Governance Effectiveness Rating 2007
Governance Effectiveness Rating assesses the quality of public services and government policy implementation.
Interactive Map
Complete Data Rankings
- #1
Singapore - #2
Denmark - #3
Sweden - #4
Norway - #5
New Zealand - #6
Canada - #7
Finland - #8
Switzerland - #9
Germany - #10
Luxembourg
Analysis: These countries represent the highest values in this dataset, showcasing significant scale and impact on global statistics.
- #200
Somalia - #199
North Korea - #198
Iraq - #197
Congo, Democratic Republic of the - #196
Myanmar - #195
Central African Republic - #194
Afghanistan - #193
Togo - #192
Haiti - #191
Comoros
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
In 2007, the Governance Effectiveness Rating saw Singapore leading globally with a score of 97.58, while the range spanned from a minimum of 10.14 to a maximum of 97.58. The global average for this metric was 50.03, providing a benchmark for assessing the quality of public services and government policy implementation worldwide.
Top Performers: What Drives High Governance Effectiveness?
The top countries in the 2007 Governance Effectiveness Rating, such as Singapore (97.58), Denmark (97.24), and Sweden (93.09), share common traits that contribute to their high scores. These nations are renowned for their efficient public sectors, transparent governance, and robust legal frameworks. For example, Singapore's success can be attributed to its strategic governance and emphasis on anti-corruption policies, which enhance public trust and service delivery.
In Denmark and Sweden, the integration of technology in public administration and strong welfare systems play pivotal roles. These countries prioritize inclusive policies and invest heavily in education and healthcare, ensuring that citizens receive quality services consistently. Such investments not only improve governance effectiveness but also reinforce social cohesion and economic stability.
Challenges Faced by Low-Scoring Nations
At the other end of the spectrum, countries like Somalia (10.14) and North Korea (12.42) struggle with governance effectiveness due to persistent political instability and limited capacity for policy implementation. In Somalia, ongoing conflict and a lack of central government control hinder the delivery of essential services. Similarly, North Korea's closed economy and authoritarian regime restrict transparency and accountability, affecting overall governance quality.
Other low-ranking countries, such as Iraq (17.05) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (17.52), face challenges from internal conflicts and inadequate infrastructure, which impede effective governance. These issues highlight the importance of political stability and institutional strength in improving governance outcomes.
Year-over-Year Changes: Significant Movers
The Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007 saw an average change of 0.34 (1.2%), with notable shifts in specific countries. American Samoa experienced the most significant increase, with a rise of 10.66 (23.4%). This improvement may be linked to reforms in public administration and increased investment in government efficiency.
Conversely, Fiji recorded the largest decrease, dropping by 10.59 (-18.9%). Political instability following a coup contributed to this decline, as disruptions in governance structures adversely affect policy implementation and public service quality. Similarly, Vanuatu and Montenegro faced decreases of 6.89 (-12.0%) and 6.73 (-12.1%) respectively, potentially due to external economic pressures and internal governance challenges.
Economic Factors Influencing Governance Effectiveness
Economic stability is a crucial factor influencing the Governance Effectiveness Rating. Countries like Qatar and South Korea, which saw increases of 4.69 (7.9%) and 3.84 (5.3%) respectively, benefit from strong economic foundations that support effective governance. Qatar's wealth from natural resources allows for substantial investment in public infrastructure, while South Korea's technological advancements and export-driven economy bolster its governance structures.
On the other hand, countries with weaker economies often struggle to maintain effective governance. Limited financial resources can restrict the government's ability to deliver public services efficiently, affecting overall governance scores. This highlights the interconnectedness of economic health and governance effectiveness, underscoring the need for sound economic policies to support governance improvements.
Overall, the 2007 Governance Effectiveness Rating reflects a diverse range of governance capacities across the globe. High-ranking countries demonstrate the benefits of stable political environments and robust economic policies, while low-ranking nations highlight the challenges posed by instability and limited resources. The year-over-year changes further emphasize the dynamic nature of governance effectiveness, influenced by both domestic reforms and external pressures.
Frequently Asked Questions About Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007
Which country had the highest Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007?
Singapore had the highest Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007 with a score of 97.58.
What was the lowest Governance Effectiveness Rating recorded in 2007 and which country had it?
The lowest Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007 was 10.14, recorded by Somalia.
What was the average Governance Effectiveness Rating across all countries in 2007?
The average Governance Effectiveness Rating across all countries in 2007 was 50.03.
