policy performance and governance capacities in the oecd · the oecd. a brochure of this scope can...

Policy Performance and Governance Capacities in the OECD

Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011

2 3

Learning from the world

The OECD nations face tremendous chal-lenges at the beginning of the 21st century.Economic globalization, migration, environ-mental issues and climatic change as well asdemographic and cultural shifts place democ-racies under massive pressure to adapt. Theuncertainties experienced in the context ofthe recent global financial and economic cri-sis have further underscored the need foreffective and efficient political executive ca-pacity. In a rapidly changing environment, itis more important than ever for governmentsto be able to react swiftly and decisively whileaccurately gauging the long-term effects oftheir political actions.

The Sustainable Governance Indicators(SGI) are aimed at identifying the structuraland process-related challenges faced by gov-ernments in the OECD. They also present andcompare capacities and deficits in confront -ing challenges and, based on these findings,measure the sustainability of these demo-cratic societies.

Foreword

The SGI use a set of indicators speciallytailored to these states in order to assess thesustainability of their governance and offercomparative data on each surveyed country.In this manner, the SGI seek to encourage de-bate on “good governance” and sustainablepolicy-making, identify success models andfoster international learning processes withinthe OECD.

A brochure of this scope can offer only abrief overview of the objectives, methods andfindings of the SGI. The extensive data andinformation set is freely accessible to all in-terested parties either in print or online atwww.sgi-network.org. The guiding principle:to use evidence-based analyses in generatingknowledge and points of reference for politi-cal decision-makers, media, interested citizensand researchers. To paraphrase the initiatorReinhard Mohn, the SGI can help us “learnfrom the world.”

4

6

8

10

12

14

20

24

26

28

30

SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011

Measuring sustainability

The approach

Status Index

Management Index

2011 results

Status Index 2011 highlights

Management Index 2011 highlights

Social justice in the OECD

Methodology

Resources

SGI board and regional coordinators

The Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), developed by the Bertelsmann Stiftung, answer this key question with acomprehensive and innovative set of measurements. The SGI offer evidence-based knowledge and points of reference forpolitical decision-makers, members of the public, researchers and media. Systematic and cross-national in their comparison,the SGI point the way toward successful, sustainable governance.

Ready for the future? A systematic comparison of sustainable governance

4

OECD member states

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Chile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovakia

South Korea

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

Measuring sustainability

5

ing environment, and in the face of increas-ingly complex sets of problems, it is moreimportant than ever for governments to reactresolutely in the short term and to accuratelyassess the long-term consequences of theirpolitical actions. Since the autumn of 2008,government activity has come almost con-tinuously under the heading of “crisis man-agement.” The acute pressure of short-termproblems, though without question demand-ing quick decisions, must not lead to the sys-tematic neglect of sustainability con sider-ations. Future viability must be assured.

Forward-looking governanceThe steering performance of political

bodies, their respective institutional frame-works, the instruments chosen and the ulti-mate outcomes of political actions mustalways take the future into consideration.Two key dimensions can be distinguishedhere: one concerning fundamental politicaland constitutional frameworks as well asconcrete policy outcomes; and another moreconcerned with the process-oriented aspectsof policy-making and actual interactions be-tween governments and members of civilsociety.


Together, the SGI and BTI depict the state of affairs in governance for nearly every country in the world.

SGI 2011 – 31 OECD nations examined

SWEDEN

NORWAY

DENMARK

FINLAND

NEW ZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

USA

ICELAND

LUXEMBOURG

CANADA

GERMANY

UNITEDKINGDOM

SWITZERLAND

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

JAPAN

IRELAND

CHILE

SPAINTURKEY

BELGIUM

SOUTHKOREA

FRANCE

MEXICO

CZECH REPUBLICPOLAND

PORTUGAL

HUNGARY

ITALY

SLOVAKIA

GREECE

The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s SustainableGovernance Indicators (SGI), first publishedin 2009 (www.sgi-network.org), form a valu-able counterpart to the Transformation Index(BTI), which has appeared since 2004. Whilethe BTI assesses the fundamental develop-ment of 128 countries in transition to democ-racy and a market economy, the SGI projectcloses a significant gap, subjecting the highlydeveloped industrialized countries of theOECD to a detailed comparison of their per-formance. This is ac co m p lished using a setof indicators specially tailored to these states,which look at the complex challenges andmegatrends confronting the OECD states atthe beginning of the 21st century.

Challenges of the 21st centuryGlobalization processes, migration, dwin-

dling resources, climate change, aging so-cieties and new security risks place thede moc racies of the OECD under consider-able pressure to adapt, and demand corre-spondingly dynamic and adaptable policy-making performance. In particular, the recentdrastic experiences associated with the glo -bal financial and economic crisis have em-phasized the need for the ability to effectivelyand efficiently steer policy. In a fast-chang-

6

The SGI are comprised of two

pillars – the Status Index and

the Management Index.

7

Developing sustainable policy outcomes

The Sustainable Governance Indicators(SGI) examine these two basic aspects (needfor reform and capacity to reform) in a sys-tematic, evidence-based comparison of allOECD nations. More than 80 experts fromaround the globe contribute to the large-scalestudy currently in its second edition. Basedon nearly 150 qualitative and quantitativeindicators, the SGI draw a profile of thestrengths and weaknesses of all states sur-veyed, with the aim of fostering debate ongood governance and sustainable policyoutcomes within the OECD. The objective ofthe SGI is to use this systematic (cross-na-tional) comparison to identify success mod-els (good practices) and to learn from thesewhile keeping each specific national contextin mind.

Generating knowledge

The overarching idea is to use evidence-based analyses to generate context-basedknowledge for political decision-makers,media, interested members of the publicand researchers. Continuous observationand publication enable the SGI to identifycurrent trends and developments as well asto examine the effects of political reformmeasures on an ongoing basis. Alongsidethe ranking results, detailed country reportsare compiled within the SGI information-gathering process. These are freely accessi-ble via the Website www.sgi-network.org. Theonline presence enables all users to view allrelevant data in the desired level of detail.

