FAQ
The SGI
Which time periods does the SGI cover?
The most recent Sustainable Governance Indicators survey covers the period from January 15, 2022, to January 15, 2024. Previous editions are also available on this website:
SGI 2022: November 2019 to January 15, 2022
SGI 2020: November 2018 to November 2019
SGI 2019: November 2017 to November 2018
SGI 2018: November 2016 to November 2017
SGI 2017: November 2015 to November 2016
SGI 2016: November 2014 to November 2015
SGI 2015: May 2013 to November 2014
SGI 2014: May 2011 to May 2013
SGI 2011: May 2008 to April 2010
SGI 2009: January 2005 to March 2007
To ensure comparability across review periods, experts were asked to focus exclusively on developments within the specified time frames.
SGI 2022: November 2019 to January 15, 2022
SGI 2020: November 2018 to November 2019
SGI 2019: November 2017 to November 2018
SGI 2018: November 2016 to November 2017
SGI 2017: November 2015 to November 2016
SGI 2016: November 2014 to November 2015
SGI 2015: May 2013 to November 2014
SGI 2014: May 2011 to May 2013
SGI 2011: May 2008 to April 2010
SGI 2009: January 2005 to March 2007
To ensure comparability across review periods, experts were asked to focus exclusively on developments within the specified time frames.
Innovative principles
How do the SGI compare to other indices in the field?
The SGI framework stands out from other international comparisons in four key areas: OR The SGI approach is distinct from other international comparisons in four key ways:
1. Political-administrative tools, structures and procedures that enhance and advance government actions in terms of improved efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term thinking have been largely neglected.
2. The SGI framework covers not only policy outcomes but also policy ambition and direction. By combining metrics for ambition with composite performance indicators, it serves as an early warning system, highlighting whether political shifts are beginning to influence measurable results..
3. The SGIs rely on a combination of qualitative assessments from country experts and quantitative data from official sources. To ensure accuracy and reliability, qualitative assessments undergo a rigorous a multi-stage review and validation process.
4. No index is perfect. The SGI project emphasizes full methodological transparency and actively invites feedback. On this website, we provide access to our questionnaire, expert qualitative assessments in country reports and detailed metadata for all our quantitative indicators.
1. Political-administrative tools, structures and procedures that enhance and advance government actions in terms of improved efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term thinking have been largely neglected.
2. The SGI framework covers not only policy outcomes but also policy ambition and direction. By combining metrics for ambition with composite performance indicators, it serves as an early warning system, highlighting whether political shifts are beginning to influence measurable results..
3. The SGIs rely on a combination of qualitative assessments from country experts and quantitative data from official sources. To ensure accuracy and reliability, qualitative assessments undergo a rigorous a multi-stage review and validation process.
4. No index is perfect. The SGI project emphasizes full methodological transparency and actively invites feedback. On this website, we provide access to our questionnaire, expert qualitative assessments in country reports and detailed metadata for all our quantitative indicators.
Why are qualitative and quantitative assessments combined?
To operationalize and measure the concepts used in constructing the SGI framework, we rely on a combination of statistical data from official sources and qualitative assessments provided by country experts. While quantitative data are standardized for cross-national comparability, they often fail to capture the full complexity of certain concepts. Expert assessments, on the other hand, account for country-specific contexts and offer rich, nuanced descriptions that reflect the subtleties of the phenomena being analyzed.
This approach acknowledges that both expert assessments and statistical indicators assumes have unique strengths and weaknesses. Neither is fully interchangeable with the other, nor is one inherently superior. By combining “objective” quantitative data with highly context-sensitive, qualitative expert assessments, the SGI framework delivers a high-resolution profile of policy outcomes, the quality of democracy and governance capacity.
This approach acknowledges that both expert assessments and statistical indicators assumes have unique strengths and weaknesses. Neither is fully interchangeable with the other, nor is one inherently superior. By combining “objective” quantitative data with highly context-sensitive, qualitative expert assessments, the SGI framework delivers a high-resolution profile of policy outcomes, the quality of democracy and governance capacity.
