Using Indicators in International Law: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011

Article excerpt

INTRODUCTION--THE PERILS OF INDICATORS

A senior officer of a leading bilateral development agency told me the story of a recent police reform campaign in a West African country. As part of a broader effort to promote democracy in this country beset by lawlessness and crime, the development agency commissioned a police reform expert to conduct a study. After reviewing findings from the study, the conclusions were clear: the "police officer to population ratio" was too low. How was it possible to maintain order and security in such large country with so few police officers? The results were presented to the local government, and the development agency offered monetary assistance to increase the ratio of police officers to members of the country's population. The government happily accepted the study's findings and the accompanying financial aid, and the suggested reform program was implemented without delay.

This is a good example of the use of indicators for "evidence-based decisionmaking." Or is it? An assessment of this reform program revealed that prior to the launch of this study, and the subsequent reforms to the police force, this West African country had approximately 50,000 corrupt police officers extracting rents from the people. These practices of corruption were not addressed by the reform agenda, and therefore, the effect of the increase of the "police officer to population" ratio enacted meant that after this intervention, the number of corrupt police officers extracting rents from the people in the country had expanded to 100,000.

USING INDICATORS

Similar to other hazardous materials, indicators have the potential for misuse and abuse by end-users. However, unlike other hazardous materials, indicators do not come with warning labels. So why do we still use them? The answer is because they are useful and efficient tools: they capture and summarize lots of information that users of indicators believe are useful. Indicators seek to operationalize complex, multi-dimensional concepts such as business friendliness, quality of education, governance, and justice, to name a few. (1) Furthermore, quantitative indicators are useful tools to (1) evaluate performances; (2) draw attention to issues; (3) establish benchmarks; (4) monitor progress; and (5) evaluate the impact of interventions or reforms. (2)

With that said, there are best practices for indicators designed to measure complex social phenomena which have an "inherently unobservable nature." (3) Furthermore, there are several key requirements that must be met by indicators in order to be both technically acceptable and of practical utility. First, the quality of the conceptualization of what is being measured is extremely important. It is crucial for end-users to understand the underlying assumptions and value structure of what is being measured. Second, one must check the indicators' technical dimensions, such as the rigor of the data collection, aggregation, imputation, weighting, and normalization methods which are used to produce them. Furthermore, "uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, and other methods of explicit reporting of margins of error, are essential tools to understand the meaning of numbers. While these statistical analyses are generally beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, they cannot be ignored by governments, donor agencies and other constituencies who attempt to base [or track] policy reform on these indicators." (4)

Finally, specific indicators must be used in context.

USING INDICATORS TO MEASURE THE RULE OV LAW

The WJP Rule of Law Index

Indicators can be "helpful in setting policy priorities and in benchmarking or monitoring performance" (5) in a variety of fields. The systematic tracking of infant mortality rates, for instance, has greatly contributed to improving health outcomes around the globe. In a similar fashion, the WJP Rule of Law Index monitors the health of a country's institutional environment--such as whether government officials are accountable under the law, and whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access to justice. …

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.