The approach

Quality of democracy, sustainability ofpolicies and governanceKey parameters for an evidence-based comparison of 31 OECD states

The Status Index measures the reformneeds of an OECD state in terms of qualityof democracy and performance in keypolicy fields. The underlying principlehere is to examine the future viability ofa country’s policies. Their aim should betwofold: to avoid shifting unjust burdensto future generations, and to producepolicy results that imply a preservationof or improvement in the quality of lifefor present and future generations. Inlight of the future challenges outlinedabove, the objective is to ensure the long-term viability and adaptability of eco-nomic, sociopolitical and environmentalsystems. This substantive, results-ori-ented goal is strongly influenced by theconcepts of sustainability and qualityof life.

Management IndexStatus Index


The Management Index assesses theactual capacity of an OECD state to takeaction and implement reform in terms ofdeveloping, agreeing on and realizing pol-icy. It seeks to answer the critical ques-tion of whether a state is able to identifypressing problems, develop proposals forstrategic solutions and thus foster sus-tainable policy outcomes through gover-nance. In this context, governance en-compasses not only the actions of (core)executive actors, but also their interac-tions with other institutions and elementsof society (citizens, legislatures, specialinterest groups, media) in each phase ofthe policy cycle. The findings of the Man-agement Index are thus suitable for draw-ing comparisons.

INFO

The SGI expert network

With its innovative approach,

the SGI allow for the first time far-

reaching assessments of the sus-

tainability of OECD member states.

The SGI are by no means a system

of purely quantitative data; the

SGI also include qualitative expert

assessments, which are gathered

by means of a questionnaire used

as part a multistage data capture

and validation process. A network

com prising a total of more than 80

respected scholars all over the

world is involved in the study.

The inclusion of qualitative in-

dicators is a major advantage of

the SGI over many other indices,

as this allows context-sensitive as-

sessments that purely quantitative

indicators cannot yield.

> Methodology, page 26

Resources

Environment

Research andInnovation

Education

Sustainable political outcomes in a democratic contextThe Status Index employs a broad set of democratic, social, economic and environmental indicators

8

adaptation processes as well as the capacityto change. The SGI thus regard structuresthat ensure a high quality of democracy andrule of law as necessary in achieving sus-tainability in terms of long-term system sta-bility.

Focus on policy areas of future relevanceIn addition to the analysis of frameworks

of democracy and rule of law, the StatusIndex offers a detailed comparison of theperformance of OECD states in policy areasof relevance for the future. The SGI perspec-tive is shaped by thoughts at the center of thecurrent international discourse on the meas-

Status Index

9

The SGI Status Index examines

the quality of democracy and rule

of law as well as the policy per-

formance of 31 OECD states in 15

areas.

urement of sustainability, societal progressand quality of life (the beyond-GDP debate).For this reason, the Status Index is by nomeans limited to purely economic indicatorsmeasuring a society’s economic growth andmaterial welfare; to the contrary, the Sustain-able Governance Indicators also assess thesuccess of OECD nations in numerous otherspheres of political action that must not beignored in the pursuit of long-term viabilityand capacity for performance in economic,sociopolitical and environmental systemswith a high level of public participation. Ac-cordingly, these include areas like education,employment, health care, integration, inno-

vation, and environment. In total, 15 indi-vidual areas of policy are assessed. They canbe divided into the following categories:

· Economy and employment· Social affairs· Security· Resources

SGI: a multidimensional approachAt the center of the SGI is the thinking

that sustainable policy-making means plac-ing the same importance on democratic as-pects as on social, economic and environ-mental progress.

What is the quality of democratic systems in OECD states?

How successful are they at realizing political outcomes?

The SGI Status Index looks at the qualityof democracy and rule of law by drawing onan array of indicators. The quality of democ-racy and political participation in a politicalsystem are crucial to its long-term stabilityand capacity to perform. Indeed, this viabil-ity depends to a large extent on the levelsof trust between citizens and politics. Guar-anteed opportunities for democratic partic-ipation and observation, freely accessiblein fo rmation, rule of law and protection ofcivil rights are thus essential prerequisitesfor the legitimacy of a political system. More-over, democratic participation and observa-tion are essential for concrete learning and

Electoral Process

Access toInformation

Civil Rights

Rule of Law

Economy andEmployment

Economy

Labor Market

Enterprises

Taxes

Budgets

Social Affairs

Health Care

Social Inclusion

Families

Pensions

Integration

Security

External Security

Internal Security

Status Index

Policy PerformanceQuality of Democracy

SGI 2011 design – Status Index. The figure illustrates an overview of the key items comprising

the Status Index. A total of 100 qualitative and quantitative indicators underlie the Status Index.


A comprehensive assessment of

future viability must not be lim-

ited to the measurement of po-

litical outcomes and the quality

of democratic frameworks; to

the contrary, it must also look

very closely at the capacity of the

responsible political actors for

successful governance.

Executive capacity in aparticipatory environmentThe Management Index compares governments’ executive capacity and

accountability toward different elements of society

10

In order to answer this key question, the SGIManagement Index has been designed arounda broad and innovative set of indicators.These indicators allow a detailed assessmentof the extent to which governments of OECDstates are capable of working with other in-stitutions and groups within society to iden-tify pressing future problems, developtargeted political solutions, and then effec-tively and efficiently implement them.

Management Index

11

Capacity for performance, coop-

eration and interaction character-

ize the quality of the relationship

between a government and other

elements of society.

The executive capacity of a governmentWith a view to governance in the broader

sense, the SGI concentrate on a govern-ment’s executive capacity by analyzing it innarrowly defined terms – in line with thepolitical cycle – of aspects like strategic plan-ning, policy implementation, communica-tion and institutional learning capacity.These aspects of governance are measuredin the “Executive Capacity” dimension.

10 11

SGI 2011 design – Management Index. The figure illustrates an overview of the key items comprising the

Management Index. A total of 47 qualitative and quantitative indicators underlie the Management Index.


How well developed is the strategic steering capacity of each OECD

nation in terms of interaction between government and different ele-

ments of society?

Management Index

Executive AccountabilityExecutive Capacity

InstitutionalLearning

SteeringCapability

StrategicCapacity

Inter-ministerialCoordination

Evidence-basedInstruments

SocietalConsultation

PolicyCommunication

PolicyImplementation

EffectiveImplementation

IntermediaryOrganizations

Media

Parties and InterestAccociations

Citizens

Citizens´ParticipatoryCompetence

Legislature

Structuresand Resourcesof Legislative

Actors

LegislativeAccountability

Cooperation and interactionA further element assessed relates to

the nature of relationships between govern-ments and actors or groups outside of theexecutive branch. The focus is, on the onehand, on the government’s accountability tocitizens, legislatures, media, political par-ties and special interest groups – actors that(can) all exert important corrective functions.On the other hand, the focus is on basic com-munication performance in terms of avail-ability of knowledge as a basis for strategic,effective steering that involves and activateselements of society in the development andimplementation of policy.

