other unique features of the Global Integrity Index and Integrity Indicators include:

The data are generated by local experts, not international analysts. The tens of thousands of
Integrity Indicators generated each year that comprise the overall country assessments and
Global Integrity Index are scored by local in-country researchers and journalists. This gives the
results a bottom-up authenticity rarely seen in international comparative governance data.

We do not use perception surveys or polling; each country assessment that feeds into the
overall Index is supported by references and unique scoring criteria. Many Integrity Indicators
for a country include narrative explanations of the actual scoring, increasing reliability and
encouraging follow-up research and debate.

We do not use third-party data; all of our research is conducted by our in-country experts
using identical methodologies. Generating the Integrity Indicators and Global Integrity Index is
much more than a simple spreadsheet exercise; it involves actual in-country fieldwork.

We do not use any "closed" source material; everything we do — from scoring guidelines to
disputes that arise out of our peer review process — is transparent and open to public scrutiny.

When we say "current year" data, we really mean current data. It is unfortunately common
in many international indices that a "yearly" report uses only the latest information available for
a country, even if that information is several years old. Our annual national datasets are scored
and assembled in the year they are labeled.
Lastly, Global Integrity never directly assigns scores to countries; instead, we simply
aggregate the more than 300 specific questions and answers for each country (the Integrity
Indicators) into various sub-category-, category-, and country-level scores. The Integrity
Indicator scores are locally researched and peer reviewed.

The Global Integrity Report: Methodology

The Global Integrity Report is a tool for understanding governance and anti-corruption
mechanisms at the national level. Written by local researchers and journalists, the Report is
characterized by an innovative, award-winning research methodology; a robust peer review
process; and start-to-finish transparency.

Methodology Overview:
Unlike most governance and corruption indicators, the Global Integrity Report mobilizes a
highly qualified network of in-country researchers and journalists to generate quantitative data
and qualitative reporting on the health of a country's anti-corruption framework. Each country
assessment contained in the Global Integrity Report comprises two core elements: a qualitative
Reporter's Notebook and a quantitative Integrity Indicators scorecard, the data from which is
aggregated and used to generate the cross-country Global Integrity Index.

An Integrity Indicators scorecard assesses the existence, effectiveness, and citizen access to key
governance and anti-corruption mechanisms through more than 300 actionable indicators. It
examines issues such as transparency of the public procurement process, media freedom, asset
disclosure requirements, and conflicts of interest regulations. Scorecards take into account both
existing legal measures on the books and de facto realities of practical implementation in each
country. They are scored by a lead in-country researcher and blindly reviewed by a panel of peer
reviewers, a mix of other in-country experts as well as outside experts. Reporter's Notebooks are
reported and written by in-country journalists and blindly reviewed by the same peer review
panel.

What makes Global Integrity unique? Below are some of the key principles that guide our work.

Global Integrity research is bottom-up and local.

Global Integrity staff does not assign scores to countries; our teams of local in-country experts
do. Our role is to create a standard framework for assessing governance, tap into existing local
research capacity, fund the field work, and publish the results. The Global Integrity Report and
our other toolkits (such as the Local Integrity Initiative projects) are homegrown, locally-
generated assessments, not Western desktop exercises.

Our credibility is based on start-to-finish transparency.

Everything we do is open to public scrutiny-the questions we ask, the fieldwork process, the
teams we work with, even our organization's financial reports. That commitment helps to explain
why even those governments assessed negatively tend to agree with our results. The raw scores,
the supporting commentary, and references are all published and easy to use. To us, transparent
methodology means more than just publishing equations: it also has to be presented clearly
enough for all stakeholders to understand.

Our work is solution-oriented and actionable.

Isolated numbers that rank countries according to "corruption" or "governance" are not
particularly useful when it comes to doing the hard work of designing and implementing
reforms. Our Integrity Indicators provide quantitative data across more than 300 indicators of
government accountability, transparency, and anti-corruption mechanisms. The breadth and
detail of our data allows local stakeholders - not Global Integrity - to identify points of
intervention and take specific steps toward improved governance.

We use expert assessments, not opinion polls.

While polls can be highly useful in the right circumstances, you don't need a national survey to
determine whether a country has a Freedom of Information law or if that law is effective in
guaranteeing citizen access to government information. Global Integrity's quantitative data is the
result of assessments carried out by a carefully vetted group of knowledgeable people. We do not
use surveys. Instead we ask narrow, carefully targeted questions and require our researchers to
support their assessments with referencing and narrative explanations.

Numbers are an entry point, never the whole story.

Corruption and governance are complex, layered issues. Quantitative data produces convenient
summaries and can allow for powerful statistical analysis. But anyone using these numbers must
be grounded in the political, economic and cultural experiences of each country. By using
journalists and social scientists to both report on and research the full scope of these issues,
Global Integrity combines the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

We employ peer review and transparency to limit personal biases.

Personal biases, real or perceived, can undermine any expert assessment. All of our data and
reporting is blindly reviewed by teams of local and outside experts to ensure consistency, quality,
and richness of the final information. We never rely on a single expert; our country teams
typically comprise 6 to 10 skilled researchers and journalists. When disagreement exists within a
team, we publish all viewpoints, allowing readers to see the complexity of the issues and
understand how we arrived at the final assessment.

Asking fact-based questions bypasses ideological disputes.

While a team approach reduces personal biases, what about a widely held ideological bias? Our
approach avoids this by reducing a fuzzy construct ("Integrity") into specific, measurable
outcomes ("In practice, do members of the legislature disclose their assets?"). Highly specific
fact-based indicators can be supported by objective evidence. As a result, while we frequently
see heated debate over the implications of our work, our source data is often embraced by all
parties to that debate.

Every country is rated to the same standard.

We understand that human history has created a world of deep inequalities. But our expectations
are universally high: we believe all nations, rich and poor, are capable of open and accountable
government. Conversely, no government gets a free pass: we apply the same scrutiny to the West
that we do to the developing world.

Key Findings

http://report.globalintegrity.org/globalIndex/findings.cfm