Plot = import("https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@observablehq/plot/+esm")
bar_data = FileAttachment("country_visuals/bar_data_full.csv").csv({ "typed": true });
radar_grid = FileAttachment("country_visuals/radar_grid.csv").csv({ "typed": true });
radar_axes = FileAttachment("country_visuals/radar_axes.csv").csv({ "typed": true });
radar_data = FileAttachment("country_visuals/radar_incise.csv").csv({ "typed": true });
radar_full = FileAttachment("country_visuals/radar_data_full.csv").csv({ "typed": true });
bar_index = bar_data.filter(function(df){
return "incise_index" == df.indicator
});
bar_incise = bar_index.filter(function(df){
return "InCiSE" == df.cc_iso3c
});
country_radar = radar_full.filter(function(df){
return "incise_index" != df.indicator && "InCiSE" != df.cc_iso3c
});
chart_curve = "catmull-rom-closed"
indicator_bar = function(ind) {
var ind_bar_df = bar_data.filter(function(df){
return ind == df.indicator
});
var ind_bar_incise = ind_bar_df.filter(function(df){
return "InCiSE" == df.cc_iso3c
});
var ind_plot = Plot.plot({
width: 300,
height: 600,
marginLeft: 50,
marginTop: 0,
style: {fontSize: 11},
x: {label: null, grid: true, domain: [0, 1.1]},
y: {label: null, axis: null},
color: {type: "identity"},
marks: [
Plot.barX(ind_bar_df, {
x: "value",
y: "cc_iso3c",
sort: {y: "x", reverse: true},
fill: "colour_group"
}),
Plot.text(ind_bar_df, {
x: -0.05,
y: "cc_iso3c",
text: "cc_iso3c",
fill: "text_colour",
textAnchor: "end",
fontWeight: "600",
filter: (d) => "bold" == d.text_weight,
sort: {y: "x", reverse: true}
}),
Plot.text(ind_bar_df, {
x: -0.05,
y: "cc_iso3c",
text: "cc_iso3c",
fill: "text_colour",
textAnchor: "end",
filter: (d) => "normal" == d.text_weight,
sort: {y: "x", reverse: true}
}),
Plot.text(ind_bar_incise, {
x: (d) => d.value + 0.05,
y: "cc_iso3c",
text: "value_label",
fill: "#C4622D",
fontWeight: "600",
textAnchor: "start",
sort: {y: "x", reverse: true}
}),
Plot.tip(ind_bar_df,
Plot.pointerY({
x: "value",
y: "cc_iso3c",
filter: (d) => d.hover_label,
title: (d) => d.hover_label,
frameAnchor: "left"
})
)
]
});
return ind_plot
};
viewof hover_country = Inputs.input(null);
hover_data = country_radar.filter(function(df){
return hover_country == df.cc_iso3c
});
viewof hover_value = Inputs.input(null);
viewof hover_ind = Inputs.input(null);
set_val = function(input, value) {
input.value = value;
input.dispatchEvent(new Event("input"))
};
indicator_summary.addEventListener("input", (event) => {
if (indicator_summary.value != null) {
if (indicator_summary.value.cc_iso3c != "InCiSE") {
set_val(viewof hover_country, indicator_summary.value.cc_iso3c)
set_val(viewof hover_value, indicator_summary.value.raw_value)
set_val(viewof hover_ind, indicator_summary.value.indicator)
}
} else {
set_val(viewof hover_country, null)
}
});3 Results of the 2019 InCiSE Index
This chapter presents the overall results of the 2019 edition of the InCiSE Index. In addition, it provides a summary of results for each of the 12 indicators, including the top five country rankings. The country profiles part provides a summary of each country’s results, while tables of country scores and rankings are provided at Appendix C.
Developing a comprehensive range of indicators means that there is often a wide variation in how countries perform against each of them. The overall scores for the top 3 countries in the Index are very close. No country consistently appears in the top 5 positions for every indicator, although there are some good all-round performers. These are highlighted in the individual country assessments. There are also some stand-out country scores for specific indicators and these have been highlighted.
