The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index Technical... · the British...
38
Technical Paper Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria April 2019 The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index
Transcript of The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index Technical... · the British...
Technical PaperAssessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to NigeriaApril 2019
The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index
Executive Summary 3
Objectives and methodology 4
The structure of the civil service 5
Availability of metrics 7
Potential new data sources and metrics 11
Applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 15
Bibliography 18
Annex: Detailed assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology 19
Contents
2 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria
Zenobia IsmailUniversity of Birmingham
InCiSE Technical Paper 2019-2
Commissioned by the Blavatnik School of Government on behalf of the InCiSE partner organisations
Paper submitted: December 2018Published: April 2019
The International Civil ServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Indexprojectisa collaboration between the BlavatnikSchool of Government and the Institutefor Government. It has been supportedby the UK Civil Service and funded bythe Open Society Foundations.
Please cite this work as: IsmailZ(2019)Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria, InCiSE TechnicalPaper2019-2,Oxford:BlavatnikSchool of Government
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 3
The InCiSEIndexwasdevelopedtobenchmarktheeffectivenessofthecivilserviceinOECDcountries.TheIndexiscomprised of 12 indicators1 and 60 themes relating to processes used in the civil service. Thisreportexaminestheviabilityofincludingthe Nigerian federal civil service in the InCiSE Indexusingthesameorsimilarindicators,themes, and data sources as those used in compilingthe2017Index.Acompanionreportsimilarly assesses the viability of including BrazilintheInCiSEIndex.
Of the 12 indicators covered in the 2017 report,wefounddataon9(policymakingand capabilities were notable gaps; social security administration indicators were not checked,asagreedinadvance).Foreachof these indicators, we assessed whether the sources used in the 2017 report were availableforNigeria,andtheexistenceofcomparable alternatives and/or regional and local supplementary sources.
Our analysis concludes that it is not possible todirectlyextendtheInCiSEIndextoincludeNigeria,asthereareinsufficientdatasourcesavailablematchingthefine-graineddataoncivilserviceeffectivenessavailableforOECDcountries.
� Data are available for 26 of the 60 themes (43%)intheIndex.
� Of the 76 metrics used in the 2017 report, wefound37metrics(49%)forwhich
1 The measurement framework includes 17 indicators, but the 2017 Index only used 12 of these in practice.
the same data were available, with only a small number of potential alternative or supplementary metrics that could be considered.
� We found good alternative data sources forthefiscalandfinancialmanagementindicator,butwedidnotfindcomparabledata sources for the policy making, regulation, social security administration, or capabilities indicators.
We found data covering some themes within thehumanresourcemanagement,taxadministration, digital services, openness and inclusiveness indicators, but these sources only provided partial information for these indicators. We found some other additional data sources that are relevant for assessments of selected aspects of the civil service and bureaucracyinNigeria,butmostdonotfiteasilyintotheexistingInCiSEframework.
Although the InCiSE framework covers issues that are highly relevant for the civil service in Nigeria, such as merit-based appointment processes and ethnic composition, it neglects other pertinent issues such as performance in terms of service delivery outputs. The study tentatively suggests that the InCiSE team consider developing a second, more rudimentarycivilserviceindexforNigeriaandotherdevelopingcountriesusinglessfine-grained data on the civil service and data on service delivery.
ExecutiveSummary
4 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Thisreportispartofajointstudyinvestigating the feasibility of applying the InCiSE methodology to Brazil and Nigeria, withthefollowingobjectives:
� Outline aspects of the structure and functions of the civil service of both countriesthatmayaffectapplicationofthe InCiSE framework;
� Identify international and national data sources relevant to the InCiSE framework and comment on the availability of data, the ease of accessing data, and the strengths and weaknesses of these sources for this purpose;
� Comment on the applicability of the InCiSEIndextocoverthesecountries,anddiscuss(i)challengesthatmightbefacedinusingitand(ii)waysinwhichtheIndexmightneedtobeadjustedtobemore relevant, applicable, and feasible.
Thisprojectdoesnotaimtoevaluatetheperformance of the civil service in Nigeria, but only to comment on the potential applicability and relevance of the InCiSE methodology to the country, and in particular to assess the availability of relevant data compatible with the current InCiSE methodology.
We have attempted as far as possible to match the same sources and metrics for the same themes as in the 2017 InCiSE Report.
That report sought data for 12 indicators, althoughdidnotfindsufficientdatatoincludethe social security administration indicator. In consultation with the Blavatnik School of Government, we similarly did not include the indicator on social security administration, and focused on the remaining 11 indicators. For each indicator, the analysis went through the following steps:
a. Are the sources used in InCiSE 2017 available? Assess whether, for Nigeria, the themes and indicators in the InCiSE framework were covered by the same metrics and sources as were used in the 2017 InCiSE Report, and comment on the quality of the data for each country.
b. What is the availability and quality of comparable alternative metrics? For the remaining themes, where the InCiSE team had found metrics for OECD countries but where the same data source does not cover Nigeria, search for alternative regional or local data sources that address the same themes. Wherecomparablealternativesexist,wecomment on the quality of these metrics.
c. Are there supplementary regional and local sources? Identify supplementary metrics,wherewefindthatregionalandlocal sources could be used alongside or instead of the metrics that the 2017 InCiSE Report had selected.
Objectivesandmethodology
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 5
The civil service in Nigeria was introduced during the colonial era and was modelled on the British Parliamentary Civil Service System (Rasul&Rogger,2017,p.6).Theprimaryobjectiveofthecolonialcivilservicewaslawand order. However, after independence in 1960 the focus shifted to infrastructure developmentandservicedelivery(Gberevbie,2010,p.1447).Thecivilservicewasindigenised but this led to regionalisation as the northern, eastern and western regions competedtofillservicepostswithpeoplefromtheirregion(Anazodo,Okoye,&Chukwuemeka,2012,p.19).
The principle of the ‘federal character’ of Nigeria enshrined in the constitution was introduced to ensure equitable representation from all regions and ethnic groups in the federal government. Nigeria is composed of a federalcapitalterritoryand36states(Amah,2017);eachstatehasagovernmentandthereare774localgovernmentsatthemunicipallevel(OECD,2016).Stategovernmentshaveautonomy with regard to the delivery of public services but rely on the federal government for resources(Amah,2017).Arevenuesharingformula allocates federal revenue as follows: 55%forfederalgovernment,25%forstategovernmentand20%forlocalgovernment(WorldBank,2018).
The federal government is made up of 63 organisations including ministries as well as educational and health facilities which are managedbythefederalgovernment(RasulandRogger,2015,p.6).Thepresence
of federal educational and health facilities suggests that there could be some overlap between the functions of the federal and stategovernments.Theconstitutionspecifiesalistof68items,theExclusiveLegislativeList,forwhichtheauthoritytolegislateisreserved to the federal government. There is alsoaConcurrentLegislativeListof12itemson which state governments are permitted to legislate. However, the constitution gives the federal government authority to override state legislation on matters relating to the ConcurrentList(Amah,2017,p.296).
The federal government provides “overall direction and leadership in the planning process from the formulation stage through the implementation and evaluation stages” (Philip&Peter,2013,p.60).TheNationalEconomic Council advises the president oneconomicaffairsaswellasmeasuresfor co-ordinating economic planning and development programmes. The Ministry of Finance and Ministry of National Planning play critical roles in the policy formulation process.TheNationalPlanningOfficeco-ordinates inputs from ministries, develops and evaluates policy alternatives and develops programmestoimplementpolicies(Rasul&Rogger,2017).TheNationalManpowerBoardandtheFederalOfficeofStatisticsreporttothe Ministry of National Planning. From 1999 to 2007presidentOlusẹgunỌbasanjọintroducedseveral public sector reform programmers including downsizing and payroll reform. Further civil service reforms were implemented atthefederallevel(e.g.medium-termpolicy-
The structure of the civil service
6 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
basedexpenditure,procurementreformsandbudgetreforms)butnotatthestatelevel.TheWorld Bank has funded public sector reform in Nigeria especially with regard to improving publicfinancialmanagementandhumanresources(WorldBank,2018).
There is little information on the processes in the civil service or the nature of relations between the civil service and ministries or the civilserviceandtheexecutive.However,theexecutiveinNigeriaandseveralotherAfricancountries is very powerful and dominates over ministries and the bureaucracy, due to a
poor separation of powers in the constitution and a high concentration of authority in the officeofthepresident(Prempeh,2008;VanCranenburgh,2011).Thecountryalsohasa reputation for corruption and patronage which taints the integrity of recruitment and procurement processes in the civil service (Anazodoetal.,2012).Furthermore,lowlevels of literacy and a limited supply of skilled information technology professionals inhibit the extenttowhichtechnologyande-governmentcanbeeffectiveinthecivilservice(Azeez,Abidoye,Adesina,Agbele,&Oyewole,2012).
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 7
Availability of metrics
TheInCiSEIndexanalyses12indicators,composed of 60 themes. For the countries coveredinthe2017Index,datawerefoundtobeavailablefor40themes,measuredby76metricscomingfrom19differentdatasources. Table 1 shows that only seven of the 19 data sources provide coverage for Nigeria. Thesecomprise37metrics,or49%ofthetotal metrics, which falls short of the InCiSE thresholdforinclusionthatrequires75%ofthe metrics to be available.
1 This is a governance index which evaluates the quality of a country’s political decision making (https://www.bti-project.org/en/data/rankings/governance-index/).
Policy MakingThe InCiSE framework utilises data from the BertelsmannSustainableGovernanceIndexfor the policy-making indicator. This dataset is limited to OECD countries.
