Classification of Governance Sub-Indicators by Experts

The research investigates the extent to which the different governance indicators impact institutional efficiency, which consists of ordering the indicators from the most important (score 1) to the least important (score 6), considered the easiest and quickest to carry out (Weight 1 in the excel spreadsheet). However, it has limitations. For example, the difference between alternatives is always the same. This research includes the improvement of the evaluation by ordering, with two classifications. Inspired by the deck of cards methodology, the difference in importance between the already ordered sub-indicators is evaluated using the same scale as the AHP (by Saaty): 1.) equally important; 3.) slightly more important; 5.) more important; 7) much more important; 9) extremely more important (Weight 2 in the Excel spreadsheet). Description of the indicators: Control of Corruption: captures perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including petty and grand corruption, as well as the “capture” of the state by elites and private interests. Government effectiveness: captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies. Rule of law: captures perceptions of the extent to which agents trust and abide by the rules of society and, in particular, the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. Quality of the business environment: captures how conducive the regulatory environment is for businesses to start up and operate in the country, offering a measure of the regulatory performance of economies. Regulatory Quality: captures perceptions of the government's ability to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that enable and promote private sector development. Voice and Accountability: captures perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in choosing their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association and free media.本研究旨在探究不同治理指标对制度效率的影响程度，具体方式为将指标按重要性从高到低排序（最高赋值为1，最低赋值为6），该排序方式被认为是最简便易行的（在Excel表格中记为权重1）。然而该方法存在局限性，例如各备选方案间的分值差异始终固定。为此，本研究引入双重分类排序以优化评估方案。 本研究借鉴纸牌排序方法论，采用与萨蒂（Saaty）提出的层次分析法（AHP）一致的标度，对已排序的子指标间的重要性差异进行评估：1）同等重要；3）略为重要；5）较为重要；7）极为重要；9）极其重要（在Excel表格中记为权重2）。 指标说明如下： 1. 腐败控制（Control of Corruption）：该指标衡量公众对公共权力被用于谋取私利的感知程度，涵盖小额腐败与大额腐败，以及精英群体与私人利益对国家的“俘获”现象。 2. 政府有效性（Government effectiveness）：该指标衡量公众对公共服务质量、公务员队伍质量及其免受政治压力的独立程度、政策制定与执行质量，以及政府兑现此类政策承诺的可信度的感知情况。 3. 法治（Rule of law）：该指标衡量公众对社会主体信任并遵守社会规则的感知程度，具体包括合同执行质量、产权保护、警方与司法体系质量，以及犯罪与暴力发生的可能性。 4. 营商环境质量（Quality of the business environment）：该指标衡量一国监管环境对企业创办与运营的友好程度，用于量化各经济体的监管绩效。 5. 监管质量（Regulatory Quality）：该指标衡量公众对政府制定并推行健全政策与监管规则、以支持和促进私营部门发展的能力的感知情况。 6. 话语权与问责制（Voice and Accountability）：该指标衡量公众对本国公民参与选举政府、以及言论自由、结社自由与媒体自由的感知程度。