Consultation and executive accountabilityUnderscoring the importance of account-

ability, the SGI include a series of indicatorsexploring the extent to which governmentsconsult, for example, relevant special inter-est groups early on in legislative planningprocesses. In short, the emphasis here is onparticipation processes and on checks andbalances, each of which can improve a gov-ernment’s strategic steering capacity. Theseaspects of governance are measured in the“Executive Accountability” dimension.

Adaptability

OrganizationalReform Capacity

SGI 2011Ranking Where do the individual OECD states stand?

2011 results

1312

Reform need Reform capacity

Management Index

8.65

8.64

8.52

8.51

8.34

8.12

7.89

7.77

7.75

7.65

7.63

7.60

7.49

7.37

7.22

7.17

6.86

6.78

6.74

6.59

6.54

6.51

6.35

6.33

5.94

5.82

5.70

5.48

5.25

5.12

4.65

Status Index

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

1

- 1

1

- 1

0

2

- 1

3

4

0

- 4

0

4

- 5

0

0

- 3

1

- 1

0

0

-

- 1

3

0

- 2

- 1

- 5

0

- 2

- 1

2

- 1

- 1

0

0

1

2

- 2

1

- 3

2

- 2

1

2

6

-1

- 5

-

6

3

- 4

- 4

5

2

- 1

3

- 5

- 8

- 2

- 11

- 1

difference trend trend difference

8.29

8.20

7.90

7.79

7.72

7.71

7.24

7.23

7.05

7.04

6.84

6.84

6.82

6.79

6.41

6.39

6.33

6.15

6.07

6.03

6.00

5.92

5.88

5.87

5.82

5.79

5.76

5.71

5.62

4.75

4.54


Management Index

Number of countries in

trend comparison

9.38

9.43

9.37

9.22

9.05

8.66

8.52

8.76

8.46

8.41

8.50

7.97

8.60

8.64

7.66

7.89

7.40

7.42

7.32

7.54

6.93

6.99

7.24

7.31

6.39

5.47

6.26

5.81

5.47

6.00

4.90

7.91

7.85

7.67

7.80

7.63

7.59

7.27

6.77

7.04

6.88

6.76

7.22

6.38

6.11

6.78

6.45

6.33

6.15

6.16

5.63

6.15

6.03

5.46

5.35

5.50

6.17

5.15

5.16

5.03

4.23

4.40

Quality of Democracy

Policy Performance

Sweden

Norway

Finland

New Zealand

Denmark

Switzerland

Canada

Germany

Australia

Iceland

Netherlands

Luxembourg

USA

Ireland

United Kingdom

Belgium

Austria

Czech Republic

France

Portugal

Japan

Chile

Spain

Poland

Hungary

South Korea

Italy

Slavakia

Mexico

Greece

Turkey

Executive Capacity

Executive Accountability

8.19

8.37

7.52

7.20

7.25

7.61

6.70

7.37

7.51

6.07

6.97

6.64

6.24

6.23

6.42

6.60

6.40

5.74

5.72

5.84

6.95

5.17

6.08

5.00

4.81

5.32

5.11

5.46

5.75

5.10

4.93

SGI: internationally recog-nized for depth of detailThe SGI concept goes further than

previously existing international

rankings: no other ranking in the

world presents an analysis in com-

parable depth of detail. With its

innovative approach, the SGI proj-

ect has earned recognition by the

OECD as an official partner in the

“Global Project on Measuring the

Progress of Societies.” The Global

Project is the central international

platform for the worldwide “be-

yond-GDP” debate over sustain-

able business, social inclusivity and

quality of life (www.wikiprogress.org).

* The SGI 2009 scores and rank-

ings presented here are not iden-

tical to the data published in SGI

2009. All SGI 2009 results have

been interpolated on the basis of

the new index design in order to

allow a reliable comparison. The

original SGI 2009 scores remain,

however, accessible via the web-

site.

Review periods

SGI 2009:

January 2005 – March 2007

SGI 2011:

May 2008 – April 2010

Status Index

Number of countries in

trend comparison

OECD average6.53

OECD average7.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

2

1

4

3

5

8

6

11

13

10

7

12

17

9

15

16

14

19

18

20

21

-

22

27

25

24

26

23

29

28

30

SGI 2011 SGI 2009*

Ranking

SGI 2011SGI 2009*

3

1

2

4

5

7

9

6

10

7

13

10

14

16

21

15

12

-

25

23

17

18

28

26

24

29

22

20

27

19

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Sweden

Norway

Denmark

Finland

New Zealand

Australia

USA

Iceland

Luxembourg

Canada

Germany

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Japan

Austria

Ireland

Chile

Turkey

Spain

Belgium

South Korea

Czech Republic

Mexico

France

Poland

Portugal

Hungary

Italy

Slovakia

Greece

8.39

8.03

8.29

8.38

8.18

7.81

7.78

7.09

6.60

8.01

6.72

7.04

7.40

7.34

6.39

6.17

6.26

6.56

6.43

6.22

5.04

6.67

5.68

6.74

6.83

6.26

6.41

5.96

5.49

4.41

4.16

Ranking

� · �

8 9 13

� · �

13 2 15

14

Messung von Zukunftsfähigkeit

15

SGI 2011 Status Index findingsQuality of democracy and political performance in the OECD

Status Index highlightsSustainable Governance Indicators 2011

First dimension

of Status Index

Second dimension

of the Status Index

The Status Index is one of the two main pillars of the SGI project. It aims to compare “PolicyPerformance” and the “Quality of Democracy” in the 31 states under review. In general, it ispresumed that a high quality of democracy is necessary for the long-term stability of a polit-ical system and thus for the implementation of sustainable policies.