Methodology
How are quantitative indicators standardized?
Although expert ratings use a consistent scale from 1 to 10, quantitative indicators vary in their scales and units of measurement. To ensure comparability between quantitative and qualitative data, all quantitative indicators undergo a linear transformation process, standardizing them onto a scale from 1 to 10.
Standardization is achieved by adopting fixed boundary values to assure comparability over time and among various subgroups. The minimum and maximum values are calculated based on the 1.5 interquartile range (IQR) method, which provides a consistent framework for comparing data across different SGI waves. By establishing boundary values that remain valid across all SGI data waves included in a specific SGI publication, this method facilitates reliable comparisons of indicator values over time. Given the SGI’s commitment to ongoing refinement and development, boundary values are recalculated for each SGI publication. This process accounts for updates to datasets, retrospective corrections of previously published data, changes in indicator definitions or data sources and the inclusion of additional countries.
The method is based on the IQR, the distance between the 75th and 25th percentile of each indicator. Upper and lower boundaries are calculated by adjusting the upper and lower bounds of the middle 50% of the observations by an amount equal to 1.5 times the interquartile range (1.5*IQR). We thus obtain the following minima and maxima:
Χmin = Ρ25 − 1.5 * IQR
Χmax = Ρ75 + 1.5 * IQR
where P25 and P75 represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively.
The boundaries are calculated using long-term time series data for all countries included in the SGI. The use of the 1.5 IQR method has the advantage of being less dependent on data distribution and ensures that the calculation of the boundaries is not distorted by extreme singular outliers.
If the boundaries calculated using the 1.5 IQR method fall outside the natural limits of the variables (e.g., below 0 or above 100% for the poverty rate), they are replaced with the natural boundaries.
Using these derived boundaries, observations for each SGI wave are transformed to a standardized scale ranging from 1 to 10. For this purpose, preliminary scores are first calculated using a linear transformation of the raw data based on the xmin and xmax values determined as described above. The formula differs depending on the nature of the indicator:
For indicators where higher values signify better outcomes (e.g., the employment rate): Score = 1 + 9*(x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin)
For indicators where higher values represent poorer outcomes (e.g., the poverty rate): Score = 10 - 9*(x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin)
This transformation process ensures that, for all indicators, higher scores represent better performance with respect to sustainable governance.
However, because the xmin and xmax values are calculated using the 1.5 IQR method, the linear transformation may sometimes produce preliminary scores exceeding 10 or falling below 1. In such cases, the preliminary scores are replaced with the maximum or minimum possible SGI score of 10 or 1, respectively. As a result, observations beyond the calculated boundaries are not further differentiated in the final scores.
Standardization is achieved by adopting fixed boundary values to assure comparability over time and among various subgroups. The minimum and maximum values are calculated based on the 1.5 interquartile range (IQR) method, which provides a consistent framework for comparing data across different SGI waves. By establishing boundary values that remain valid across all SGI data waves included in a specific SGI publication, this method facilitates reliable comparisons of indicator values over time. Given the SGI’s commitment to ongoing refinement and development, boundary values are recalculated for each SGI publication. This process accounts for updates to datasets, retrospective corrections of previously published data, changes in indicator definitions or data sources and the inclusion of additional countries.
The method is based on the IQR, the distance between the 75th and 25th percentile of each indicator. Upper and lower boundaries are calculated by adjusting the upper and lower bounds of the middle 50% of the observations by an amount equal to 1.5 times the interquartile range (1.5*IQR). We thus obtain the following minima and maxima:
Χmin = Ρ25 − 1.5 * IQR
Χmax = Ρ75 + 1.5 * IQR
where P25 and P75 represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively.
The boundaries are calculated using long-term time series data for all countries included in the SGI. The use of the 1.5 IQR method has the advantage of being less dependent on data distribution and ensures that the calculation of the boundaries is not distorted by extreme singular outliers.
If the boundaries calculated using the 1.5 IQR method fall outside the natural limits of the variables (e.g., below 0 or above 100% for the poverty rate), they are replaced with the natural boundaries.