What was the median Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007?
The median Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007 was 45.6.
Which countries were in the top 3 for Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007?
The top 3 countries for Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007 were Singapore, Denmark, and Sweden.
How many countries were included in the Governance Effectiveness Rating dataset for 2007?
The dataset for the Governance Effectiveness Rating in 2007 included 200 countries.
Insights by country
Burundi
In 2007, Burundi had a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 24.3104121, ranking #183 out of 200 countries. This rating places Burundi among the lowest globally, reflecting significant challenges compared to regional neighbors like Rwanda, which has made strides in governance. Key factors contributing to this low rating include ongoing political instability, limited institutional capacity, and economic hardships that hinder effective governance and public service delivery.
Bahrain
Bahrain achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 58.3872762 in 2007, ranking #64 out of 200 countries. This rating reflects a relatively stable governance structure compared to regional counterparts, although it falls short of the top-ranked nations like Finland and Singapore. Key drivers of this rating include Bahrain's economic diversification efforts and its strategic location as a financial hub in the Gulf, which influence both governance and public policy effectiveness.
Guatemala
In 2007, Guatemala had a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 37.4728335, ranking #137 out of 200 countries. This rating places Guatemala below many of its Central American neighbors, reflecting challenges in governance compared to countries like Costa Rica. Factors contributing to this low rating include ongoing issues with corruption, weak institutions, and limited public service delivery, which hinder effective governance and economic development.
Botswana
In 2007, Botswana achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 63.4429532, ranking #52 out of 200 countries. This rating positions Botswana above the regional average for Sub-Saharan Africa, indicating a relatively strong governance framework compared to many of its neighbors. Key drivers of this effectiveness include Botswana's stable political environment, robust institutions, and prudent economic management, which have fostered good governance practices since its independence.
Guam
In 2007, Guam achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 45.5997126, ranking #101 out of 200 countries. This rating is notably lower than many of its Pacific neighbors, reflecting challenges in governance compared to higher-ranked jurisdictions like New Zealand. Key factors influencing Guam's governance effectiveness include its status as a U.S. territory, which affects local policy autonomy, and economic dependencies on tourism and military spending, impacting governance structures and public service delivery.
France
In 2007, France achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 84.2794539, ranking #17 out of 200 countries. This rating places France above the global average, reflecting its stable political environment compared to lower-ranked nations. Key drivers of this high rating include France's strong institutional framework and robust public services, which support effective governance and public trust.
Kuwait
In 2007, Kuwait achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 48.8653039, ranking #88 out of 200 countries. This rating places Kuwait below the global average, reflecting challenges in public sector performance and regulatory quality. Key drivers of this rating include the country's heavy reliance on oil revenues, which can lead to governance issues, and a relatively small population that may limit the diversity of political representation and public engagement.
Estonia
In 2007, Estonia achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 71.6842839, ranking #35 out of 200 countries. This score places Estonia above the global average, reflecting its commitment to effective governance compared to many of its regional peers. Key drivers of this high rating include Estonia's robust digital governance initiatives and a strong emphasis on transparency and anti-corruption measures, which have bolstered public trust and institutional efficiency.
Austria
In 2007, Austria achieved a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 87.5689217, ranking #12 out of 200 countries. This rating places Austria significantly above the global average, reflecting its strong institutional framework and public sector efficiency. Key drivers of this high rating include Austria's robust economic performance, effective public administration, and a stable political environment that fosters transparency and accountability.
North Korea
In 2007, North Korea had a Governance Effectiveness Rating of 12.4211203, ranking #199 out of 200 countries. This rating places North Korea near the bottom globally, significantly lower than nearby South Korea, which has a much higher governance effectiveness. The low rating reflects the country's centralized political system, lack of transparency, and limited civil liberties, which hinder effective governance and economic development.
Data Source
Government Effectiveness - Governance score (0-100) | Data
The World Bank provides the Governance Effectiveness indicator, which measures the quality of public services, the capacity of the civil service, and the degree of its independence from political pressures. The scores range from 0 to 100, reflecting the effectiveness of governance in various countries.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Governance Effectiveness Rating data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.
More Government Facts
Rule of Law Index by Country
Compare countries by Rule of Law percentile rank, reflecting confidence in laws, courts, police, property rights, and protection from crime and violence.
View dataBrowse All Government
Explore more facts and statistics in this category
All Categories
Discover more categories with comprehensive global data