ThereisaBertelsmannTransformationIndex1
which provides data for countries which can be regarded as ‘new’ democracies, including Nigeria. However, the variables in the TransformationIndexarecompletelydifferent
Table 1: Availability of data sources used in InCiSE 2017 for Nigeria
Sources used in InCiSE 2017 available for Nigeria
Sources used in InCiSE 2017 NOT available for Nigeria
� Doing Business index � Hyogo Framework for Action � Quality of Government Expert Survey Data � Transparency International’s Global Corruption
Barometer � UN’s E-participation Index � World Economic Forum (WEF) Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI) � World Justice Project’s Open Government Index
� Bertelsmann Sustainable Governance Indicators � European Commission E-Government Benchmarks � Government at a Glance 2013 � OECD medium-term budgeting � OECD performance budgeting � OECD PIAAC � OECD conflict of interest, private interest, and whistle-
blower data � OECD Tax Administration 2015 � OECD’s ‘Indicators of Regulatory Policy and
Governance � OECD’s OURdata Index � Open Knowledge Foundation’s Open Data Index � World Wide Web Foundation’s Open Data Barometer
8 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
from those in the Sustainable Governance Indexandnoneofthempertaintothecivilservice.Wewereunabletofindreliable,comparable data on the process of policy making in Nigeria. However, there are data on policy performance with regard to economic management(fiscalpolicy,monetarypolicy,debtmanagementandtradepolicy)fromtheAfrican Development Bank. There are data on policy consistency and policy instability from the Global Insight Business Risk and Conditionsdatasetthatmaybeproxymeasures for assessing the degree of policy monitoringtoalimitedextent.ThesemetricsdonotfitwellwiththeInCiSEframeworkbutwehavechosentolistthemintheannextoprovide a sense of the type of data that are available for Nigeria.
We found one metric of civil service integrity for Nigeria, which comes from the Global IntegrityIndex,andrelatestothedegreeof political interference with the work of the civil service. This is a good metric for the civil service in Nigeria, as the general view in Africa is that the bureaucracy lacks independencefrompoliticalinfluence(VanCranenburgh,2011).Althoughrelevant,thismetricdoesnotfitwellwiththeInCiSEframework. The closest match appears to be policymonitoringwhichrelatestotheextentto which the upper levels of the government monitor the lower levels.
Fiscal and Financial Management TheWorldEconomicForum(WEF)GlobalCompetitivenessIndex,whichisusedfortwoofthethemes(economicappraisalandeconomicperformance),hasdataforNigeria. OECD data are used for the other two themes, which do not cover Nigeria. However, the African Development Bank has a metric related to the quality of budgetary andfinancialmanagement,andtheOpenBudget Survey has several metrics on performance budgets and medium-term
budgets, which may be used as alternative metrics. We conclude that good data are available for this indicator for Nigeria.
RegulationThe InCiSE framework utilises data from the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance, which relate to impact assessments of proposed primary and secondary laws, processes for stakeholder engagementandex-postevaluationprocesses relating to primary and secondary laws. This source does not cover Nigeria.
The governance related datasets which include Nigeria are orientated towards detecting the presence of regulation or theeffectivenessofregulationratherthanassessing the processes used to develop theregulation.Forexample,theAfricanDevelopmentBankCountryProfileandInstitutional Assessment has metrics which assess the quality of economic regulations, which include one metric on the transparency of legislation and metrics ongenerallawenforcementeffectivenesswhich may be of slight relevance. The AfricanDevelopmentBankCountryProfileand Institutional Assessment focus on regulation of the economy only, and make no distinction between primary and secondary laws. The Economist Intelligence Unit has a metric on the quality of the bureaucracy and the quality of regulation pertaining to unfair competition practices, price controls, discriminatorytariffs,excessiveprotectionsanddiscriminatorytaxes.Similarly,theAfricanDevelopment Bank has two metrics, on the business regulation environment and the quality of public administration. However, we do not feel that these metrics adequately respondtothedefinitionofthisindicator.Hence,wedonotfindgoodalternativemetrics for Nigeria for the regulation indicator.
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 9
Crisis or Risk Management The InCiSE framework utilises data from the Hyogo Framework for Action to assess this indicator. There are four reports for Nigeria, which should provide adequate data to calculate the metrics for the themes in the crisis or risk management indicator for Nigeria. Thedataareavailableforthefiveofthesixthemes that were in the 2017 InCiSE report.
Human Resource Management Thisindicatoriscomposedofsixthemes,but in the 2017 InCiSE report, data were only available for two themes. These data were from the Quality of Governance Survey, an expertsurvey,whichalsocoversNigeria.Therefore, there is adequate data for the two themes covered in the 2017 report. We did notfindanysuitablealternativemetricsforthe other themes for this indicator.
Tax Administration Therearefivethemesforthisindicator.Thethree themes included in the 2017 InCiSE reportcomprisesixmetrics,fiveofwhichusedata from OECD sources that do not include Nigeria,whilethesixthisfromtheWorldBank Doing Business Survey, which does have data for Nigeria.
The African Development Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment has data ontheefficiencyofrevenuemobilisationforNigeria, and another variable which relates to the consistency of applying penalties for non-compliance which may also be useful.TherearedataontaxeffectivenessandtaxinconsistencyfromtheGlobalInsight Business Risk and Conditions study. However, we do not regard this data as good substitutes for the OECD data. Furthermore, Nigeriahasimplementede-filingoftaxreturns fairly recently, hence there are no reliable data on this.
Wefindsuitabledataforonlyoneoutof sixmetricsforthetaxationindicatorforNigeria,coveringoneofthefivethemes for this indicator.
Digital ServicesThe themes in the digital services indicator are assessed using metrics from data provided by the European Commission, which does not include Nigeria. The World Bank’sDigitalAdoptionIndex,theUnitedNations E-Governance Survey and data from theGlobalIntegrityIndexproviderelatedinformation on this indicator for Nigeria. Wefinddatafortwooutofthefourthemesfor Nigeria with regard to digital services.
IntegrityThe integrity indicator is based on data from the Global Corruption Barometer, Global Competitiveness Survey and the Quality of Governance Survey. All these datasets includeNigeria,andwefinddataforallsixthemes(andsixteenmetrics).
OpennessThis indicator is assessed using data from the Open Governance Survey, Open Data BarometerandOURdataIndex.Therearesixthemesforthisindicator.TheOpenGovernance Survey includes Nigeria, providing data for three of these themes. The data for Nigeria can be augmented using data from the UN E-Governance SurveyParticipationIndexandtheGlobalCompetitiveness Survey. Overall, there are dataforfourofthesixthemes(thus,sixoutoftheninemetrics)forthisindicator.
CapabilitiesThe Capabilities indicator is based on data from the OECD PIACC Survey, which does not include Nigeria. There are no publicly available data on the composition of the civil service in Nigeria with regard to educational attainment or skills capacity. We were not
10 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
abletofindotherrelevantdatatoassessthisindicator for Nigeria.
InclusivenessThe inclusiveness indicator relies on data from the OECD and the Quality of Governance Survey. Although there are no publicdataonthegenderprofileofthecivilservice, the African Development Bank has aGenderEqualityIndexwhichmayserveasaproxymeasure.TheQualityofGovernanceSurvey provides data on the gender and ethnic representation of the public sector in Nigeria. There are no publicly available data ondisability,socio-economicstatusorsexualorientation in the public sector in Nigeria.
WefindrelevantdataonNigeriafortwooutofthefivethemesrelatingtothisindicator
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 11
Potential new data sources for Nigeria are summarised in the Table 2, below.
Our aim was to identify data for 12 indicators comprising 60 themes. Table 3, shows which indicators and themes we feel can be well represented(✔),approximatelyrepresented(~),ornotrepresented(✘)forNigeria,andwhether the data sources would be the same as the sources that were used in the 2017 InCiSE report or whether new metrics are suggested, either instead of or in addition to the original sources.
Potential new data sources and metrics
Table 2: Summary of data availability by indicator and theme
Organisation Instrument Period Frequency
African Development Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment
2004-2015 Biennial
Global Insight Global Risk Service Global Insight Business Risk and Conditions
1996-2017 Annual
Global Integrity GlobalIntegrityIndex 2006-2017 Annual
International Budget partnership Open Budget Survey 2006-2018 Biennial
The Economist Intelligence Unit CountryViewswireService 1997-2018 Monthly
WorldJusticeProject WorldJusticeProjectRuleofLawIndex
2009-2017 Annual
African Development Bank GenderEqualityIndex 2015 Unsure
12 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 13
Indicator Theme Data availability
Same sources as InCiSE 2017?
New metrics proposed?
Policy making The quality of policy advice ✘ No
Degree of strategic policy direction ✘ No
Coordination of policy proposals ✘ No
Timeliness and accuracy of policy delivery ✘ No
Degree of policy monitoring ✘ No
Fiscal and financial management
Economic appraisal (use, quality, guidance) ✔ Yes
Economic evaluation (use, quality, guidance) ✔ Yes
Medium-term budgeting ✔ No Yes
Performance budgeting ✔ No Yes
Regulation Ex ante appraisal: application, quality, sustainability, transparency, oversight.
✘ No
Stakeholder engagement: application, quality, transparency, oversight
✘ No
Ex post evaluation: application, quality, sustainability, transparency, oversight
✘ No
Crisis/risk management
Integrated risk planning ✔ Yes
Risk monitoring ✔ Yes
Public information dissemination and public awareness strategies
✔ Yes
International cooperation and risk coordination ✔ Yes
Preparedness for disaster response ✘ No
Post disaster assessment methodology ✔ Yes
Human resource management
Meritocracy of recruitment ✔ Yes
Attracting and retaining talent ✔ Yes
Talent deployment (i.e. minimising skills gaps) ✘ No
Performance management ✘ No
Quality of learning and development ✘ No
Level of customer (i.e. civil servant) satisfaction ✘ No
Tax administration Overall efficiency of collection ✘ No
User centricity of services ✔ Yes
Extent and quality of digital provision ✘ No
Prevention of tax evasion ✘ No
Level of tax gap measurement ✘ No
Social security administration
Overall efficiency of distribution ✘ No
User centricity of services ✘ No
Extent and quality of digital provision ✘ No
Prevention of fraud ✘ No
Digital service User centricity of services ~ No Yes
Transparency of service ~ No Yes
Cross-border mobility of services ✘ No
The availability of ‘key enablers’ ✘ No
14 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Indicator Theme Data availability
Same sources as InCiSE 2017?
