Strength of Judicial Process

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Rule of Law
Indicator name: Strength of Judicial Process
Indicator name at source (if different):  Strength and Fairness of Judicial System
Data provider: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Data source: Commissioned Data
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2006-08
Website: www.eiu.com

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the extent to which the legal process or the courts are subject to interference or distortion by particular interests.

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 raw 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.
• The years stated in the EIU-commissioned data reflects 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. They have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Judicial Independence

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Rule of Law
Indicator name: Judicial Independence
Indicator name at source (if different): Independent Judiciary
Data provider: Bertelsmann Foundation
Data source: Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2006-2008
Website: http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/16.0.html?&L=1

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the extent to which a country’s judiciary is independent, with a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances in place.

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/fileadmin/pdf/Anlagen_BTI_2008/4_Criteria_and_Methodology.pdf

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 1 to 10, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw 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.

• The publication year of the ‘Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.
• Data for 2000/01–2004/05 and 2006/07 has been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Data for the Republic of Congo and Mauritania in 2005/06 have also been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation, as they were not assessed in the 2006 BTI.

• There are no data available for Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles and Swaziland.

• Data from the 2003 BTI have not been included in the IIAG. Through correspondence with the Bertelsmann Foundation we were informed that the 2003 BTI was a prototype, and that changes were made in the 2006 and 2008 versions. Comparison between the 2003 BTI and subsequent years is therefore not instructive.

Property Rights

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Rule of Law
Clustered indicator name: Property Rights
Variable names: Property Rights Protection (EIU); Private Property (BTI); Property Rights (WB/AfDB);Property Rights Index (HER)
Variable names at source: Property Rights Protection (EIU); Private Property (9) (BTI); Property Rights and Rule-based Governance (WB/AfDB); Property Rights Index (HER)
Data providers: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU); Bertelsmann Foundation;  International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank (WB); African Development Bank (AfDB); The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal (HER)
Data sources: Commissioned Data, EIU; Bertelsmann Transformation Index, BTI; IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI), WB; Country Performance Assessment (CPA), AfDB; Index of Economic Freedom, HER
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Government (IIAG):  EIU: 2006-08; BTI: 2005 and 2007; IRAI, WB: 2005-08; CPA, AfDB : 2005-08;; HER: 2002-09
Websites:
www.eiu.com
and
http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/11.0.html?&L=1
and
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMDK:21359477~menuPK:2626968~pagePK:51236175~piPK:437394~theSitePK:73154,00.html
and
http://www.afdb.org/en/documents/project-operations/country-performance-assessment-cpa/
and
http://www.heritage.org/index/

Definition of the indicator:

Property Rights- a clustered indicator that consists of an average of the following variables:

• Property Rights Protection (EIU): This indicator assesses the degree to which private property rights are guaranteed and protected.

• Private Property (BTI): An assessment of two aspects of private property rights that are key to a functioning private sector: the extent to which the government regulates the acquisition of property and ensures clear rights of property; and the extent to which private companies are permitted so that state companies are privatised according to the principles of the market.
  
  
• Property Rights (WB/AfDB): An expert analysis assessing the extent to which private economic activity is facilitated by an effective legal system and rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are reliably respected and enforced. This variable is rated on four dimensions: the legal basis for property and contract rights; the fairness of these laws and their application; the difficulty in obtaining licenses; and the level to which crime and violence impede economic activity.

• Property Rights Index (HER): This variable assesses ability of individuals to accumulate private property, secured by clear laws that are fully enforced by the state. It measures the existence and enforcement of laws affecting private property rights, including the likelihood of property expropriation, independence of and corruption within the judiciary, and contract enforceability.

For details of the methodologies, please see:

http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/fileadmin/pdf/Anlagen_BTI_2008/4_Criteria_and_Methodology.pdf
and
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMDK:21359477~menuPK:2626968~pagePK:51236175~piPK:437394~theSitePK:73154,00.html
and
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Maps/CPIA%20Questionnaire%20for%202008oct22_English.pdf
and
http://www.heritage.org/Index/pdf/Index09_Methodology.pdf

Technical notes:

• The Property Rights Protection (EIU) 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 raw 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. 

• The Private Property (BTI) raw data range from 1 to 10, with a low score being worst and a high score being best.  To produce the IIAG the raw 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. 

• The Property Rights (WB/AfDB) raw data range from 1 to 6, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw 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.