All scores in the InCiSE results are relative, meaning that the highest scoring country is assigned 1.0 and the lowest scoring country is assigned 0.0. Relative scores do not directly translate to absolute performance; a score of 1.0 or 0.0 does not mean in absolute terms that a country is high or low performing. Rather, of the 38 countries selected they have the highest and lowest performance within that group of countries. The methodology used to explain these scores is explained in the Technical Report.
3.1 Overall scores and rankings for the InCiSE Index
The charts shows the overall InCiSE Index scores. The bar chart on the left shows the results of the InCiSE Index for all 38 countries. The radar chart on the right shows the InCiSE average score (in green) and the upper and lower quartile country scores (in grey) for each of the 12 InCiSE Indicators.
The chart below shows the distribution of country scores for each indicator. Country scores are shown as blue dots, the lowest scoring country is on the left hand-side and the highest scoring country on the right hand-side (the country code is also shown to the right of each line). The InCiSE average for each indicator is shown by an orange vertical bar.
The following sections summarise the scores for each of the 12 indicators measured in InCiSE 2019, each section includes a bar chart showing the scores for each country (in grey) and the InCiSE average (in orange), the scores of the five highest scoring countries are also highlighted (in blue).
3.2 Policy making
This indicator has 4 themes: the quality of policy advice; the degree of strategic planning; the coordination of policy proposals across government; and the degree of policy monitoring during implementation. This indicator is comprised of 8 metrics and its structure is unchanged from 2017. It uses a single data source, the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Sustainable Government Indicators (SGI). The policy making scores for all countries in the top 5 are very close. The UK’s and Canada’s scores are highest out of the top 5 on the quality of policy advice theme, while Finland’s and Denmark’s scores are highest on strategic planning. There is greater variation between these countries for the policy monitoring theme, with Denmark and Canada scoring highest for 2 out of the 3 metrics. It is noteworthy that 4 out of the top 5 countries ranked for the policy making indicator also feature in the top 5 of the main InCiSE Index, while Denmark is ranked 6th overall.
3.3 Fiscal and financial management
This indicator has 3 themes: the effectiveness of public spending; the transparency of public spending; and budget practices. There are 6 metrics (an increase of 3 since 2017) and 4 data sources: the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI); the OECD’s Medium-Term Budgeting Index and PerformanceBudgeting Index; The World Bank’s Financial Management Information Systems and OpenBudget Data; and the International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Survey. The top 2 country scores are very close, with the Republic of Korea edging ahead because of its very high scores for the transparency of public spending and budget practices themes. Germany has the highest score out of the top 5 for the effectiveness of public spending theme. New Zealand comes top for the metric looking at the openness of the budgeting process. Sweden’s highest scores are for open budgeting and performance budgeting, while the UK’s scores for performance budgeting are high as well.
3.4 Regulation
This indicator has 3 themes relating to regulation policies and management: the use of appraisal and evaluation; the extent of stakeholder engagement; and the nature of impact assessment. There are 9 metrics (an increase of 3 since 2017) and 2 data sources: the OECD’s Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance; and the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI). Amongst the top 5 countries for this indicator, the UK achieves the maximum score for 4 metrics. These are spread across all themes, suggesting a strong performance across the board for this core function. New Zealand achieves the maximum score for 2 metrics: the use of impact assessments in regulatory work; and the quality of impact assessments. As in 2017, Mexico’s strong performance may reflect the country’s long-standing focus on regulatory policy reforms. It achieves the maximum score for one of the two stakeholder engagement metrics and scores very highly against the other one. Mexico achieves very high scores for two of the appraisal and evaluation metrics as well.