New metrics proposed?
Integrity Levels/perceptions of corruption ✔ Yes
Fairness and impartiality ✔ Yes
Adherence to rules and procedures ✔ Yes
Striving to serve citizens and ministers ✔ Yes
Work ethic ✔ Yes
Processes in place to preserve integrity and prevent conflicts of interest
✔ Yes
Openness The degree and quality of societal consultation ✔ Yes
The existence and quality of complaint mechanisms
✔ Yes
Government data availability and accessibility ~ No Yes
Government data impact and support for re-use ✘ No
Right to information (e.g. FOIs) ✘ No
Publicised laws ✔ Yes
Capabilities Leadership capability ✘ No
Commercial capability ✘ No
Analytical capability ✘ No
Digital capability ✘ No
Core capability (e.g. problem-solving, numeracy, literacy skills)
✘ No
Educational attainment of the workforce ✘ No
Inclusiveness Proportionate gender representation ✔ No Yes
Proportionate ethnic minority representation ✔ Yes
Proportionate disability representation ✘ No
Proportionate socio-economic representation ✘ No
Proportionate Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender Other sexuality representation
✘ No
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 15
Applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria
Considering the data sources used in the current InCiSE framework and the supplementary sources we have suggested, wefindrelevantdatafor26ofthe60themesintheframework,or43%.TheInCiSEmethodologysetsathresholdof75%forcountriestobeincludedintheInCiSEIndex.WethereforefindthatthereiscurrentlyinsufficientdataavailabletoincludeNigeria intheIndex.
TheInCiSEIndexisdesignedtoassesstheeffectivenessofthecivilserviceandiscomposed of indicators and themes which measure various aspects of the operation of the civil service. Generally, there is more dataavailable,whichismorefine-grained,for OCED countries than for non-OECD countries.Forexample,theQualityofGovernance Survey provides a dataset specificallyfortheOECDcountrieswhich hasadditional,morefine-grainedindicatorsthanthestandarddataset(Rothstein,2015).
Inprinciple,theInCiSEIndexaddressessome key issues which relate to the civil service in Nigeria, such as relations betweenthebureaucracyandtheexecutive,appointments based on merit and the genderandethnicprofileofthecivilservice.Some indicators, such as those related to digitaltechnology,orthee-filingthemeinthetaxationindicator,assumetheuseoftechnology currently unavailable in lower middle-income countries such as Nigeria. ThemostsignificantobstacletoreplicatingtheInCiSEIndexforNigeriaistheabsence
of suitable metrics for the policy and regulation indictors.
Publicly available sources of data for Nigeria measure governance at a much broader level and focus primarily on outputs rather than the processes used by the civil service toarriveattheoutputs.Forexample,theAfrican Development Bank and the Economist Intelligence Unit provide assessments of the qualityofregulationswhichaffecttheeconomy,rather than the processes that the civil service utilises to deliver regulation. Similarly, the African Development Bank provides overall assessments of policy or institutions in Nigeria and other African countries.
In general, the approach to the public sector and governance in sub-Saharan Africa focusesonservicedelivery.Theeffectivenessof the public sector is usually gauged in terms of outcomes, such as number of schools or clinics built, school completion rates, vaccination rates and access to basic health care services. This approach toassessingtheeffectivenessofthepublicsectordiffersnotablyfromtheInCiSEapproach which focusses on processes used in the civil service and on attributes such as transparency and accountability.
The quality of the data used by InCiSE sources such as the Quality of Governance Survey, the Global Competitiveness Survey andtheOpenDataIndexarehigh.Mostofthedataarebasedonexpertsurveysorpublic opinion surveys. The data are widely
16 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
used and cited in the governance and economics literature. The additional datasets which have been proposed for Nigeria are produced by reputable organisations and are used as inputs by the World Bank to develop the Worldwide Governance indicators.
One option for Nigeria and other countries where data are lacking is to create an alternativeindexforthesecountries.TheBertelsmann Foundation has adopted this multipleindexapproach.TheyproducetheSustainableGovernanceindexforOECDcountriesandtheTransformationIndexfor‘new’ democracies or countries in transition. Similarly, the Quality of Governance Institute at the University of Gothenburg also producesthreedatasetsforitsindex(basic,standardandOECD)whichhavevaryingamounts of data.
Thenewindexcouldbemoreorientatedtowards assessing outcomes rather than processes and would rely on overall ratings of the civil service and the bureaucracy rather than the detailed metrics used for InCiSE. The World Bank in partnership with the African Development Bank and the African Economic Research Consortium supports theServiceDeliveryIndicatorsproject(https://www.sdindicators.org/).Theseindicators are based on data from site visits to a sample of health facilities and primary schools. Data are available for nine countries in Africa: Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda. Additional, data on government performance with regard to service delivery is available in the Afrobarometer public opinion survey(http://www.afrobarometer.org/. Some very tentative suggestions with regard to potential metrics and data sources which may be considered for developing a new indexarelistedinthetablebelow.
Metric Source Number of countries
Region
Service delivery Service Delivery Indicators 9 Africa
E-government World Bank Digital Adoption index 180 Global
Accountability of public officials Economist Intelligence Unit 204 Global
Political stability of absence of violence Economist Intelligence Unit 204 Global
Quality of bureaucratic/institutional effectiveness Economist Intelligence Unit 204 Global
Excessive bureaucracy/red tape Economist Intelligence Unit 204 Global
Regulatory quality Economist Intelligence Unit 204 Global
Corruption among public officials Economist Intelligence Unit 204 Global
Tax Effectiveness Global Insight Global Risk Service over 200 Global
Quality of bureaucratic/institutional effectiveness Global Insight Global Risk Service over 200 Global
Civil service effectiveness Global Integrity Index 138 Global
Civil service recruitment Global Integrity Index 138 Global
Procurement in the public sector Global Integrity Index 138 Global
Transparency of public records Global Integrity Index 138 Global
Asset disclosure for public officials Global Integrity Index 138 Global
Websites for ministries and government agencies Global Integrity Index 138 Global
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 17
Theviabilityofanewindexmaybeaffectedby the following issues:
� Adopting a data driven approach skews theindextowardsindicatorsandmetricsfrom available data sources. Other considerations such as the principles whichshouldunderpinsuchasexerciseorthevalidityandlegitimacyoftheindexmay be undermined;
� Theindexmaybenotsufficientlydifferentfrom other governance indices;
� Data may only be available for a small group of countries.
Sincethebriefforthisreportwastoexaminedata sources for Nigeria, some of the sources that were found are applicable to African countries only. However, we anticipate that similar data for other regions may be available from the Asian Development Bank. Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Barometer, Arab Barometer and Latinobarómetro.
18 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
AmahEI(2017)‘Federalism,NigerianFederalConstitutionand the Practice of Federalism: An Appraisal’, Beijing Law Review 8:287
AnazodoRO,OkoyeJCandChukwuemekaEE(2012)‘CivilservicereformsinNigeria:Thejourneysofarinservicedelivery’, American Journal of Social and Management Sciences3(1):17–29
Azeez NA, Abidoye AP, Adesina AO, Agbele KK and OyewoleAS(2012)‘Threatstoe-governmentimplementation in the civil service: Nigeria as a case study’, The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 13(1):398–402
GberevbieDE(2010)‘Strategiesforemployeerecruitment,retention and performance: Dimension of the Federal civil service of Nigeria’, African Journal of Business Management4(8):1447–1456
OECD(2016)OECD: Nigeria [online], https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-Nigeria.pdf [last accessed 26 November 2018]
PhilipDDandPeterDMB(2013)‘PublicpolicymakingandimplementationinNigeria:ConnectingtheNexus’,Public Policy3(6)
PrempehHK(2008)‘Presidentsuntamed’,Journal of Democracy19(2):109–123
RasulIandRoggerD(2017)‘Managementofbureaucratsand public service delivery: Evidence from the Nigerian civil service’, The Economic Journal128(608):413–446
RothsteinB.(2015)The Quality of Government Institute Report for the first ten years of a Research Programme at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg
Van Cranenburgh O(2011)‘DemocracypromotioninAfrica:theinstitutionalcontext’,Democratization18(2):443–461
WorldBank(2018)Nigeria – Public Sector Governance Reform and Development Project (English), Washington DC: World Bank, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/811381533573179080/Nigeria-Public-Sector-Governance-Reform-and-Development-Project
Bibliography
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 19
Thetablesinthisannexoutlineindetailtheapplicability of the methodology set out in the Technical Report for the 2017 edition of theInCiSEIndex,assessingwhetherdataisavailable for Nigeria and proposing potential alternatives where possible.
Annex:Detailedassessmentoftheapplicability of the InCiSE methodology
20 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Polic
y m
akin
g
The
qual
ity o
f po
licy
advi
ceBe
rtels
man
n ‘S
chol
arly
Adv
ice’
sub
-indi
cato
r is
used
as
a pr
oxy
for t
he e
vide
nce
base
to p
olic
y de
cisi
ons
by a
sses
sing
the
degr
ee o
f civ
il se
rvan
t to
aca
dem
ic c
oord
inat
ion:
‘How
influ
entia
l are
non
-go
vern
men
tal a
cade
mic
exp
erts
for g
over
nmen
t de
cisi
on-m
akin
g?’