• Property Rights Index (HER) raw data ranges from 0 to 100, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best.  To produce the IIAG score the raw 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 Property Rights Protection (EIU), Private Property (BTI), Property Rights (WB-AfDB), and Property Rights Index (HER) were then averaged to determine the overall indicator score.

Property Rights Protection (EIU) specific:

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

• Data are not available for 2001-05; they have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Private Property (BTI) specific:

• The publication year of the ‘Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to the 2007/08 column in the IIAG.

• Data for 2000/01–2004/05 and 2006/07 have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Data for the Republic of Congo and Mauritania in 2005/06 have also been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation, as they were not assessed in the 2006 BTI.

• There are no data available for Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles and Swaziland.

• Data from the 2003 BTI has not been included in the IIAG. Through correspondence with the Bertelsmann Foundation we were informed that the 2003 BTI was a prototype, and that changes were made in the 2006 and 2008 versions. Comparison between the 2003 BTI and subsequent years is therefore not instructive.

Property Rights (WB/AfDB) specific:

• Raw data for this indicator was calculated using the average of AfDB and WB scores. In circumstances where only one source had available data that individual score was taken. Any data gaps have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

• The publication year used in the IRAI and CPA reflects performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which corresponds to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• For this indicator, African Development Bank scores for 2005 are within the CPA sub-component ‘County Policy and Institution Assessment (CPIA)’, and the CPA sub-component ‘Governance Rating (GR)’ for 2007 and 2008.

• The 2007 AFDB CPA dataset is no longer accessible online, but was available at the time of data collection for the IIAG.

Property Rights Index (HER):

• The publication year of the ‘Index of Economic Freedom’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to the 2007/08 column in the IIAG.

• Data are unavailable for some countries in specific years, and in these instances values have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Specifically, for Angola and Burundi (2000/01-2003/04); and Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles (2000/01-2006/07).

• There are no data available for Somalia or Sudan.

Time Taken to Settle a Contract Dispute

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Rule of Law
Indicator name: Time Taken to Settle a Contract Dispute
Indicator name at source (if different): Enforcing Contracts, Time (days)
Data provider: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank (WB)
Data source: Doing Business (DB)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Government (IIAG): 2004-2009
Website: http://www.doingbusiness.org/

Definition of the indicator: 

An expert assessment of the time taken to settle a contract dispute from the time a lawsuit is filed to the date of payment.

It is part of a larger measure undertaken by Doing Business (Enforcing Contracts), which assesses the efficiency of the judicial system in resolving a commercial dispute.  The measurement is based on surveys completed by local litigation lawyers and judges and an analysis of the court regulations and codes of civil procedure.

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://www.doingbusiness.org/MethodologySurveys/

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 270 to 1,280 (days), with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the raw 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.

• The publication year of the ‘Doing Business’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data for all countries are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data gaps have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

• Data are not available for Libya or Somalia.

Orderly Transfers of Power

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Rule of Law
Indicator name: Orderly Transfers of Power
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 constitutional mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one government to another. This indicator measures how clear, established, and accepted these mechanisms are.

Technical notes:

• The 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 raw 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.

• The years stated in the EIU-commissioned data reflects 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.

UN Sanctions

CATEGORY: Safety and Rule of Law
Sub-category: Rule of Law
Indicator name: UN Sanctions
Data provider: United Nations Security Council
Data source: Coded by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation using data from the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee (UN SC)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2001-2008
Website: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/index.shtml

Definition of the indicator:

Official data on whether or not economic and other sanctions have been imposed on a country by the United Nations Security Council due to gross violations of international law. There are only two possible scores for this indicator: under sanction or not under sanction.

For details of the methodology, please see technical notes.

Technical notes

• This indicator was coded by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. Raw data were calculated by coding a country as either ‘under international sanctions’ (coded 1) or ‘not under international sanctions’ (coded 0). This scoring system was designed to reflect the seriousness of being under international sanctions.

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 1, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the raw 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.

• Coding of whether a country was under sanctions was taken at the year end. For example, any country that had sanctions lifted in a year was coded as 0. The latest available coding year was 2008, which therefore corresponds to the 2007/08 column of the IIAG.

• Countries were coded as under sanction irrespective of the party under sanction. Therefore, even if sanctions were imposed on a rebel group and not the government, the country was coded as under sanctions.

• Sanctions against Libya were imposed in 1992 and lifted in 2003. However, in 1999 the sanctions were suspended. As a result, Libya has been coded in the IIAG as not having been under international sanctions in the IIAG years 2000/01-2002/03.