3.5 Crisis and risk management
This indicator has 4 themes regarding disaster risk reduction and management issues most relevant for the civil service: the degree of strategic approach to risk; the degree of preparedness; communications; and evaluation. This indicator has been significantly restructured to take account of feedback following the pilot report. There are now 13 metrics (an increase of 4 since 2017) and 2 data sources (one more than in 2017): the UN Hyogo Framework for Action monitoring reports; and the OECD’s Survey on the Governance of Critical Risk. The top 3 country scores for this indicator are all very close while the other 2 countries are not far behind. Scores for the metrics in this indicator are close for many countries, which is largely because of the nature of the source data. This also means that for some metrics a large number of countries score highly. Conversely, for a few metrics only a small number of countries score well. The Netherlands’ top position reflects consistently strong scores across almost all metrics, ranking joint top for 10 metrics. Sweden ranks joint top for 9 metrics, while Finland ranks joint top for 11 metrics.
3.6 Human resource management
This indicator now measures 4 themes, an increase of 2 since 2017: the extent to which civil service recruitment systems are meritocratic; attracting and retaining talent; performance management systems and practices; and the extent of human resources (HR) data collection. There are now 9 metrics, an increase of 4 since 2017, and 2 data sources (previously just one): the Quality of Government expert survey by the University of Gothenburg’s Quality of Government survey; and the OECD’s survey on Strategic Human Resources Management. The indicator scores for the first 4 countries are all very close, although specific metrics scores vary widely. Canada only just surpasses Ireland for the top position. This is mainly because of its relatively higher score for the metric which assesses the extent to which separate HR management practices are in place for senior civil servants. The Republic of Korea’s score is the highest out of the top 5 countries for the metric which assesses the extent to which databases are used for HR management. Of this group, Japan achieves the top score for the extent to which performance assessments are used in HR decision making.
3.7 Tax administration
This indicator measures 3 themes: the overall efficiency of tax collection; the extent to which services are user focused; and the extent and the quality of digital provision. The data sources are the OECD’s Tax Administration Survey and The World Bank’s Doing Business Index (DBI). This indicator is comprised of 6 metrics and its structure is unchanged from the 2017 Pilot. Estonia’s indicator score is noticeably ahead of the other countries in this table and it consistently achieves very high scores across all 6 metrics. Within the top 5 countries, Estonia achieves the top score for the metrics assessing the volume of online VAT and personal tax returns, as well as for the metric on the extent to which services are user focused. Ireland achieves a very high score for one of the efficiency metrics (total tax debt as a proportion of net revenue), as well as metrics measuring the volume of online VAT and corporate tax returns. The UK and the Netherlands achieve very high scores for these three metrics as well, while Norway achieves very high scores for two of them (tax debt proportion and online VAT returns).
3.8 Digital Services
This indicator measures 3 themes: user experience; cross-border availability of services; and the availability of “key enablers” (the enabling infrastructure for digital service provision, such as electronic ID cards). The sole data source is the European Commission’s E-Government Benchmark Report. Significant changes have been made to the way in which the data for this indicator has been compiled. In addition, it is now composed of 13 metrics – there were only 4 metrics in the 2017 Pilot. The indicator scores for the top 4 countries are all very close, with Denmark and Latvia achieving the same overall score. Estonia’s top position may reflect consistently high scores across most metrics. Amongst the top 5 countries, Austria achieves the highest scores for the metrics focusing on the availability and accessibility of online small claims procedures, including for non-nationals. Denmark achieves the maximum score for six metrics and these are spread across all themes, while Portugal achieves the maximum score for four metrics. Latvia’s results are all above average and it achieves the maximum score for a metric within the “key enabler” theme.
3.9 Procurement
This indicator is a new addition to the Index. There are two themes: procurement systems and procurement practices. It is comprised of 6 metrics and 2 data sources: the OECD’s Public Procurement Survey; and analysis of European public procurement data from the Opentender project of the Digiwhist collaboration. The indicator scores for the top 3 countries in this table are significantly ahead of the others. New Zealand’s top position is primarily because it achieves the maximum score for three metrics: the extent of e-procurement functions within its overall procurement system; the role of its central purchasing body; and the extent to which policies are in place to enable small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) to take part in central government procurement. The UK and Israel achieve the maximum score for the SME participation metric as well, while Denmark achieves the maximum score for the metric assessing the role of its central purchasing body. The Republic of Korea’s highest score is for the e-procurement metric.