A country’s quality of democracy is measured in terms of four main elements, each ofwhich takes further factors into account:

1. Electoral process 2. Access to information3. Civil rights 4. Rule of law

The second dimension of the Status Index provides information on individual countries’performance in specific policy fields. The four areas analyzed here are especially importantfor achieving sustainable policy:

1. Economy and employment2. Social affairs 3. Security policy 4. Resources

Comparing quality of democracy and policy performance

The top rankings of the Status Index are dominated by northern European countries. At thesame time, the leading group also includes New Zealand, with its Anglo-saxon heritage, andcontinental European Switzerland, two nations with different political and state welfare tra-ditions.

The group of mid-range scorers (Canada, Australia, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg,Netherlands, USA, Ireland, Great Britain, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Portu-gal, Japan, Chile, Spain, and Poland) and the lowest-ranking group (South Korea, Italy, Slo-vakia, Mexico, Greece, and Turkey) are geographically and culturally just as heterogeneousas the top group.

Standard typologies in comparative political science are insufficient to explain the StatusIndex ranking of the OECD nations. For example, majoritarian democracies do not systemat-ically score better or worse than consensus democracies. Classifying the countries as feder-alist and centralist states also fails to help explain the differences in reform capacity.

The top group includes, above all, social democratic welfare states such as the Scandina-vian countries. However, liberal welfare states also achieve high scores, with New Zealand,Switzerland and Canada in the upper mid-range. In general, the findings of the Status Indexreveal higher scores among long-term, established OECD members – although there are ex-ceptions: Chile, a new member, places in the lower midrange, while Italy and Greece rank sig-nificantly lower than some Eastern European countries. This suggests that the smaller, moreopen national economies tend to pursue especially sustainable policies.

An overview of the Status Index findings

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

2

4

6

Germany South Korea

Finland Germany Greece

8.00 – 9.00

7.00 – 8.00

6.00 – 7.00

5.00 – 6.00

4.00 – 5.00

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

2

4

6

8

2

Education

Education Policy

Upper Secondary Attainment

Tertiary Attainment

PISA Results

Continuing Education

Pre-primary Education

USA

8

6

1

6

Distribution of the 31 OECD

states surveyed in the Status Index

Environment

Environmental Policy

Energy Intensity

CO2 Emissions

Water Usage

Energy Mix

Waste Management

10

16


17

Status Index highlightsSustainable Governance Indicators 2011

The largest financial and economic crisis seen in the postwar period left none of the sur-veyed countries unscathed. Following the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothersin autumn of 2008 and the domino effect it unleashed on the international financial system,policy during the period observed has been shaped more by short-term crisis managementthan by structural reforms. In addition to massive economic stimulus programs and the sta-bilization of the banking sector,the political response included state intervention in the econ-omy. Even though the real economy is still far from overcoming the fallout of the financialcrisis in many countries, we already see that the states that set the right priorities and deci-sively implemented necessary reforms have been able to stabilize trust in politics and theeconomy. Alongside these resolute steps, however, policymakers must not lose sight of prob-lems on the long-term horizon – in particular, the immense burden of debt that coming gen-erations will have to shoulder. The country reports of the SGI 2011 are a rich source of insightsinto how political decision-makers in OECD countries acted when confronted by simulta-neous demands for short-term crisis management and long-term policymaking – as well aswhat can be learned from the crisis management experiences thus far. The countries’ per-formance scores vary widely depending on policy area.

Economy and employment. Iceland and Ireland were especially hard-hit by the finan-cial and economic crisis. Iceland’s economy is now receiving support from a reconstructionprogram under the International Monetary Fund. The stability of the Irish banking systems hasalso sustained severe damage. On employment indicators, the surveyed countries’ perform-ance is very mixed: Canada, Australia and the Netherlands still have relatively low unem-ployment and high employment rates despite the crisis. Some countries, including Iceland,the USA, Ireland, and Great Britain, enjoyed above-average labor market performance in re-cent years, but experienced a spike in unemployment during the crisis. Germany is a specialcase, since its previously high unemployment numbers fell continuously even during the cri-sis. This can be explained in part by the country’s extensive labor market reforms in 2003 and2004 and by massive payments of short-time compensation for workers whose hours were re-duced during the financial crisis. In most countries, unemployment remains at a relativelyhigh level, with Turkey experiencing the most severe unemployment among the 31 OECD na-tions studied.

Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Finland receive top scores on quality of democracy.Denmark also achieves very good ratings for quality of democracy, albeit lower than the restof the northern European countries. This is due to weaker scores for its anti-discrimination pol-icy. Although Danish society has traditionally been liberal, it has tightened its immigrationlaws in recent years. With its high proportion of direct democratic processes, Switzerlandalso received high scores on quality of democracy.

Membership in the European Union seems to exert a positive influence on the protectionof civil rights: Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and Greece score better here than South Korea, Mexicoand Turkey. The main shortcomings of Turkish policy are restrictions on freedom of assemblyand opinion, as well as curtailment of the rights of the Kurdish minority. But in Hungary andItaly, too, SGI experts consider the civil rights of ethnic minorities – especially Sinti and Roma– inadequately protected. The SGI experts draw critical attention to deficits in the rule of lawamong countries in the lower rankings of the Status Index. In Mexico and Greece in particu-lar, the rule of law is considerably weaker than in the rest of the OECD countries. Preventingand fighting corruption – especially within the legal system – is among the central challengesfor all countries in this group.

Quality of democracy Policy-making in times of crisis

The better the quality of the dem-

ocratic structures, the better the

chances of sustainable reform

policies.

The SGI 2011 identifies good

practices observed in everything

from short-term crisis management

to sustainable policy-making.

