Talk:Worldwide Governance Indicators

According to the text in the caption for the world map, it would seem the U.S. and Australia are the most corrupt, while Iraq, Libya and Sudan are least corrupt, this is obviously a typo according to the data on the U.S. at the referenced website (Worldwide Governance Indicators)

The text reads:

2005 World Map of the Corruption Index, which measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among businesses, public officials and politicians.

but should read something along the lines of:

2005 World Map of the Control of Corruption Index, which measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among businesses, public officials and politicians.

and then adjust the key to reflect that green equates to "high control"/"low corruption" and red to "low control"/"high corruption"

Why exactly...

...are there two different shades of green? Look at Portugal and Spain and you'll see what I mean. 68.39.174.238 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original source lists the data in percentile brackets : 207.235.66.3 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90+ = dark green
75-90 = light green
50-75 = yellow
25-50 = orange
10-25 = pink
10- = red

NPOV tag

I added a neutrality tag to the article because of the claims that the indicators reinforce the experiences and observations of reform-minded individuals in government, civil society, and the private sector, that good governance is key for development and Their growing recognition of the link between good governance and successful development has stimulated demand for monitoring the quality of governance. These sorts of claims represent points of view - I don't doubt that they are significant points of view that should be included - but we should be attributing them to the groups and movements that assert them not simply stating them as fact. Good sources for these claims would let us do that. -- SiobhanHansa 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both citations clarify this concern. --

Map

Tha map is very outdated. The 2010 version is available --Rejedef (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

You can't see what color Israel is marked with on the map. It's true for some other countries as well. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

200 countries?

There are only 193 (depends on Azawad 194) countries in the world.. Why do you write that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.110.187 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shah's comment on this article

Dr. Shah has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

General Comments This article has a singular focus on the World Bank generated governance indicators to the complete neglect of other important recent contributions on comparative worldwide governance measurements. The World Bank indicators are widely mis-used as they lack a conceptual framework, are heavily biased towards foreigners' especially Western observers' (mis)perceptions about corruption in other parts of the world. The World Bank indicators lack both cross-country as well as time series comparability due to different methodologies and different arbitrary weights used across countries and over time in the same country. More recent literature on worldwide governance indicators attempts to remedy these important shortcomings by providing a conceptual framework for good governance i.e. FAIR (fair, accountable, incorruptible,and responsive governance) governance and then basing aggregate country governance indicators on empirical as well as local residents' perspectives on the governance environment in their own countries. The newer indicators also afford better cross-country and time series comparisons as they use a common measurement framework and consistent data across countries and over time. This usefulness of this article could be significantly enhanced by bringing on board these newer advances in the literature on comparative governance assessments.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Shah has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Ivanyna, Maksym & Shah, Anwar, 2010. "Citizen-centric governance indicators : measuring and monitoring governance by listening to the people and not the interest groups," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5181, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]