Berte
lsm
ann
‘Gov
ernm
ent O
ffice
Exp
ertis
e’
sub-
indi
cato
r ass
esse
s: ‘D
oes
the
gove
rnm
ent
office
/prim
e m
inis
ter’s
offi
ce (G
O/P
MO
) hav
e th
e ex
perti
se to
eva
luat
e m
inis
teria
l dra
ft bi
lls
subs
tant
ivel
y?’
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Ther
e ar
e no
alte
rnat
ive
met
rics
whi
ch c
aptu
re th
ese
aspe
cts
of p
olic
y-m
akin
g or
ove
rsig
ht.
The
Afric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank
prov
ides
an
over
all i
ndex
fo
r cou
ntry
pol
icy
and
inst
itutio
nal a
sses
smen
t (ht
tps:
//cp
ia.a
fdb.
org/
?pag
e=da
ta) w
hich
incl
udes
com
pone
nts
rela
ted
to e
cono
mic
man
agem
ent (
fisca
l pol
icy,
mon
etar
y po
licy,
debt
man
agem
ent)
and
‘stru
ctur
al p
olic
ies’
(tra
de
polic
y), b
ut th
is is
not
a g
ood
subs
titut
e.
Ther
e is
a p
oor m
atch
bet
wee
n th
e Be
rtels
man
n Su
stai
nabl
e G
over
nanc
e in
dica
tors
, whi
ch
are
very
spe
cific
, and
the
gene
ral
polic
y ra
tings
in th
e Af
rican
De
velo
pmen
t Ban
k In
dex.
Degr
ee o
f st
rate
gic
polic
y di
rect
ion
Berte
lsm
ann
‘Stra
tegi
c Pl
anni
ng’ s
ub-in
dica
tor
asse
sses
: ‘H
ow m
uch
influ
ence
do
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng u
nits
and
bod
ies
have
on
gove
rnm
ent
deci
sion
-mak
ing?
’
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Coo
rdin
atio
n of
po
licy
prop
osal
sBe
rtels
man
n ‘M
inis
teria
l Bur
eauc
racy
’ sub
-in
dica
tor a
sses
ses:
‘How
effe
ctiv
ely
do m
inis
try
offici
als/
civi
l ser
vant
s co
ordi
nate
pol
icy
prop
osal
s?’
Berte
lsm
ann
‘Lin
e M
inis
tries
’ sub
-indi
cato
r as
sess
es ‘T
o w
hat e
xten
t do
line
min
istri
es in
volv
e th
e go
vern
men
t offi
ce/p
rime
min
iste
r’s o
ffice
in th
e pr
epar
atio
n of
pol
icy
prop
osal
s?’
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Glo
bal I
nsig
ht B
usin
ess
Risk
and
Con
ditio
ns (W
MO
) pr
ovid
es d
ata
on p
olic
y co
nsis
tenc
y an
d in
stab
ility,
but
thes
e da
ta lo
ok o
nly
at im
pact
s on
bus
ines
s, s
o ar
e no
t go
od s
ubst
itute
s fo
r the
bro
ader
Ber
tels
man
n in
dica
tors
(w
ww.
glob
alins
ight
.com
):Po
licy
cons
iste
ncy
and
forw
ard
plan
ning
How
con
fiden
t bu
sine
sses
can
be
of th
e co
ntin
uity
of e
cono
mic
pol
icy
stan
ce -
whe
ther
a c
hang
e of
gov
ernm
ent w
ill en
tail
maj
or
polic
y di
srup
tion,
and
whe
ther
the
curre
nt g
over
nmen
t ha
s pu
rsue
d a
cohe
rent
stra
tegy
. Thi
s fa
ctor
als
o lo
oks
at th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
pol
icy-
mak
ing
is fa
r-sig
hted
, or
conv
erse
ly a
imed
at s
hort-
term
eco
nom
ic a
dvan
tage
.Po
licy
inst
abilit
y. Th
e ris
k th
e go
vern
men
t’s b
road
pol
icy
fram
ewor
k sh
ifts
over
the
next
yea
r, m
akin
g th
e bu
sine
ss
envi
ronm
ent m
ore
chal
leng
ing.
Thi
s m
ight
incl
ude
mor
e on
erou
s em
ploy
men
t or e
nviro
nmen
tal r
egul
atio
n; lo
cal
cont
ent r
equi
rem
ents
; im
port/
expo
rt ba
rrier
s, ta
riffs,
or
quot
as; o
ther
pro
tect
ioni
st m
easu
res;
pric
e co
ntro
ls o
r ca
ps; m
ore
“pol
itica
l” co
ntro
l of m
onet
ary
polic
y, or
sim
ply
mor
e di
rect
inte
rven
tion
into
the
oper
atio
ns a
nd d
ecis
ions
of
priv
ate
com
pani
es e
tc.
This
is a
priv
ate
data
sou
rce
used
to c
alcu
late
the
Wor
ldw
ide
Gov
erna
nce
Indi
cato
rs (W
GIs
)Th
e m
etric
s re
loos
ely
rela
ted
to
thos
e us
ed b
y In
CiS
E.
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 21
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Tim
elin
ess
and
accu
racy
of
polic
y de
liver
y
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Degr
ee o
f pol
icy
mon
itorin
gBe
rtels
man
n ‘M
onito
ring
Min
istri
es’ s
ub-in
dica
tor
asse
sses
: ‘H
ow e
ffect
ivel
y do
es th
e G
O/P
MO
m
onito
r lin
e m
inis
try a
ctiv
ities
with
rega
rd to
im
plem
enta
tion?
Berte
lsm
ann
sub-
indi
cato
r ‘M
onito
ring
Agen
cies
’, as
sess
es: ‘
How
effe
ctiv
ely
do fe
dera
l and
su
bnat
iona
l min
istri
es m
onito
r the
act
iviti
es o
f bu
reau
crac
ies/
exec
utiv
e ag
enci
es w
ith re
gard
to
impl
emen
tatio
n?Be
rtels
man
n ‘N
atio
nal S
tand
ards
’ sub
-indi
cato
r as
sess
es: ‘
To w
hat e
xten
t doe
s ce
ntra
l gov
ernm
ent
ensu
re th
at s
ubna
tiona
l sel
f-gov
ernm
ents
real
ise
natio
nal s
tand
ards
of p
ublic
ser
vice
s?’
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
The
Glo
bal I
nteg
rity
Inde
x ha
s a
met
ric fo
r Civ
il Se
rvic
e In
tegr
ity: “
In p
ract
ice,
civ
il se
rvan
ts’ w
ork
is
not c
ompr
omis
ed b
y po
litic
al in
terfe
renc
e.” (
ww
w.gl
obal
inte
grity
.org
)N
o co
mpa
rabl
e m
etric
No
com
para
ble
met
ric
This
met
ric is
ver
y re
leva
nt to
the
civi
l ser
vice
but
is n
ot d
irect
ly
rela
ted
to th
e m
etric
s us
ed in
the
fram
ewor
k. It
is p
rodu
ced
by a
n N
GO
and
is u
sed
in th
e W
GIs
Fisc
al a
nd fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t
Econ
omic
ap
prai
sal
(use
, qua
lity,
guid
ance
)
‘Pub
lic S
pend
ing’
: WEF
GC
I bus
ines
s ex
ecut
ive
opin
ion:
‘How
wou
ld y
ou ra
te th
e co
mpo
sitio
n of
pu
blic
spe
ndin
g in
you
r cou
ntry
?’ (1
) ext
rem
ely
was
tefu
l; (7
) hig
hly
effici
ent i
n pr
ovid
ing
nece
ssar
y go
ods
and
serv
ices
.
The
data
are
cr
edib
le a
nd re
veal
an
impr
ovem
ent i
n bu
sine
ss c
ondi
tions
in
Nig
eria
whi
ch
mos
t com
men
tato
rs
agre
e w
ith.
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Econ
omic
ev
alua
tion
(use
, qua
lity,
guid
ance
)
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Afric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank
Inde
x –
qual
ity o
f bud
geta
ry
and
finan
cial
man
agem
ent
http
s://c
pia.
afdb
.org
/?pa
ge=d
ata
Thes
e m
etric
s ar
e re
late
d to
the
them
e.
22 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Med
ium
-term
bu
dget
ing
OEC
D ‘M
ediu
m-te
rm B
udge
ting’
inde
xN
ot a
vaila
ble
The
Ope
n Bu
dget
Inde
x ha
s da
ta o
n N
iger
ia fo
r thr
ee
indi
cato
rs:
Publ
ic p
artic
ipat
ion
in th
e bu
dget
ing
proc
ess
Tran
spar
ency
thro
ugh
publ
ic in
form
atio
n ab
out t
he b
udge
t Bu
dget
ove
rsig
ht b
y th
e le
gisl
atur
e an
d su
prem
e au
dit
asso
ciat
ion
IBP
Ope
n Bu
dget
sur
vey
- Que
stio
n 48
- ‘ D
oes
the
Exec
utiv
e’s
Budg
et P
ropo
sal o
r any
sup
porti
ng b
udge
t do
cum
enta
tion
pres
ent i
nfor
mat
ion
on h
ow th
e pr
opos
ed
budg
et (b
oth
new
pro
posa
ls a
nd e
xist
ing
polic
ies)
is
linke
d to
gov
ernm
ent’s
pol
icy
goal
s fo
r a m
ulti-
year
per
iod
(for a
t lea
st tw
o ye
ars
beyo
nd th
e bu
dget
yea
r)?’
Thes
e m
etric
s ar
e re
late
d to
bu
dget
ing
but t
hey
do n
ot
capt
ure
med
ium
term
bud
getin
g in
par
ticul
ar.
The
prop
osed
met
ric c
aptu
res
med
ium
term
bud
getin
g.