Sweden

Norway

New Zealand

Finland

Denmark

Switzerland

Canada

Luxembourg

Australia

Iceland

United Kingdom

Germany

Netherlands

Belgium

United States

Austria

South Korea

France

Czech Republic

Japan

Ireland

Chile

Portugal

Hungary

Spain

Poland

Slovakia

Italy

Mexico

Turkey

Greece

7.91

7.85

7.80

7.67

7.63

7.59

7.27

7.22

7.04

6.88

6.78

6.77

6.76

6.45

6.38

6.33

6.17

6.16

6.15

6.15

6.11

6.03

5.63

5.50

5.46

5.35

5.16

5.15

5.03

4.40

4,23

9.43

9.38

9.37

9.22

9.05

8.76

8.66

8.64

8.60

8.52

8.50

8.46

8.41

7.97

7.89

7.66

7.54

7.42

7.40

7.32

7.31

7.24

6.99

6.93

6.39

6.26

6.00

5.81

5.47

5.47

4.90

Policy PerformanceQuality of DemocracyNorway

Sweden

Finland

New Zealand

Denmark

Germany

Switzerland

Ireland

United States

Canada

Netherlands

Australia

Iceland

Luxembourg

Belgium

United Kingdom

Portugal

Czech Republic

Austria

France

Poland

Spain

Chile

Japan

Hungary

Italy

Greece

Slovakia

Mexico

South Korea

Turkey

OECD average7.64

OECD average6.35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

29

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

18 19


The findings of the Status Index point to significant differences in the strengths and weak-nesses of OECD countries. Those nations with a strong quality of democracy score better thanthe rest of the OECD on most areas of policy as well, although in some cases members rank-ing in the upper and lower mid-range achieve scores equal to or even exceeding the topgroup’s. In general, a very close relationship between two dimensions can be observed: thebetter the quality of a country’s democratic structures, the more likely it is to achieve sus-tainable reform policies.

In recent years, the reform capacity of many countries has taken a similar turn in certainareas of policy. Pension policy reform in most industrialized nations tends toward a strength-ening of private pension schemes and lengthening of working lifetimes. In family policy,OECD nations have paid greater attention to improving compatibility of career and family inrecent years.

In which policy areas is the need for reform still especially great in the industrialized coun-tries? The lowest average score in the Status Index is on research and development. More in-tensive efforts are needed here, as there is a positive correlation between a country’s score onresearch and innovation and the competitiveness of its economy.

Average scores are also rather low for sustainability in environmental and educationpolicy, as well as integration policy. Finally, a similarly low average score can be seen onfiscal policy. In the area of fiscal retrenchment, 21 out of 31 OECD countries received the low-est score. In light of this, the effects of the financial and economic crisis can be expected toremain a main challenge for the industrialized countries for the foreseeable future.

Social affairs. Norway leads here overall, closely followed by New Zealand and Sweden.SGI experts judge the health systems of Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland,New Zealand and Canada to be similarly sustainable. The northern European countries takethe lead in social inclusion. In family policy too, Norway, Iceland, France and Sweden are con-sidered exemplary: their well-developed childcare facilities make it easier for men and womento combine family and career, and may also help explain these countries’ above-average birthrates (New Zealand’s is the highest among the countries surveyed). As a consequence of theneed to finance their extensive welfare states, all northern European countries are charac-terized by above-average tax burdens, with Denmark featuring the highest taxation rate of anyOECD nation. The Scandinavian states have so far largely managed to defend their prosper-ity despite their extensive welfare states and high tax rates. These countries do, however,have weaknesses in the area of integration policy.

Internal and external security. The third category within the dimension of “Policy Per-formance” refers to external and internal security policy. The SGI experts assess the countriesin the top group similarly. For Denmark, however, the threat of international terrorism isjudged to be higher for than for the other countries due to its military involvement inAfghanistan and the reaction to the Mohammed caricatures published in 2005. On securitypolicy, the United States scores significantly lower than the other countries in the upper mid-range due to its above-average crime rate and its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.In addition, the Guantanamo prison camp has not yet been closed. Exceptional deficits in thearea of internal security can be observed in Mexico due to an extremely high crime rate andunreliable police forces.

Resources. This category of the Status Index asks whether the OECD countries pursuesustainable policy in regard to their available resources. The areas analyzed are environmentalpolicy, research and development as well as education policy. Overall, Finland leads on thiscriterion, followed by Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany and Japan. In terms of envi-ronmental policy specifically, SGI experts attest to especially sustainable approaches in Fin-land, Norway, Denmark and Germany as well as in the frontrunner, Sweden. In recent years,environmental policy has seen a transition from a classic regulatory approach toward newenvironmental steering instruments (e.g., eco-tax, tradable emissions certificates, environ-mental agreements). Here, Germany has established itself as a pioneer and initiator, takingon a leading role – alongside Great Britain – in the EU. Germany’s good results should not,however, obscure the fact that there is room for improvement here too. The state may subsi-dize projects such as renewable energy, wind farms and modernization of buildings and in-frastructure to improve energy efficiency, yet the proportion of renewables in the overallenergy mix is still small in international comparison. In terms of environmental sustainabil-ity, the USA remains at the bottom of the ranking, although it is among the leading OECD na-tions in research and development.

Status Index highlights

Education, technological know-

how and a healthy environment

are key resources for sustainable

development.

Research and

Innovation

Research and

Innovation Policy

Public R&D

Spending

High-tech

Employment

Science and Technology

Degrees

Triad

Patents

Computer and

Internet Access

Germany

2.91

PolandSouth KoreaItaly USASweden

7.0

8

6.34

6.06

6.89

7.84

3.7

4

3.6

5

8.2

9

7.38

10.00

8.34

8.48

7.4

9

6.86

7.55

5.19

6.58

2.99

2.01

4.68

4.45

4.64

1.15

1.01

2.01

2.47

3.25 2.61

Learning from the best

Rating scale range of 1 – 10 points. Raw values for the quantitative indicators were converted to this scale using a linear transformation.

3.20

7.7

8

7.38

5.19

10.00

5.53

8.86


20


21

SGI 2011 Comparing governance in the OECDExecutive capacity and executive accountability

Management Index highlightsSustainable Governance Indicators 2011

The Management Index, comprising mainly governance indicators, sees democratic gov-ernance from a holistic and contemporary perspective. This index focuses on the decisivequestion of whether a nation is able to identify pressing problems, develop strategic solutionsand thus foster sustainable political outcomes. This allows an assessment of the reform ca-pacity of a political system. Like the Status Index, the Management Index is structured in twodimensions.

The first part of the Management Index concerns “Executive Capacity”. It looks at the aspectsof strategic planning, consultation and communication as well as capacity for implementa-tion and learning.

However, as governing modern democracies must be seen as a two-way process involvingnumerous interactions between different actors, the SGI approach goes beyond an analysis ofcore executive functions. Accordingly, it also examines the capacity of citizens, legislatures,special interest groups and media to participate in and monitor political processes. This di-mension, “Executive Accountability”, focuses on the interaction between policymakers andnon-governmental actors in terms of political inclusion, expansion of the knowledge base andmonitoring of executive functions.