3.10 Integrity
This indicator covers 6 themes: corruption level perceptions; adherence to rules and procedures; work ethics; fairness and impartiality; striving to serve citizens and ministers; and processes in place to preserve integrity and prevent conflicts of interest. There are 17 metrics (one more than in 2017) and 5 data sources: the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s SGIs; Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer; the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report Executive Opinion Survey; the University of Gothenburg’s Quality of Government Expert Survey Data; and results from two OECD surveys published in their Government at a Glance report. New Zealand’s overall score is well ahead of all other countries, reflecting a strong performance against most metrics. It achieves the maximum score for 8 of the metrics. Canada achieves the maximum score for the metric which assesses public perceptions of impartiality in the civil service. It also achieves the maximum score for having a post-employment cooling off period. Sweden’s score for the metric which assesses the degree of whistle-blower protection for employees is noticeably ahead of all other countries in the top 5 table.
3.11 Openness
This indicator has 5 themes: the degree and quality of consultation with society; the existence and quality of complaint mechanisms; government data availability and accessibility; government data impact; right to information; and publication of laws. There are 10 metrics (one more than in2017) and 6 data sources: the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (open government theme); the UN E-Participation Index; the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s SGIs; the World Wide Web Foundation’s Open DataBarometer; Open Knowledge International’s Global Open Data Index; and the OECD’s OUR Government Data Index. It is noteworthy that all 5 countries in this table are in Northern Europe. Norway’s top position reflects strong scores for most metrics. It achieves the maximum score for the metric which assesses the extent to which governments consult and negotiate with the public on policy issues. Norway also achieves the maximum score for the metric on citizens’ access to official information. Denmark achieves the maximum score for 2 of the 3 metrics assessing the degree and quality of government consultation with society on policy issues.
3.12 Capabilities
This attribute measures four themes: core capability (eg. problem solving, numeracy and literacy skills); the use of core skills at work; organisational skills (eg influencing and planning skills); and learning and development. This attribute has 14 metrics – an increase of 10 since 2017. The sole data source is the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) survey. It is notable that 3 of the top 5 countries for this indicator are also in the top 5 for the entire InCiSE Index. New Zealand’s top position for this indicator reflects very strong scores for many of the relevant metrics. This includes maximum scores for the metrics which assess the use of IT skills and influencing skills in the workplace. The USA’s score for influencing skills is very strong as well, and both countries are well ahead of the others in the top 5 for this metric. It is interesting to note that all the top 5 countries’ scores are very high for the readiness to learn metric, most notably the USA, Denmark and Canada. Denmark also achieves the maximum score for the degree of job-related learning metric, while New Zealand performs very strongly.
3.13 Inclusiveness
This indicator has two themes: proportionate gender representation in the civil service; and proportionate ethnic minority representation. There are 5 metrics and 3 data sources: the OECD’s Government at a Glance (GaaG) survey data on the share of women in central government and top management positions; the University of Gothenburg’s Quality of Government survey; and figures on women’s representation in government which are compared with statistics collected and produced by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on women’s participation in the labour force as a whole. To ensure relevant comparison with the other metrics, ILO statistics and estimates for 2015 are used. Greece’s very strong performance for this indicator reflects high scores for the metric which assesses the proportion of women working in the public sector. For the representation of ethnic and religious minorities metric Poland has the highest score amongst the top 5 countries, while Romania is only just behind. Poland also achieves the maximum score for the metric on the proportion of women in senior government positions. Canada’s score for this metric is very strong as well and both countries’ scores stand out from the rest of the top 5 countries.