Approaches and methods for measuring governance: comparing major supranational institutions

This chapter examines the main supranational institutions producing databases on the components of governance quality, comparing methods and thematic focuses of different databases, especially focusing on the methodological fit in relation to the respective aims. As the performance movement intensified during the past three decades in national political agendas, increasing levels of formalized planning, control and reporting in governance structures at the global level and especially across all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have been observed (Bouckaert & Halligan, 2008: 29). The main waves putting an emphasis on performance management can be identified in the scientific management movement (1900s–1940s; planning, programming and budgeting system; PPBS and management by objectives; MBO), in the New Public Management (1980s–2000; NPM) theory; and, distinctively, in the Public Governance approach (Van Dooren et al., 2015). There are at least four possible lenses through which we can look at governance of results: (i) performance measurement at the global level (international institutions); (ii) national public sector policies introducing compulsory performance management systems; (iii) strategic performance management at the organizational level; (iv) individual performance assessment and pay. This chapter focuses on the first level and analyzes the main performance measurement systems used to compare national governance systems in different countries, specifically focusing on: the span (input & process vs output & outcome measures) and depth (regional, national, global level) of their measurement approaches; the sources of data (primary vs secondary). Finally, we also provide an assessment based on the robustness and transparency of methodological collection and aggregation of data, and on the interactivity and openness of data used.