At the highest level of aggregation in the Management Index, the overview provides im-portant initial indications of which countries exhibit the best performance of governanceoverall and which countries show deficiencies. Background information in greater depthon the performance of a given country can be found in the country reports on the SGI web-site. These include substantiated, qualitative information right down to the level of individ-ual indicators.

The SGI Management Indicators are clearly led by Sweden and Norway, each with aver-age scores exceeded 8 points. Next come Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Australia.While the overall ranking of northern European countries is again outstanding, as observedin the Status Index, this sequence also underscores the fact that no particular system type isfavored in the Management Index. This top group is followed by a broad mid-range in whichthe changes in index scores are incremental, leaving no discernable clusters. Clearly bring-ing up the rear of the survey are Greece and Slovakia. Both countries trail Italy, which is 29thin the ranking, by nearly an entire point. The new OECD member Chile stands out positively,already scoring higher than some established, longstanding OECD states.

An overview of the Management Index findingsExecutive capacity and executive accountability

First dimension of

the Management Index

Second dimension of

the Management Index

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

Chile France

New Zealand Slovakia Turkey

Executive Accountability

Steering Capability

Policy Implementation

Institutional Learning

Germany

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

2

4

22


23

Management Index highlights

Executive capacity and executive accountability – both matter!Because the scores for the dimensions of “Executive Capacity” and “Executive Account-

ability” are aggregated to create the Management Index, a closer look at both is warrantedin order to better understand the state of affairs in a country. Certain countries attain almostidentical scores on the two dimensions, such as Australia, Ireland and Japan. But there arealso cases of countries showing wide discrepancies between the two dimensions. Strongerscores and assessments for performance on “Executive Accountability” can compensate forweaker scores on “Executive Capacity”, and vice versa. These cases include Canada, Franceand Mexico, with France standing out. The country’s executive and strategic capacity at thecore executive level is strongly upheld through corresponding institutional structures and thespecial position of the president. On the other hand, in the equally important dimension of“Executive Accountability” – referring to involvement of parliament, special interest groups,citizens and media – France comes in last among all 31 countries surveyed. A strong andcapable executive function is thus by no means enough to successfully plan and implementthe reforms society urgently requires. To the contrary, it demands productive interactionbetween the government and other elements of society.

Messung von ZukunftsfähigkeitSustainable Governance Indicators 2011

OECD states vary widely in their

capacity to sufficiently integrate

the knowledge and demands of

citizens, parties and special inter-

est groups into their political de-

cision-making processes.

Steering Capability

Strategic Capacity

Inter-ministerial Coordination

Evidence-based Instruments

Societal Consultation

Policy Communication

Belgium New ZealandGreeceGermany USATurkey

4.7

5.2

7.3

7.0

4

4.1

4.7

5.0

6.0

8.2

7.3

8.9

10.0

8.0

7.0

6.1

7.2

7.6

6.0

7.0

8.8

7.0

9.4

9.7

9.0

9.03.0

2.0 2.7

5.9

6.3

6.3

7.7

6.0

1.0

3.0

3.0

A first glance at the findings of the Management Index reveals that the quality of politicalsteering varies widely among the highly developed industrialized nations studied. In manyOECD states, especially pronounced differences can be observed in strategic steering capa-bility as well as in the capacity to sufficiently include the knowledge and demands of citizens,parties and special interest groups in the political decision-making process. Yet precisely thispoint, inclusion of political actors and members of society outside of the executive core, is adecisive factor in successful political management. Active involvement of legislatures, parties,citizens and intermediary organizations broadens the knowledge base as well as the norma-tive basis for actual governing, thus contributing to an increase in a state’s level of demo-cratic and socioeconomic performance.

A look at the top-ranking countries further reveals an array of parallels in styles of gov-erning. These include, notably, the aspect of institutional learning capacity and self-monitor-ing. Governments that regularly re-examine their own institutional structures and internalprocesses and adjust them to new circumstances are more likely to be capable of strategic ac-tion and effective implementation of reforms. By the same token, the countries that do notseek to improve their steering capability by changing their institutional setups are especiallyprone to low performance levels.

Learning from the best

Norway

Sweden

Australia

Denmark

Luxembourg

Iceland

New Zealand

Finland

Germany

Belgium

United States

Netherlands

Austria

Japan

Ireland

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Czech Republic

Canada

Spain

Italy

Chile

Turkey

Hungary

Poland

South Korea

Portugal

Slovakia

Mexico

Greece

France

8.37

8.19

7.61

7.52

7.51

7.37

7.25

7.20

6.97

6.95

6.70

6.64

6.60

6.42

6.40

6.24

6.23

6.08

6.07

5.84

5.75

5.74

5.72

5.46

5.32

5.17

5.11

5.10

5.00

4.93

4.81

8.39

8.38

8.29

8.18

8.03

8.01

7.81

7.78

7.40

7.34

7.09

7.04

6.83

6.74

6.72

6.67

6.60

6.56

6.43

6.41

6.39

6.26

6.26

6.22

6.17

5.96

5.68

5.49

5.04

4.41

4.16

Executive AccountabilitySweden

Finland

Denmark

New Zealand

Norway

Canada

Australia

United States

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Iceland

Netherlands

France

Mexico

Germany

South Korea

Luxembourg

Chile

Turkey

Portugal

Japan

Ireland

Poland

Spain

Austria

Hungary

Czech Republic

Italy

Belgium

Slovakia

Greece

OECD average6.73

OECD average6.33

Executive Capacity1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

22

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Social justice in the OECD

The special study “Social Justice in the OECD” compellingly illustrates the possibilities of-fered by the extensive data pool offered by the Sustainable Governance Indicators alongsidethe Status Index and Management Index. The study, released in early 2011, seeks to comparethe level of social justice in 31 OECD states based on a selection of individual indicators in theSGI 2011. By means of a scientifically sound method, the scores are aggregated to form a sub-category.

The approach. Conceptually, the Justice Index is shaped by a contemporary under-standing of justice that seeks not so much compensation for exclusion, but rather investmentin inclusion. Rather than an “equalizing” distributive justice or purely formal equal opportu-nity based on equal rules of the game/process, the concept of inclusive justice employed hereis that each individual actually enjoys the same opportunities for self-realization. This is guar-anteed by targeted investment in the development of individual capabilities. Each member ofthe public has the opportunity to shape his or her own life and is enabled to participate inbroader society. An individual’s social background – association with a certain group, for ex-ample, or another non-mainstream starting point – must not negatively affect personal plansfor life.

