The Institute of the Sciences of State and Governance of National University has introduced the Good State and Governance Report 2015 to the public at the conference of International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM) hosted by NUPS in Budapest between 15-16th of October. The Report presents an autonomous, scientifically grounded measurement and founded on methodological and statistical indicators to measure changes in governance capabilities at specified time intervals.
The report, as specified by Dr. Norbert Kis, Vice-Rector for Continuing Education and International Affairs, is not aimed to replace the internationally used ratings and is not a response to those. As the measurement of government performance is inseparable from the given country’s socio-economic position, its special attributes and problems, as well as from the targets set by the government, developing a set if indicators that would be applicable in national context. The Report’s primary target audiences are the players and professional bodies and epistemic communities involved in evaluating possible government decisions.
Dr. Krisztián Kádár has stressed that in elaborating the measurement tools, the researchers’ goal was to look at the mechanism that affect the efficiency of the government performance. Therefore, the measurement structure of the Good State and Governance is formed by four hierarchical levels. The first level (1) is the complex phenomenon of the good state, below this uppermost level are the areas of influence (2). Areas of influence express the interrelationships between major sectors of economics, society and public administration, which can be captured either separately or comprehensively. These provide a measurable picture of the government capabilities fundamentally determining the functioning of the Good State and Governance. The indicators measure the strengths and weaknesses of government capabilities across the six areas of influence listed below:
· Security and trust in government;
· Public well-being;
· Financial stability and economic competitiveness;
· Effective public administration.
The third level (3) is formed by the dimensions. While each area of influence pertains to a major, general subject area, it is through the dimensions that the strongest specific phenomena are captured within a given area of influence. A dimension can be homogeneous, that is, the indicators used in the system are really different measurements pertaining to the same area and, accordingly, are measured on the same scale. The approach of the Report, in contrast to this, is multi-dimensional (heterogeneous), since according to its starting point, the areas of influence of governance are not units and can thus be broken down into further sub-areas.
In order to measure these sub-areas, indicators associated with the individual dimensions are used to make up the fourth level (4). The complete set of all associated indicators forms the indicator system. Arranged into groups, the indicators fit into sub-areas, which go hand in hand with the methodological variegation, in that the indicators measure a variety of scales that cannot be directly compared.