Using these derived boundaries, observations for each SGI wave are transformed to a standardized scale ranging from 1 to 10. For this purpose, preliminary scores are first calculated using a linear transformation of the raw data based on the xmin and xmax values determined as described above. The formula differs depending on the nature of the indicator:
For indicators where higher values signify better outcomes (e.g., the employment rate): Score = 1 + 9*(x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin)
For indicators where higher values represent poorer outcomes (e.g., the poverty rate): Score = 10 - 9*(x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin)
This transformation process ensures that, for all indicators, higher scores represent better performance with respect to sustainable governance.
However, because the xmin and xmax values are calculated using the 1.5 IQR method, the linear transformation may sometimes produce preliminary scores exceeding 10 or falling below 1. In such cases, the preliminary scores are replaced with the maximum or minimum possible SGI score of 10 or 1, respectively. As a result, observations beyond the calculated boundaries are not further differentiated in the final scores.
How many indicators make up the SGI?
The SGI 2024 includes 64 qualitative indicators and 80 quantitative indicators. This extensive evaluation of the 30 sample countries produced a total of 4,320 ratings.
How are the indices calculated?
Scores for the Democratic Government, Governing with Foresight and Sustainable Policymaking indices are derived by calculating the arithmetic means of the scores for their respective categories. For example, the Sustainable Policymaking score is derived by calculating the average of the categories “Economic Sustainability,” “Social Sustainability” and “Environmental Sustainability.” The individual category scores are derived by calculating the arithmetic mean of the criteria scores.
For example, the “Environmental Sustainability” score is derived by calculating the average of the criterion “Effective Climate Action,” “Effective Environmental Health Protection,” “Effective Ecosystem and Biodiversity Preservation” and “Effective Contributions to Global Environmental Protection.” For criteria composed exclusively of qualitative indicators, their score is the arithmetic mean of those indicators. For criteria composed of both qualitative and quantitative indicators, the scores are weighted, with 50% of each score coming from the arithmetic mean of the qualitative indicator(s) and 50% from the arithmetic mean of the quantitative indicator(s).
For example, the “Environmental Sustainability” score is derived by calculating the average of the criterion “Effective Climate Action,” “Effective Environmental Health Protection,” “Effective Ecosystem and Biodiversity Preservation” and “Effective Contributions to Global Environmental Protection.” For criteria composed exclusively of qualitative indicators, their score is the arithmetic mean of those indicators. For criteria composed of both qualitative and quantitative indicators, the scores are weighted, with 50% of each score coming from the arithmetic mean of the qualitative indicator(s) and 50% from the arithmetic mean of the quantitative indicator(s).
What steps are involved in the qualitative assessment process?
The qualitative assessments are provided by a team of SGI country experts who respond to specific (sub-)questions in the SGI survey. When answering these questions and preparing the country report, experts follow a standardized structure defined by additional guiding questions. This uniform framework is designed to further enhance the comparability of findings. Additionally, the experts have access to a comprehensive range of comparative policy output data in the SGI database. Each country assessment involves a team comprising country experts, reviewers and regional coordinators. The SGI codebook defines the rationale behind the qualitative indicators, thereby ensuring a shared understanding of each question. For every assessment, experts assign a numerical score, ranging from 1 (worst) to 10 (best) and provide a detailed written explanation to substantiate their evaluation. These scores are calibrated through a multi-stage, iterative process involving regional coordinators, sectoral experts and the SGI’s scientific advisory board.
To what extent can the most recent SGI results be compared to previous years?
The set of indicators in the SGI is periodically reviewed and revised following comprehensive external and internal evaluations. Since the latest edition in 2022, the SGIs have undergone a comprehensive methodological update. Despite these changes, time series comparisons for individual indicators remain possible. Please contact the SGI team if you are interested in analyzing trends for specific indicators over time.
I want to use SGI scores for my work. Where do I get the complete data?
The SGIs can be accessed free of charge under Downloads.
What happens if statistical data for a specific year are missing for some countries?
If data for a particular year is unavailable, data from the most recently available year is used.