Safety of the Person

CATEGORY: Safety and the Rule of Law
Sub-category: Personal Safety
Indicator name: Safety of the Person
Data provider: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Data source: Commissioned Data
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2006-2008
Website: www.eiu.com

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the level of criminality in a country, determined by perceived levels of trust between citizens.

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 100, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best possible score.
• The years stated in the EIU-commissioned data reflect performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.
• Data are not available for 2001-2005, and have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Violent Crime

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Personal Safety
Indicator name: Violent Crime
Indicator name at source (if different): Prevalence of Violent Crime (both Organised and Common Crime)
Data provider: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Data source: Commissioned Data
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Government: 2006-2008
Website: www.eiu.com

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the prevalence of violent crime, both organised and common, particularly as it impacts government or business.

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 100, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best possible score.

• The years stated in the EIU-commissioned data reflect performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data are not available for 2001-2005, and have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Social Unrest

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Personal Safety
Indicator name: Social Unrest
Indicator name at source (if different):  Presence and Threat of Violent Demonstrations and Social Unrest
Data provider: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Data source: Commissioned Data
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2006-2008
Website: www.eiu.com

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the prevalence of violent demonstrations and civil or labour unrest, and the likelihood of these posing a threat to property or the conduct of business.

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 100 with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best possible score.

• The years stated in the EIU-commissioned data reflect performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data are not available for 2001-2005, and have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Human Trafficking

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Personal Safety
Indicator name: Human Trafficking
Data provider: US State Department
Data source:Coded by The Mo Ibrahim Foundation using the Trafficking in Persons Report (TPR)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2002-2009
Website: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of governmental efforts to combat human trafficking within a country, based on compliance with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking as set out in the US Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (2000). This indicator does not consider the size or scale of trafficking in a country but only government activities to counter it. Countries are placed in Tiers ranging from full compliance with the Act to non compliance with no efforts towards change.

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123357.pdf

Technical notes:

• This indicator was coded by The Mo Ibrahim Foundation, based on The Trafficking in Persons Report (TPR). Our coding gave a score of 0 (zero) to Tier 1 countries; a score of 60 to Tier 2 countries; a score of 80 to Tier 2 Watch List countries; and a score of 100 to Tier 3 countries

• This scoring was based on the following logic:
  • Tier 1 =score 0 = best score and full compliance
  • Tier 3 =score 100 = worst score and non compliance
  • Scoring Tier 2 and Tier 2 Watch List was determined by the belief that the ‘distance’ from being Tier 2 and a Tier 2 Watch List country was equal, and as Tier 2 Watch List was close to Tier 3, a ‘distance’ of 20 was deemed reasonable. Hence, Tier 2 Watch List was scored 80 and Tier 2 was scored 60. Those ‘distances’ seem reasonable given that only Tier 1 is ‘good’ and the other tiers are degrees of ‘bad’, with Tier 3 being the worst.

• Once such scores were allocated to countries in line with TPR’s Tier placements, the IIAG score was calculated by normalizing the data scores using the Min-Max method, to a scale of 0-100. Those scores were then subtracted from 100, so that 100 meant best performance and zero meant worst performance, in line with the scheme for the IIAG.

• The publication year of ‘The Trafficking in Persons Report’ reflects performance from April in the previous year to March of that same year. The latest available data are for April 2008 to March 2009. As the majority of the TPR falls in the previous year it was coded as such. Therefore the latest available data from the 2009 report correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.
• The US ‘Office to Monitor & Combat Trafficking in Persons’ introduced the Tier 2 Watch List in their 2004 report. Therefore IIAG scores for 2000/01 and 2001/02 do not include coding for the Tier 2 Watch List.

• In the IIAG year 2002/03 Sierra Leone was coded as in the Tier 2 Watch List. This was because in September 2004 Sierra Leone was changed from Tier 3 to the Tier 2 Watch List by a determination by the US President, George W. Bush.

• Some countries have not been scored by the TPR owing to a lack of information or because, despite suspicions of trafficking, there is not enough reliable information or evidence to corroborate suspicions. These have been deemed ‘special cases’.  These include: Algeria (2002); Botswana (2001, 2007); Djibouti (2004); Egypt (2002); Lesotho (2005-2007), Liberia (2003-2005); Libya (2003); Mauritania (2002); Namibia (2007); Somalia (2001-2008); Swaziland (2005-2007); and Tunisia (2002, 2004, 2006-2007)

Domestic Political Persecution

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Personal Safety
Clustered indicator: Domestic Political Persecution
Variable names: Physical Integrity Rights; Political Terror Scale
Variable names at source (if different): Physical Integrity Rights Index; Political Terror Scale (PTS)
Data provider: The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project; Political Terror Scale (PTS)
Data source: The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset; Political Terror Scale (PTS)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2000-2007
Websites:
http://ciri.binghamton.edu/index.asp
and
http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/

Definition of the indicator:

Domestic Political Persecution – a clustered indicator that consists of an average of the following variables:

• Physical Integrity Rights (CIRI) – an additive index, constructed from an expert assessment of the extent of torture, extrajudicial killing, political imprisonment, and disappearances that a society experiences based on Amnesty International and US State Department reports.

• The Political Terror Scale (PTS) – an expert assessment of levels of state-instigated political violence and terror that a society experiences based on Amnesty International and US State Department reports.

For details of the methodologies, please see:

http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_coding_guide.pdf
and
http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_variables_short_descriptions.pdf
and
http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/faq.php

Technical notes:

• Physical Integrity Rights raw data range from 0 to 10, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best possible score.

• The Political Terror Scale raw data range from 1 to 5, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• Calculated IIAG scores for Physical Integrity Rights and the Political Terror Scale were then averaged to determine the overall indicator score.

Physical Integrity Rights specific:

• No data are available for Somalia.

• Where the are gaps in data they have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

• The publication year of the ‘Human Rights Data Project’ reflects performance in that same year.

• The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

Political Terror Scale specific:

• Raw data scores are an average of the Amnesty International and US State Department coding calculated by the compilers of the Political Terror Scale. The US State Department has more extensive country coverage, so where there are no data from Amnesty International, the US State Department score has been taken on its own.

• The publication year of the Political Terror Scale reflects performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• The compilers of the Political Terror Scale released 2008 scores on 7th September 2009, which was after the last data check prior to the publication of the 2009 IIAG – it was therefore not possible to include them in this year’s IIAG.