Perfo
rman
ce
budg
etin
gO
ECD
‘Per
form
ance
Bud
getin
g’ in
dex
Not
ava
ilabl
eIB
P O
pen
Budg
et s
urve
y - Q
uest
ion
51 -
‘Are
per
form
ance
ta
rget
s as
sign
ed to
non
finan
cial
dat
a on
resu
lts in
the
Exec
utiv
e’s
Budg
et P
ropo
sal o
r any
sup
porti
ng b
udge
t do
cum
enta
tion?
http
s://w
ww.
inte
rnat
iona
lbud
get.o
rg/o
pen-
budg
et-s
urve
y/op
en-budget-index-ra
nkings/
The
prop
osed
met
ric c
aptu
res
perfo
rman
ce b
udge
ting.
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 23
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Reg
ulat
ion
Ex a
nte
appr
aisa
l: ap
plic
atio
n,
qual
ity,
sust
aina
bilit
y, tra
nspa
renc
y, ov
ersi
ght.
OEC
D i-r
eg in
dica
tors
– R
egul
ator
y ‘Im
pact
As
sess
men
t – P
rimar
y La
ws’
O
ECD
i-reg
indi
cato
rs –
Reg
ulat
ory
‘Impa
ct
Asse
ssm
ent –
Sec
onda
ry L
aws’
#
Stak
ehol
der e
ngag
emen
t and
ex
post
eva
luat
ion
asse
ssm
ents
are
mad
e on
four
are
as o
f pe
rform
ance
: met
hodo
logy
, sys
tem
atic
ado
ptio
n,
trans
pare
ncy
and
over
sigh
t/qua
lity
cont
rol.
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Glo
bal I
nsig
ht B
usin
ess
Risk
and
Con
ditio
ns (W
MO
) Le
gisl
atio
n An
ass
essm
ent o
f whe
ther
the
nece
ssar
y bu
sine
ss la
ws
are
in p
lace
, and
whe
ther
ther
e an
y ou
tsta
ndin
g ga
ps. T
his
incl
udes
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
e co
untry
’s le
gisl
atio
n is
com
patib
le w
ith, a
nd re
spec
ted
by,
othe
r cou
ntrie
s’ le
gal s
yste
ms.
The
Wor
ld J
ustic
e pr
ojec
t has
a m
etric
for l
aw
enfo
rcem
ent. https://w
orldjustice
project.o
rg/our-work/wjp-
rule-law
-index/wjp-ru
le-law
-index-20
17%E2
%80
%93
2018
Th
e Af
rican
Dev
elop
men
t Ban
k ha
s a
met
ric fo
r qua
lity
of
regu
latio
n w
hich
is c
ompr
ised
of:
Regi
onal
inte
grat
ion
Trad
e po
licy
Busi
ness
regu
lato
ry e
nviro
nmen
t Th
e Ec
onom
ist I
ntel
ligen
ce U
nit -
Qua
lity
of b
urea
ucra
tic/
inst
itutio
nal e
ffect
iven
ess
The
Econ
omis
t Int
ellig
ence
Uni
t –Re
gula
tory
qua
lity
whi
ch
is b
ased
on
the
follo
win
g:
Unf
air c
ompe
titiv
e pr
actic
esPr
ice
cont
rols
Disc
rimin
ator
y ta
riffs
Exce
ssiv
e pr
otec
tions
Disc
rimin
ator
y ta
xes
ww
w.ei
u.co
m
Alth
ough
ther
e ar
e se
vera
l met
rics
on re
gula
tion
in N
iger
ia th
ey d
o no
t mea
sure
impa
ct o
f the
law.
Enfo
rcem
ent o
f the
law
is n
ot
mea
surin
g th
e im
pact
of t
he la
ws.
The
Afric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank
regu
latio
n su
b-in
dex
focu
ses
on
econ
omic
regu
latio
n on
ly.
Ther
e is
no
disa
ggre
gatio
n be
twee
n pr
imar
y an
d se
cond
ary
law
s.
The
Econ
omis
t Int
ellig
ence
Uni
t al
so fo
cuse
s on
regu
latio
n w
hich
aff
ects
the
econ
omy.
Stak
ehol
der
enga
gem
ent:
appl
icat
ion,
qu
ality
, tra
nspa
renc
y, ov
ersi
ght
OEC
D i-r
eg in
dica
tors
– ‘S
take
hold
er E
ngag
emen
t –
Prim
ary
Law
s’
OEC
D i-r
eg in
dica
tors
– ‘S
take
hold
er E
ngag
emen
t –
Seco
ndar
y La
ws’
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
Afric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank
Inde
x ha
s tw
o po
ssib
le
met
rics:
Qua
lity
of P
ublic
Adm
inis
tratio
n Bu
sine
ss re
gula
tory
env
ironm
ent
The
met
ric o
n pu
blic
ad
min
istra
tion
does
not
fit
regu
latio
n w
ell.
The
re is
met
ric o
n th
e qu
ality
of b
usin
ess
regu
latio
n on
ly.
24 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Ex p
ost
eval
uatio
n:
appl
icat
ion,
qu
ality
, su
stai
nabi
lity,
trans
pare
ncy,
over
sigh
t
OEC
D i-r
eg in
dica
tors
– E
x-po
st ‘E
valu
atio
n –
Prim
ary
Law
s’
OEC
D i-r
eg in
dica
tors
– E
x-po
st ‘E
valu
atio
n –
Seco
ndar
y La
ws’
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
ot a
vaila
ble
Glo
bal I
nteg
rity
Inde
xIn
pra
ctic
e, c
itize
ns c
an a
cces
s le
gisl
ativ
e pr
oces
ses
and
docu
men
ts.
This
met
ric a
sses
ses
the
trans
pare
ncy
of le
gisl
atio
n to
a
limite
d ex
tent
.
Cris
is/r
isk
man
agem
ent
Inte
grat
ed ri
sk
plan
ning
‘Ris
k Pl
anni
ng E
xten
t’: T
he e
xten
t to
whi
ch d
isas
ter
risk
is in
tegr
ated
into
nat
iona
l pol
icy
plan
ning
is
mea
sure
d by
cou
ntin
g th
e ty
pes
of p
olic
y pl
anni
ng
into
whi
ch ri
sk is
inte
grat
ed (o
ut o
f 7, e
.g. n
atio
nal
deve
lopm
ent p
lans
). ‘D
isas
ter S
pend
ing
Appr
aisa
l’: A
sco
re fo
r ec
onom
ic a
ppra
isal
look
s at
whe
ther
the
cost
s an
d be
nefit
s of
spe
ndin
g re
late
d to
dis
aste
r spe
ndin
g ar
e co
nsid
ered
.
The
prog
ress
re
ports
are
up
to d
ate
and
the
Fram
ewor
k ha
s be
en u
sed
to
upgr
ade
Nig
eria
’s re
adin
ess
for
cont
endi
ng w
ith
disa
ster
s.
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
– 20
17 R
epor
t for
Nig
eria
ht
tps:
//ww
w.pr
even
tionw
eb.n
et/e
nglis
h/hy
ogo/
prog
ress
/repo
rts/v.php?id=
53091&
pid:
223
Risk
mon
itorin
g‘R
isk
Asse
ssm
ent Q
ualit
y’: T
he q
ualit
y of
mul
ti-ha
zard
risk
ass
essm
ent i
s m
easu
red
by a
sses
sing
th
e pr
oces
ses
behi
nd ri
sk a
sses
smen
ts (o
ut o
f 5,
e.g
. whe
ther
risk
ass
essm
ents
hav
e ag
reed
na
tiona
l sta
ndar
ds);
The
‘Deg
ree
of R
isk
Mon
itorin
g’ is
mea
sure
d by
ass
essi
ng th
e ex
tent
and
use
of r
epor
ts a
nd
data
base
s of
this
type
.
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
It m
ay n
ot b
e po
ssib
le to
ca
lcul
ate
data
for a
ll th
e in
dica
tors
.
Publ
ic
info
rmat
ion
diss
emin
atio
n an
d pu
blic
aw
aren
ess
stra
tegi
es
‘Ear
ly W
arni
ng S
yste
ms’
: The
qua
lity
of e
arly
w
arni
ng s
yste
ms
is a
sses
sed
by lo
okin
g at
the
proc
esse
s in
pla
ce (o
ut o
f 3, e
.g. w
heth
er p
roto
cols
ar
e us
ed a
nd a
pplie
d).
‘Pub
lic In
form
atio
n’ d
isse
min
atio
n is
sco
red
by
look
ing
at th
e ty
pes
of c
omm
unic
atio
ns in
pla
ce
(out
of 4
, e.g
. is
a na
tiona
l dis
aste
r inf
orm
atio
n sy
stem
pub
licly
ava
ilabl
e?).
‘Pub
lic A
war
enes
s St
rate
gy’ l
ooks
at t
he re
leva
nt
wor
kstre
ams
in p
lace
(out
of 5
, e.g
. whe
ther
pub
lic
educ
atio
n ca
mpa
igns
for r
isk
awar
enes
s ex
ist).
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 25
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Inte
rnat
iona
l co
oper
atio
n an
d ris
k co
ordi
natio
n
‘Inte
rnat
iona
l Coo
pera
tion’
is m
easu
red
by
asse
ssin
g th
e nu
mbe
r of p
roce
sses
/act
iviti
es in
pl
ace
for i
nter
natio
nal c
oope
ratio
n an
d in
tern
atio
nal
risk
man
agem
ent (
out o
f 6, e
.g. w
heth
er
trans
boun
dary
pro
toco
ls a
re in
pla
ce).
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Prep
ared
ness
fo
r dis
aste
r re
spon
se
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Post
dis
aste
r as
sess
men
t m
etho
dolo
gy
‘Pos
t Dis
aste
r Ass
essm
ent’:
A s
core
is g
iven
for
post
dis
aste
r dam
age
and
loss
ass
essm
ent b
y co
nsid
erin
g, fo
r exa
mpl
e, w
heth
er a
spe
cifie
d m
etho
dolo
gy fo
r thi
s ex
ists
(out
of 3
).