The instrument. The SGI Justice Index is centered on this paradigm in that it coversareas in which the development of personal capabilities and opportunities for participation areof key importance. Alongside the fundamental aspect of preventing poverty, these include in-clusive education and access to the job market. In addition, the level of social cohesion andactual equal treatment as well as intergenerational equity are taken into account in the index.By means of selected key indicators, for which internationally comparable data are available,evidence-based conclusions can be drawn as to the level of social justice in the surveyed OECDstates and what actions are called for in the respective countries.


24

The northern European states are in a class of their own. They lead by a significant mar-gin in the Justice Index and achieve, notably, very good scores on the key dimensions ofpoverty prevention and access to education. Despite its overall excellent ranking, Sweden isbattling high youth unemployment, which is nearly three times the average unemploymentrate.

Most central and northwestern European states place within the mid-range, with France(8) and Great Britain (11) ahead of Germany (14). The East-Central European OECD membersCzech Republic (13), Hungary (17) and Slovakia (19) are also in the midfield, ahead of thesouthern European countries. Poland (24) alone, with its pronounced deficits in providing ac-cess to the labor market, lags somewhat behind.

The southern European nations all rank significantly below the OECD average, with Turkeyand Greece occupying the two bottom positions.

Social Justice in the OECD

25

8.54

8.41

8.36

8.05

7.94

7.54

7.33

7.24

7.24

7.20

7.14

7.14

7.08

6.89

6.89

6.54

6.53

6.34

6.02

5.92

5.91

5.91

5.72

5.57

5.56

5.53

5.35

5.29

5.05

5.03

3.85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8

10

11

11

13

14

14

16

17

18

19

20

21

21

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

RankingSocial Justice

(weighted index)

Iceland

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Finland

Netherlands

Switzerland

Austria

France

New Zealand

Canada

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Germany

Luxembourg

Belgium

Hungary

Australia

Slovakia

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Japan

Poland

United States

South Korea

Ireland

Chile

Mexico

Greece

Turkey

OECD average6.55

The brochure “Social Justice in

the OECD,” published in 2011,

is available via the Website

www.sgi-network.org.

The findings

Intergenerational Justice

Poverty Prevention

· Poverty rate

· Child poverty

· Senior citizen poverty

Equitable Education

· Education policy

· Impact of socioeconomic factors on educational performance

· Pre-primary education

Access to Labor Market

· Employment rate

· Older employment

· Foreign-born-to-native employment

· Employment rates by gender women/men

· Unemployment rate

· Long-term unemployment

· Youth unemployment ratio

· Low-skilled unemployment ratio

Social Justice Index

Social Cohesion and Equality

· Social inclusions (qualitative)

· Gini coefficient

· Non-discrimination (qualitative)

· Gender equality

· Integration policy (qualitative)

· Family policy

· Pension policy

· Environmental policy

· CO2 emission

· Public R&D spending

· Debt-to-GDP

Combining empirical and qualitativedata for more informative resultsSGI methodology makes good use of both approaches

26


The SGI are based on sound data capture and aggregation methods. In order to ensureproper operationalization of the individual index components, the SGI comprise a combi-nation of qualitative and quantitative data. In this way, their strengths are put to targeteduse and the weaknesses, which would result from use of one data type only, simultaneouslyavoided. Pairing “objective” quantitative data with highly context-sensitive, qualitative ex-pert assessments delivers a high-resolution profile of political outcomes, the quality ofdemocracy and political steering performance.

The SGI process corresponds with

the assessment process used

successfully by the Bertelsmann

Stif tung in its sister project, the

Transformation Index (BTI).

Methodology

27

The abundance of data and depth

of analysis in the SGI are interna-

tionally unique.

Reliable data through multistage qualityassurance

The quantitative data are compiled cen-trally by the SGI project team from official,publicly accessible statistics (primarily fromOECD sources). The qualitative data are cap-tured and examined by a worldwide networkof around 80 respected researchers. The SGICodebook, a detailed questionnaire, providesa clear explanation for each of the questions,so that all experts share a common under-standing of the questions. The questionnaireincludes different answer options for a pre-cise evaluation on a scale of 1 (poorest score)to 10 (best score). Moreover, each OECDmember state is assessed by two experts. Inan in-depth review process with a regionalcoordinator, they develop a country reportbased on the criteria of the SGI question-naire.

At a regional coordination conference, allsurvey findings are compared on the interre-gional level and calibrated in a thorough ex-amination process. This guarantees that thereports are fully, internationally comparable.In a final validation phase, the SGI Board – acouncil of renowned scholars and practi-

cians – checks the findings of the regionalcoordination conference again and gives finalapproval of the qualitative data.

Following this step, all qualitative andquantitative data are linked according to asimple, additive weighting system. To ensurecomparability between quantitative and qual-itative data, all quantitative data are stan-dardized by linear transformation on a scaleof 1 to 10.

Fully transparent dataThe innovative and interactive SGI Web-

site www.sgi-network.org provides access toevery level of aggregation, from the StatusIndex, Management Index and country re-ports right down to the individual indicators.This abundance of data and depth of analy-sis is unique in the field of internationalrankings. Newly compiled SGI are releasedregularly every two to three years to keep upwith current developments and maintain thequality of the database. These ongoing as-sessments allow trend analysis, which cansignificantly enhance the knowledge base ofpolitical decision-makers in the respectiveOECD nations.

1. Data collection

2. Review

3. Regional calibration

4. Inter-regional calibration

5. Results validated

In order to ensure the greatest degree of reliability and validity, our data undergo several stages of review.

Economy and Employment

Social Affairs

Security

Resources

Steering Capability

Policy Implementation

Institutional Learning

Citizens

Legislature

Intermediary Organizations

Status Index | Reform need Management Index | Reform capacity

Electoral Process

Access to information

Civil Rights

Rule of Law

A second expert reviews and edits each individual assessment, and provides his or her own scores without seeing the scores provided by the first expert.

Quality of Democracy Policy Performance Executive Accountability

Executive Capacity

The regional coordinator monitors this process, evaluating the assessments and the scores provided by each expert. Working withboth experts, he then establishes the final report. Each coordinator oversees the data collection process for a region of up to 5 states.

