We are entering that time of the year when a slew of Western think tanks and NGOs will issue various “global rankings” for 2024 on democracy, media freedom, happiness, and other assorted subjective issues. Almost certainly, most of these will show India at the bottom of the pile — unhappier than countries at war, less free than Afghanistan, and so on. In the last few years, several commentators, including this author, have exposed the ludicrous methodologies used to arrive at these rankings.
It is important readers recognise that these rankings are not harmless annoyances that can be ignored. They have real-world implications because they are hardwired inputs into sovereign ratings and other decision-making processes. They are also used for a range of activities, from academic research to the manipulation of geopolitical narratives. Therefore, these rankings and indices cannot be casually ignored. They need to be actively deconstructed. Those interested in a critique of their methodologies may see EAC-PM working papers: Reversing the Gaze (March 2023) and Why India Does Poorly on Global Perception Indices (November 2022). However, this article will look at a somewhat different issue — the well-oiled institutional system that gives these indices and rankings their legitimacy.
An important route that gives these indices both legitimacy and influence is their inclusion in the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) hosted on the World Bank’s website (bit.ly/4cv8xDf). As stated on the website, WGI is “a global compilation of data capturing household, business and citizen perceptions of the quality of governance in more than 200 countries”. Thus, legitimised by the World Bank, these indicators are then used by investment managers, academia, credit ratings agencies, and so on.
Therefore, it will come as a surprise to many commentators that WGI is not the property of the World Bank, but of two researchers — Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay. The page mentions them in passing, and the wording gives the impression that they happen to be employees who are currently managing it on behalf of the World Bank. What is not made clear is that the two researchers own the space. Readers can verify this on the website and decide if it is misleading. Kaufmann, for instance, left the institution years ago and appears to be the semi-retired emeritus president of a think tank.
It is only when one gets to the small print at the bottom of the page that one realises what is going on: “The WGI represent research published to encourage academic debate and analysis. The views expressed in the research methodology do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank, its Executive Board, or World Bank management.”
While it is not unusual for researchers to put out an idea as a paper for discussion, the WGI page is quite different, as it is a continuously updated curation of indicators that is permanently hosted on the website of the World Bank. Inclusion in the list clearly lends a certain legitimacy derived from the multilateral agency. In fact, it is most commonly referred to as World Bank WGI. Yet, the institution takes no responsibility for it!
The way WGI is set up makes it so that it provides indicators for six categories: voice and accountability, political stability, governance effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Rankings and indices from various think tanks are aggregated into these categories. The choice of these sources is entirely derived from the personal preferences of Kaufmann and Kraay — no justification is given for the choices. What is also striking is that most of the sources are derived from a few North Atlantic institutions. Surely, Worldwide Global Indicators hosted by the World Bank should reflects opinions from across the world.
In recent years, several country representatives at the World Bank have questioned the placing of WGI on the World Bank website. The matter has even been discussed at the board level, but somehow, WGI continues to be hosted by the multilateral agency. However, if anyone raises an objection about any of the curated indices, they are directed by World Bank officials to the original sources. The origin think tanks and NGOs do not feel they owe anyone an explanation, as their place in the WGI is secure.
This problem was illustrated last year by the response of Staffan Lindberg, director of Sweden-based Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem), to criticism of their annual global democracy rankings. Rather than explain the methodology, Lindberg condescendingly stated in an interview that V-Dem’s rankings were based on complex mathematical computations by a supercomputer. In other words, there was no need to explain things to mere mortals. One wonders why V-Dem needs complex mathematics and a supercomputer to collate the views of some 30-40 unknown “experts”.
Once legitimised by the World Bank or a similar institution, the index or ranking finds its way into academia, media, and even government documents. In turn, they amplify the narrative by quoting each other in circular references. These days they get further amplified by artificial intelligence algorithms and Wikipedia. Eventually, it ends up as received wisdom in college essays and everyday conversations that no longer look back at the primary evidence. The whole edifice may be based on a single point of legitimacy but the ordinary person will think “surely they cannot all be wrong”.
As one can see, this is rather like a money laundering operation where the World Bank gives legitimacy to WGI but takes no responsibility, WGI then passes the buck to the source think tanks, and the think tanks blame it on supercomputers. This is why it is important to question this global narrative-making system as well as think of how institutions from outside the North Atlantic cabal can do global rankings and sovereign ratings.
(Views expressed in this article are personal views of the author.)