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
26 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Hum
an re
sour
ce m
anag
emen
t
Mer
itocr
acy
of
recr
uitm
ent
‘App
lican
t Ski
lls’:
QoG
exp
ert a
sses
smen
t of e
xten
t to
whi
ch th
e sk
ills a
nd m
erits
of t
he a
pplic
ants
de
cide
who
get
s th
e jo
b w
hen
recr
uitin
g pu
blic
se
ctor
em
ploy
ees;
‘C
onne
ctio
ns B
ias
in R
ecru
itmen
t: Po
litic
al’:
QoG
ex
pert
asse
ssm
ent o
f ext
ent t
o w
hich
pol
itica
l co
nnec
tions
of t
he a
pplic
ants
dec
ide
who
get
s th
e jo
b;
‘Con
nect
ions
Bia
s in
Rec
ruitm
ent:
Pers
onal
’: Q
oG
expe
rt as
sess
men
t of e
xten
t to
whi
ch p
erso
nal
conn
ectio
ns o
f the
app
lican
ts d
ecid
e w
ho g
ets
the
job;
‘R
ecru
itmen
t via
For
mal
Exa
m S
yste
m’:
QoG
ex
pert
asse
ssm
ent o
f ext
ent t
o w
hich
pub
lic s
ecto
r em
ploy
ees
are
hire
d us
ing
a fo
rmal
exa
min
atio
n sy
stem
.
This
is a
n ex
pert
surv
ey w
hich
is
pro
duce
d by
th
e U
nive
rsity
of
Got
henb
urg.
Th
e da
tase
t won
an
aw
ard
from
the
Amer
ican
Pol
itica
l St
udie
s As
soci
atio
n C
ompa
rativ
e Po
litic
s Se
ctio
n.
The
surv
ey is
bas
ed
on 1
035
expe
rts
from
135
cou
ntrie
s. Sa
me
sour
ce is
ava
ilabl
eht
tps:
//qog
.pol
.gu.
se/d
ata/
data
dow
nloa
ds/
qoge
xper
tsur
veyd
ata
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Attra
ctin
g an
d re
tain
ing
tale
nt‘C
ompa
rabl
e Sa
larie
s’: Q
oG e
xper
t ass
essm
ent
of e
xten
t to
whi
ch s
enio
r offi
cial
s ha
ve s
alar
ies
that
are
com
para
ble
with
the
sala
ries
of p
rivat
e se
ctor
man
ager
s w
ith ro
ughl
y si
mila
r tra
inin
g an
d re
spon
sibi
litie
s.
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Tale
nt
depl
oym
ent (
i.e.
min
imis
ing
skills
ga
ps)
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Perfo
rman
ce
man
agem
ent
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Qua
lity
of
lear
ning
and
de
velo
pmen
t
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Leve
l of
cust
omer
(i.e
. ci
vil s
erva
nt)
satis
fact
ion
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 27
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Tax
adm
inis
trat
ion
Ove
rall
effici
ency
of
colle
ctio
n
‘Col
lect
ion
Cos
t’: D
ata
from
OEC
D Ta
x Ad
min
istra
tion
on: c
ost o
f col
lect
ion
ratio
s (a
dmin
istra
tive
cost
s/ne
t rev
enue
col
lect
ed);
‘Tax
Deb
t’ ra
tios
(tota
l yea
r end
tax
debt
(exc
l. di
sput
ed)/n
et re
venu
e co
llect
ed).
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Afric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank
– Effi
cacy
of r
even
ue
mob
ilisat
ion.
Glo
bal I
nsig
ht B
usin
ess
Risk
and
Con
ditio
ns (W
MO
) Ta
x Eff
ectiv
enes
s H
ow e
ffici
ent t
he c
ount
ry’s
tax
colle
ctio
n sy
stem
is. T
he ru
les
may
be
clea
r and
tran
spar
ent,
but
whe
ther
they
are
enf
orce
d co
nsis
tent
ly. T
his
fact
or lo
oks
at th
e re
lativ
e eff
ectiv
enes
s to
o of
cor
pora
te a
nd p
erso
nal,
indi
rect
and
dire
ct ta
xatio
n.Ta
x in
cons
iste
ncy.
Tax
inco
nsis
tenc
y al
so c
aptu
res
the
risk
that
fine
s an
d pe
nalti
es w
ill be
levi
ed fo
r non
-co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith a
tax
code
that
app
ears
dis
prop
ortio
nate
or
man
ipul
ated
for p
oliti
cal e
nds.
Thes
e in
dica
tors
are
rela
ted
to ta
xatio
n bu
t the
y ar
e no
t as
fine-
grai
ned
as th
ose
used
in th
e O
ECD
surv
ey.
Use
r cen
trici
ty
of s
ervi
ces
‘Tim
e to
Pay
Tax
es –
Bus
ines
s’: D
ata
from
the
Wor
ld B
ank’
s ‘D
oing
Bus
ines
s’ In
dex
on th
e tim
e it
take
s bu
sine
sses
to p
ay ta
xes.
The
data
are
re
liabl
e Sa
me
sour
ce is
ava
ilabl
e
Exte
nt a
nd
qual
ity o
f dig
ital
prov
isio
n
‘E-F
iled
Tax
Retu
rns
– Pe
rson
al’:
Data
from
O
ECD
Tax
Adm
inis
tratio
n on
: the
per
cent
age
of
tax
retu
rns
e-fil
ed d
urin
g th
e la
st fi
scal
yea
r for
pe
rson
al ta
xes;
‘E-F
iled
Tax
Retu
rns
– C
orpo
rate
’: Da
ta fr
om
OEC
D Ta
x Ad
min
istra
tion
on: t
he p
erce
ntag
e of
ta
x re
turn
s e-
filed
dur
ing
the
last
fisc
al y
ear f
or
corp
orat
e ta
xes;
‘E-F
iled
Tax
Retu
rns
– VA
T’: D
ata
from
OEC
D Ta
x Ad
min
istra
tion
on: t
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tax
retu
rns
e-fil
ed d
urin
g th
e la
st fi
scal
yea
r for
VAT
taxe
s.
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Ther
e is
no
com
para
ble
data
.
Ther
e is
no
com
para
ble
data
.
Ther
e is
no
com
para
ble
data
The
Nig
eria
n go
vern
men
t an
noun
ced
that
ele
ctro
nic
tax
retu
rns
wou
ld b
e in
trodu
ced
in
2017
. It i
s to
o ea
rly to
obt
ain
relia
ble
data
on
this
.
Prev
entio
n of
ta
x ev
asio
nN
o da
ta id
entifi
edN
ot a
vaila
ble
Ther
e is
no
com
para
ble
data
.
Leve
l of t
ax g
ap
mea
sure
men
tN
o da
ta id
entifi
edN
ot a
vaila
ble
Ther
e is
no
com
para
ble
data
.
28 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Soci
al s
ecur
ity a
dmin
istr
atio
n
Ove
rall
effici
ency
of
dist
ribut
ion
Adm
inis
tratio
n co
sts
as a
per
cent
age
of to
tal
expe
nditu
re o
n so
cial
sec
urity
.
Not
ava
ilabl
eTh
ere
is n
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta.
Use
r cen
trici
ty
of s
ervi
ces
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eTh
ere
is n
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta.
Exte
nt a
nd
qual
ity o
f dig
ital
prov
isio
n
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eTh
ere
is n
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta.
Prev
entio
n of
fra
udN
o da
ta id
entifi
edN
ot a
vaila
ble
Ther
e is
no
com
para
ble
data
.
Dig
ital s
ervi
ce
Use
r cen
trici
ty
of s
ervi
ces
Euro
pean
Com
mis
sion
E-G
over
nmen
t ben
chm
ark:
‘U
ser C
entri
city
’, in
dica
tes
to w
hat e
xten
t (in
form
atio
n ab
out)
a se
rvic
e is
pro
vide
d on
line.
Not
ava
ilabl
eDi
gita
l ado
ptio
n in
dex
(gov
ernm
ent s
ub-in
dex)
UN
E-G
over
nanc
e Su
rvey
(e-g
over
nmen
t dev
elop
men
t in
dex)
This
is a
n ov
eral
l ran
king
of
e=go
vern
men
t.
Tran
spar
ency
of
serv
ice
Euro
pean
Com
mis
sion
E-G
over
nmen
t ben
chm
ark:
‘T
rans
pare
ncy’
, ind
icat
es to
wha
t ext
ent
gove
rnm
ents
are
tran
spar
ent a
s re
gard
s a)
thei
r ow
n re
spon
sibi
litie
s an
d pe
rform
ance
, b) t
he
proc
ess
of s
ervi
ce d
eliv
ery
and
c) p
erso
nal d
ata
invo
lved
.
Not
ava
ilabl
eG
loba
l Int
egrit
y In
dex
In p
ract
ice,
min
istri
es a
nd a
uton
omou
s ag
enci
es h
ave
web
site
s.
In p
ract
ice
publ
ic s
ervi
ce re
gula
tory
age
ncie
s an
d th
e na
tiona
l om
buds
man
(whe
re th
ere
is o
ne) h
ave
web
site
s.
Thes
e m
etric
s pr
ovid
e so
me
data
on
the
exte
nt o
f tra
nspa
renc
y of
th
e go
vern
men
t.
Cro
ss-b
orde
r m
obilit
y of
se
rvic
es
Euro
pean
Com
mis
sion
E-G
over
nmen
t ben
chm
ark:
‘C
ross
Bor
der M
obilit
y’, i
ndic
ates
to w
hat e
xten
t Eu
rope
an u
sers
can
use
onl
ine
serv
ices
in a
noth
er
coun
try;
Not
ava
ilabl
eTh
ere
is n
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta.