The regional coordinators meet to compare and calibrate the results for each region.

In a final step, the SGI Board evaluates and approves the final results.

The first expert responds to each indicator in the codebook by providing a written assessment and then scores. The assess-ments and scores combined establish the first country report.

28

Resources

29


The new edition of the SGI survey in print. This publication includes documentation of the 2011findings and essays on the project's conceptual framework and methodology. Summaries andstrategic forecasts for each country surveyed are also included.

Available in English from the Bertelsmann Stiftung publishing house.


A study based on the SGI 2011 country report for Germany. It uses a strengths/weaknessesanalysis drawn from the SGI criteria matrix to provide a thorough analysis of the Federal Re-public’s need for reform and reform capacity. Numerous illustrations allow easy comparisonto other OECD countries

Available in German free of charge via the SGI Website.

Nachhaltiges Regieren in der OECD. Wie zukunftsfähig ist Deutschland?Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011

Sustainable Governance in the OECD – How Fit for the Future is Germany?

Politische Gestaltungim internationalen Vergleich

Transformation Index | BTI 2012

2003 | 2006 | 2008 | 2010 | 2012

Released in early 2011, this study is a comparative analysis of social justice in 31 OECD states.It derives from a selection of indicators from the SGI 2011, aggregated to create a sub-indexof participatory justice. The German version focuses on Germany’s standing in the interna-tional ranking.

Available in German or English free of charge via the SGI Website(English version available as of summer 2011).

Social Justice in the OECDSoziale Gerechtigkeit in der OECD – Wo steht Deutschland?Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011

Policy-making in International Comparison

Conducted in the context of the BTI and SGI projects, this study looks at the quality of politi-cal decision-making processes against the backdrop of the global financial and economiccrises. It analyzes the economic crisis management in 14 national economies and offers insightinto similarities and differences between political priorities and strategic decisions.

Available in English free of charge via the SGI and BTI Websites.

CD-ROM

Managing the Crisis


Policy Performance and Governance Capacities in the OECD

www.sgi-network.org

An Internet platform providing free access to all relevant SGIdata. This is where you can access the full report for eachcountry, explore individual findings or conduct comparisonsbetween individual countries and/or topics with the help ofinteractive tools. Thanks to its interactive functionality, thewebsite offers users easy access to every level of informa-tion.

Available in English.

For regular updates on current project developments, new pub-lications and events on a timely basis, simply register as a fanon the SGI Facebook page.

The fifth edition of the Bertelsmann Transformation Index(BTI). Grounded in individual country reports, this rankingcompares transformation processes on a global scale. The BTIexplores the state of democratic and market economic devel-opment as well as the quality of governance in 128 countriesundergoing transformation.

The BTI 2012 is scheduled to appear in November 2011. All findings are available online.www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de


30

Imprint

31

SGI Board

Prof. Dr. Nils C. Bandelow | Technical University BraunschweigDr. Frank Bönker | University of Cooperative Education LeipzigDr. Martin Brusis | University of MunichProf. Dr. César Colino | Spanish Distance-Learning University, MadridProf. Dr. Aurel Croissant | University of HeidelbergProf. Dr. Klaus Gretschmann | Council of the European Union, BrusselsDr. Martin Hüfner | HF Economics Ltd., KraillingProf. Dr. András Inotai | Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, BudapestProf. Dr. Detlef Jahn | University of GreifswaldProf. Dr. Werner Jann | University of PotsdamProf. Dr. Hans-Dieter Klingemann | Social Science Research Center BerlinProf. Dr. Rolf J. Langhammer | Kiel Institute for the World EconomyProf. Dr. Wolfgang Merkel | Social Science Research Center BerlinProf. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Puhle | University of Frankfurt/MainProf. Dr. Friedbert W. Rüb | Humboldt University BerlinProf. Dr. Kai Uwe Schnapp | University of HamburgProf. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum | University of MünsterPD Dr. Martin Thunert | University of HeidelbergProf. Dr. Uwe Wagschal | University of FreiburgProf. Dr. Helmut Wiesenthal | Humboldt University BerlinProf. Dr. Reimut Zohlnhöfer | University of Bamberg

Regional coordinators

Northwest Europe:Prof. Dr. Nils C. Bandelow | Technical University BraunschweigEast-Central Europe:Dr. Frank Bönker | University of Cooperative Education LeipzigSouthern Europe:Prof. Dr. César Colino | Spanish Distance-Learning University, MadridAsia and Oceania:Prof. Dr. Aurel Croissant | University of HeidelbergNordic Countries:Prof. Dr. Detlef Jahn | University of GreifswaldAmerica:PD Dr. Martin Thunert | University of HeidelbergCentral Europe:Prof. Dr. Reimut Zohlnhöfer | University of Bamberg


SGI Board members include a

wide range of policy-making ex-

perts, from scholars to practi-

tioners.

© 2011 Bertelsmann Stiftung

Bertelsmann Stiftung

Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 256

33311 Gütersloh

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de

www.sgi-network.org

Project managers

Dr. Daniel Schraad-Tischler

Telefon +49 5241 81-81240

Fax +49 5241 81-681240

[email protected]

Najim Azahaf

Telefon +49 5241 81-81411

Fax +49 5241 81-681411

[email protected]

Photography

Titel: © Jim Watson – AFP/Getty Images

3: © jodofe – photocase.com

5: © Corgarashu – photocase.com

7: © zettberlin – photocase.com

8: © moodboard Premium – Fotolia.com

10: © picsfive – Fotolia.com

14: © Langrock – laif

20: © Olivier Hoslet – picture-alliance/EPA

27: © moodboard Premium – Fotolia.com

Designkopfstand GbR, Bielefeld

PrintMatthiesen-Druck, Bielefeld

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de

© 2011 Bertelsmann Stiftung

Bertelsmann StiftungCarl-Bertelsmann-Straße 25633311 GüterslohTelefon +49 5241 81-0Fax +49 5241 81-681999

Contact

Dr. Daniel Schraad-TischlerTelefon +49 5241 81-81240Fax +49 5241 [email protected]

Najim AzahafTelefon +49 5241 81-81411Fax +49 5241 [email protected]

www.sgi-network.org

policy performance and governance capacities in the oecd · the oecd. a brochure of this scope can...

Documents