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 29
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
The
avai
labi
lity
of ‘k
ey e
nabl
ers’
Euro
pean
Com
mis
sion
E-G
over
nmen
t ben
chm
ark:
‘K
ey E
nabl
ers’
, ind
icat
es th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
five
te
chni
cal p
re-c
ondi
tions
for e
Gov
ernm
ent a
re u
sed.
Not
ava
ilabl
eTh
ere
is n
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta.
Inte
grity
Leve
ls/
perc
eptio
ns o
f co
rrupt
ion
‘Cor
rupt
ion
Perc
eptio
ns’:
Glo
bal C
orru
ptio
n Ba
rom
eter
– %
of p
eopl
e vi
ewin
g pu
blic
offi
cial
s/ci
vil s
erva
nts
as c
orru
pt;
‘Pub
lic O
ffici
als
Stea
ling’
: QoG
– e
xper
t opi
nion
of
how
ofte
n pu
blic
sec
tor o
ffici
als
stea
l or e
mbe
zzle
pu
blic
fund
s;
‘Pub
lic O
ffici
als
Favo
urs
for B
ribes
’: Q
oG –
exp
ert
opin
ion
of h
ow o
ften
publ
ic s
ecto
r offi
cial
s gr
ant
favo
urs
for b
ribes
; ‘G
over
nmen
t Fav
ourit
ism
of B
usin
ess’
: WEF
GC
I –
busi
ness
exe
cutiv
e op
inio
n of
ext
ent g
over
nmen
t offi
cial
s sh
ow fa
vour
itism
to w
ell-c
onne
cted
firm
s.
The
data
com
es
from
a p
ublic
op
inio
n su
rvey
of
per
cept
ions
of
corru
ptio
n. T
he
sam
ple
size
is la
rge
so th
e da
ta s
houl
d be
relia
ble.
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
http
s://o
pend
atab
arom
eter
.org
/dat
a-ex
plor
er/?
_ye
ar=2
015&
indi
cato
r=O
DB&l
ang=
en&o
pen=
NG
ASa
me
sour
ce is
ava
ilabl
eSa
me
sour
ce is
ava
ilabl
e
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Fairn
ess
and
impa
rtial
ity‘F
air T
reat
men
t by
Publ
ic O
ffici
als’
: QoG
exp
ert
asse
ssm
ent o
f ext
ent t
o w
hich
pub
lic s
ecto
r em
ploy
ees
treat
som
e gr
oups
in s
ocie
ty u
nfai
rly;
‘Pub
lic O
ffici
als
Act I
mpa
rtial
ly’:
QoG
exp
ert
asse
ssm
ent o
f ext
ent t
o w
hich
pub
lic s
ecto
r em
ploy
ees
act i
mpa
rtial
ly w
hen
deci
ding
how
to
impl
emen
t pol
icy.
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent o
n Q
oG
data
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
http
s://q
og.p
ol.g
u.se
/dat
a/da
tado
wnl
oads
/qo
gexp
erts
urve
ydat
a
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Adhe
renc
e to
rule
s an
d pr
oced
ures
‘Pub
lic O
ffici
als
Follo
w R
ules
’: Q
oG e
xper
t as
sess
men
t of e
xten
t to
whi
ch p
ublic
sec
tor
empl
oyee
s st
rive
to fo
llow
rule
s.
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Striv
ing
to s
erve
ci
tizen
s an
d m
inis
ters
‘Pub
lic O
ffici
als
Striv
e to
Hel
p C
itize
ns’:
QoG
ex
pert
asse
ssm
ent o
f ext
ent t
o w
hich
pub
lic s
ecto
r em
ploy
ees
striv
e to
hel
p ci
tizen
s;
‘Pub
lic O
ffici
als
Striv
e to
Impl
emen
t Pol
icie
s’ Q
oG
expe
rt as
sess
men
t of e
xten
t to
whi
ch p
ublic
sec
tor
empl
oyee
s st
rive
to im
plem
ent p
olic
ies
deci
ded
by
polit
ical
lead
ers;
‘P
ublic
Offi
cial
s St
rive
to F
ulfil
l Ide
olog
y’: Q
oG
expe
rt as
sess
men
t of e
xten
t to
whi
ch p
ublic
se
ctor
em
ploy
ees
striv
e to
fulfi
l ide
olog
y of
par
ty in
go
vern
men
t.
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent o
n Q
oG
data
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
30 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Wor
k et
hic
‘Em
ploy
ee A
bsen
ces’
: QoG
exp
ert a
sses
smen
t of
exte
nt to
whi
ch p
ublic
sec
tor e
mpl
oyee
s ar
e ab
sent
w
ithou
t per
mis
sion
; ‘E
mpl
oyee
Effi
cien
cy’:
QoG
exp
ert a
sses
smen
t of
exte
nt to
whi
ch p
ublic
sec
tor e
mpl
oyee
s st
rive
to
be e
ffici
ent.
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent o
n Q
oG
data
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Proc
esse
s in
pla
ce to
pr
eser
ve
inte
grity
and
pr
even
t con
flict
s of
inte
rest
‘Pos
t Em
ploy
men
t Coo
ling
Off’
: OEC
D da
ta o
n w
heth
er a
pos
t-em
ploy
men
t coo
ling
off p
erio
d ex
ists
and
whe
ther
it’s
paid
; ‘L
obby
ist P
rote
ctio
n’: O
ECD
data
on
degr
ee o
f pr
otec
tion
agai
nst l
obby
ists
and
oth
er p
rivat
e in
tere
sts
influ
enci
ng a
dvis
ory
grou
ps;
‘Whi
stle
blow
er P
rote
ctio
n: C
over
age’
: OEC
D da
ta
on n
umbe
r of g
roup
s w
ho re
ceiv
e w
hist
lebl
ower
pr
otec
tion;
‘W
hist
lebl
ower
Pro
tect
ion:
Deg
ree’
: qog
exp
ert
asse
ssm
ent o
f deg
ree
of w
hist
lebl
ower
pro
tect
ion.
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent o
n Q
oG
data
No
com
para
ble
data
No
data
is a
vaila
ble
No
data
is a
vaila
ble
Sam
e da
ta s
ourc
e.
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 31
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Ope
nnes
s
The
degr
ee
and
qual
ity
of s
ocie
tal
cons
ulta
tion
The
‘Civ
ic P
artic
ipat
ion’
com
pone
nt o
f the
O
pen
Gov
ernm
ent I
ndex
, whi
ch “m
easu
res
the
effec
tiven
ess
of c
ivic
par
ticip
atio
n m
echa
nism
s,
incl
udin
g th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e fre
edom
s of
opi
nion
an
d ex
pres
sion
, and
ass
embl
y an
d as
soci
atio
n,
and
the
right
to p
etiti
on th
e go
vern
men
t. It
also
m
easu
res
whe
ther
peo
ple
can
voic
e co
ncer
ns
to v
ario
us g
over
nmen
t offi
cers
and
mem
bers
of
the
legi
slat
ure,
and
whe
ther
gov
ernm
ent o
ffici
als
prov
ide
suffi
cien
t inf
orm
atio
n an
d no
tice
abou
t de
cisi
ons
affec
ting
the
com
mun
ity, i
nclu
ding
op
portu
nitie
s fo
r citi
zen
feed
back
”; ‘E
-Gov
ernm
ent E
ngag
emen
t’: T
he U
N’s
E-Pa
rtici
patio
n In
dex,
whi
ch re
view
s th
e qu
ality
an
d us
eful
ness
of e
-gov
ernm
ent p
rogr
ams
for
the
purp
ose
of e
ngag
ing
peop
le in
pub
lic p
olic
y-m
akin
g an
d im
plem
enta
tion;
‘N
egot
iatin
g Pu
blic
Sup
port’
Ber
tels
man
n su
b-in
dica
tor,
whi
ch “a
sses
ses
how
suc
cess
fully
the
gove
rnm
ent c
onsu
lts w
ith s
ocie
tal a
ctor
s su
ch
as tr
ade
unio
ns, e
mpl
oyer
s’ a
ssoc
iatio
ns, l
eadi
ng
busi
ness
ass
ocia
tions
, rel
igio
us c
omm
uniti
es, a
nd
soci
al a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tal i
nter
est g
roup
s in
epa
ring
its p
olic
y.”
The
data
is b
ased
on
a p
ublic
opt
ion
surv
ey. T
he s
ampl
e is
rest
ricte
d to
thre
e ci
ties
per c
ount
ry is
an
ticip
ated
to h
ave
an u
rban
bia
s.
Data
is re
liabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Ope
n G
over
nanc
e In
dex
has
info
rmat
ion
on c
ivic
go
vern
ance
(fac
tor 7
)
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
UN
E-G
over
nanc
e Su
rvey
(e-g
over
nmen
t par
ticip
atio
n in
dex)
No
com
para
ble
data
The
exis
tenc
e an
d qu
ality
of
com
plai
nt
mec
hani
sms
The
‘Com
plai
nt M
echa
nism
s’ c
ompo
nent
of t
he
Ope
n G
over
nmen
t Ind
ex, w
hich
“mea
sure
s w
heth
er
peop
le a
re a
ble
to b
ring
spec
ific
com
plai
nts
to th
e go
vern
men
t abo
ut th
e pr
ovis
ion
of p
ublic
ser
vice
s or
the
perfo
rman
ce o
f gov
ernm
ent o
ffice
rs in
ca
rryin
g ou
t the
ir le
gal d
utie
s in
pra
ctic
e, a
nd h
ow
gove
rnm
ent o
ffici
als
resp
ond
to s
uch
com
plai
nts.
It
also
mea
sure
s w
heth
er p
eopl
e ca
n ch
alle
nge
gove
rnm
ent d
ecis
ions
bef
ore
anot
her g
over
nmen
t ag
ency
or a
judg
e.”
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent.
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Ope
n G
over
nanc
e In
dex
has
info
rmat
ion
on c
ompl
aint
s m
echa
nism
s (fa
ctor
3.4
)
32 InternationalCivilServiceEffectiveness(InCiSE)Index
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Gov
ernm
ent
data
ava
ilabi
lity
and
acce
ssib
ility
‘Ope
n Da
ta P
ract
ice
and
Impa
ct’:
The
Ope
n Da
ta
Baro
met
er (O
DB) m
easu
res
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
op
en d
ata
prac
tice
and
is th
e on
ly in
dex
to a
lso
mea
sure
the
impa
ct o
f ope
n da
ta (e
.g. h
ow m
any
use
it).
‘Gov
ernm
ent D
atas
ets
Ope
nnes
s’: T
he O
pen
Data
In
dex
(ODI
) mea
sure
s w
heth
er p
ublic
ly h
eld
data
ac
ross
13
area
s is
defi
ned
as o
pen,
with
resu
lts
crow
dsou
rced
from
vol
unte
ers
revi
ewin
g w
ebsi
tes.
‘Dat
a Av
aila
bilit
y an
d G
over
nmen
t Sup
port’
: The
O
URd
ata
inde
x al
so a
ims
to c
aptu
re th
e av
aila
bilit
y an
d ac
cess
ibilit
y of
dat
a bu
t uni
quel
y it
also
at
tem
pts
to m
easu
re th
e le
vel o
f pro
-act
ive
supp
ort
gove
rnm
ents
pro
vide
to fo
ster
inno
vativ
e re
-use
of
the
data
.
Not
ava
ilabl
eG
loba
l Com
petit
iven
ess
Surv
ey –
Tra
nspa
renc
y of
go
vern
men
t pol
icy
mak
ing
This
is re
late
d m
etric
of
trans
pare
ncy.
Gov
ernm
ent
data
impa
ct
and
supp
ort
for r
e-us
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
No
com
para
ble
data
No
com
para
ble
data
Righ
t to
info
rmat
ion
(e
.g. F
OIs
)
The
‘Rig
hts
to In
form
atio
n’ c
ompo
nent
of t
he O
pen
Gov
ernm
ent I
ndex
whi
ch “m
easu
res
whe
ther
re
ques
ts fo
r inf
orm
atio
n he
ld b
y a
gove
rnm
ent
agen
cy a
re g
rant
ed. I
t als
o m
easu
res
whe
ther
th
ese
requ
ests
are
gra
nted
with
in a
reas
onab
le
time
perio
d, if
the
info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
is p
ertin
ent
and
com
plet
e, a
nd if
requ
ests
for i
nfor
mat
ion
are
gran
ted
at a
reas
onab
le c
ost a
nd w
ithou
t hav
ing
to
pay
a br
ibe.
Thi
s di
men
sion
als
o m
easu
res
whe
ther
pe
ople
are
aw
are
of th
eir r
ight
to in
form
atio
n, a
nd
whe
ther
rele
vant
reco
rds
– su
ch a
s bu
dget
figu
res
of g
over
nmen
t offi
cial
s, o
mbu
dsm
an re
ports
, and
in
form
atio
n re
lativ
e to
com
mun
ity p
roje
cts
– ar
e ac
cess
ible
to th
e pu
blic
upo
n re
ques
t.”
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e da
ta s
ourc
e.
Assessment of the applicability of the InCiSE methodology to Nigeria 33
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Publ
icis
ed la
ws
The
‘Pub
licis
ed L
aws’
com
pone
nt o
f the
Ope
n G
over
nmen
t Ind
ex, w
hich
“mea
sure
s w
heth
er
basi
c la
ws
and
info
rmat
ion
on le
gal r
ight
s ar
e pu
blic
ly a
vaila
ble,
pre
sent
ed in
pla
in la
ngua
ge,
and
are
mad
e ac
cess
ible
in a
ll la
ngua
ges
used
by
sig
nific
ant s
egm
ents
of t
he p
opul
atio
n.
This
dim
ensi
on a
lso
mea
sure
s th
e qu
ality
an
d ac
cess
ibilit
y of
info
rmat
ion
publ
ishe
d by
th
e go
vern
men
t in
prin
t or o
nlin
e (i.
e. a
ctiv
e tra
nspa
renc
y), a
nd w
heth
er a
dmin
istra
tive
regu
latio
ns, d
rafts
of l
egis
latio
n, a
dmin
istra
tive
deci
sion
s, a
nd h
igh
cour
t dec
isio
ns a
re m
ade
acce
ssib
le to
the
publ
ic in
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r.”
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e so
urce
is a
vaila
ble
Cap
abili
ties
Lead
ersh
ip
capa
bilit
yN
o da
ta id
entifi
edN
ot a
vaila
ble
No
com
para
ble
data
Com
mer
cial
ca
pabi
lity
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Anal
ytic
al
capa
bilit
yN
o da
ta id
entifi
edN
ot a
vaila
ble
No
com
para
ble
data
Digi
tal c
apab
ility
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Cor
e ca
pabi
lity
(e.g
. pro
blem
-so
lvin
g,
num
erac
y, lit
erac
y sk
ills)
‘Lite
racy
Ski
lls’:
Take
n fro
m th
e O
ECD’
s PI
AAC
(S
urve
y of
Adu
lt Sk
ills) d
ata
(ana
lysi
s of
the
mic
roda
ta):
the
prop
ortio
n of
the
publ
ic s
ecto
r ge
tting
leve
l 4 o
r 5 fo
r lite
racy
ski
lls;
‘Num
erac
y Sk
ills’:
The
prop
ortio
n of
the
publ
ic
sect
or g
ettin
g le
vel 4
or 5
for n
umer
acy
skills
; ‘P
robl
em S
olvi
ng S
kills
’: Th
e pr
opor
tion
of th
e pu
blic
sec
tor g
ettin
g le
vel 3
for p
robl
em s
kills
.
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Not
ava
ilabl
e
No
com
para
ble
data
No
com
para
ble
data
No
com
para
ble
data
Educ
atio
nal
atta
inm
ent o
f th
e w
orkf
orce
‘Edu
catio
nal A
ttain
men
t’: T
he p
ropo
rtion
of t
he
publ
ic s
ecto
r with
terti
ary
educ
atio
n, ta
ken
from
th
e O
ECD’
s PI
AAC
(Sur
vey
of A
dult
Skills
) dat
a (a
naly
sis
of th
e m
icro
data
).
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Them
eMetricscurre
ntlyusedinInCiSE
Index
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he In
CiSE
m
etric
s fo
r Nige
ria
Alte
rnat
ive m
etric
s av
ailab
le fo
r Nig
eria
Com
men
ts o
n th
e qu
ality
of t
he
alter
nativ
e m
etric
s
Incl
usiv
enes
s
Prop
ortio
nate
ge
nder
re
pres
enta
tion
‘Gen
der:
Cen
tral G
over
nmen
t Sha
re’:
OEC
D da
ta –
th
e ab
solu
te d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e sh
are
of to
tal
cent
ral g
over
nmen
t em
ploy
men
t fille
d by
wom
en
and
the
shar
e of
wom
en in
the
labo
ur fo
rce;
‘G
ende
r: Pu
blic
Sec
tor S
hare
’: Q
oG d
ata
– th
e ab
solu
te d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n pr
opor
tion
of w
omen
in
pub
lic s
ecto
r and
in th
e la
bour
forc
e;‘G
ende
r: M
anag
emen
t Sha
re’:
OEC
D da
ta –
th
e ab
solu
te d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e sh
are
of
empl
oym
ent i
n to
p m
anag
emen
t pos
ition
s w
ithin
ce
ntra
l gov
ernm
ent fi
lled
by w
omen
and
the
shar
e of
wom
en in
the
labo
ur fo
rce;
‘Gen
der:
Seni
or M
anag
emen
t Sha
re’:
QoG
dat
a –
the
abso
lute
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
prop
ortio
n of
w
omen
in c
entra
l gov
ernm
ent s
enio
r pos
ition
s an
d in
the
labo
ur fo
rce
Not
ava
ilabl
e
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent o
n Q
0G
data
.
Not
ava
ilabl
e
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Afric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank
Gen
der E
qual
ity In
dex
ht
tps:
//ww
w.af
db.o
rg/e
n/to
pics
-and
-sec
tors
/topi
cs/q
uality
-assurance-results/gender-e
quality-index/
Sam
e da
ta s
ourc
e
No
com
para
ble
data
Sam
e da
ta s
ourc
e
This
is a
n ov
eral
l pro
xy m
easu
re
of g
ende
r equ
ity.
Prop
ortio
nate
et
hnic
min
ority
re
pres
enta
tion
‘Eth
nic
and
Relig
ious
Gro
up R
epre
sent
atio
n’: Q
oG
data
– e
xper
t opi
nion
as
to w
heth
er ‘K
ey e
thni
c an
d re
ligio
us g
roup
s in
soc
iety
are
pro
porti
onal
ly
repr
esen
ted
amon
g pu
blic
sec
tor e
mpl
oyee
s (1
=har
dly
ever
, 7=a
lmos
t alw
ays)
’
See
prev
ious
co
mm
ent
Sam
e da
ta s
ourc
e
Prop
ortio
nate
di
sabi
lity
repr
esen
tatio
n
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Prop
ortio
nate
so
cio-
econ
omic
re
pres
enta
tion
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
Prop
ortio
nate
Le
sbia
n G
ay
Bi-s
exua
l Tr
ansg
ende
r O
ther
sex
ualit
y re
pres
enta
tion
No
data
iden
tified
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
o co
mpa
rabl
e da
ta
The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index project is a collaboration between the Blavatnik School of Government and the Institute for Government. It has been supported by the UK Civil Service and funded by the Open Society Foundations.
