غينيا الاستوائية

The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) analyzes and evaluates the quality of democracy, a market economy and political management in 128 developing and transition countries. It measures successes and setbacks on the path toward a democracy based on the rule of law and a market economy flanked by sociopolitical safeguards. Within this framework, the BTI publishes two rankings, the Status Index and the Management Index. Countries are further categorized on the basis of these status index and management rankings/scores. For instance, countries are categorized in to 5 groups – viz; 5 or failed, 4 or very limited, 3 or limited, 2 or advanced, and 1 or highly advanced—based on their status index score of 1 to 10. A country with a high score, 8.5 and above, is categorized as highly advanced. A country with a low score, below 4, is categorized as failed. A country is categorized as ‘very limited’ if it has a status index score between 4 and 5.5. A score between 5.5 and 7 means the country is categorized as ‘limited’ and a country is categorized as ‘advanced’ for a score between 7.1 and 8.5. On the basis of the democratic status ranking, countries are further categorized as 5 or ‘hard - line autocracies,’ 4 or ‘moderate autocracies,’ 3 or ‘highly defective democracies,’ 2 or ‘defective democracies,’ and 1 or ‘democracies in consolidation.’ A country with a democratic status ranking below 4 is categorized as a hard line autocracy. A democratic status score between 4 and 5 means that the country is part of the ‘moderate autocracy’ group. A country is grouped as a ‘highly defective democracy’ for a score between 5 and 6. A country is recognized as a ‘defective democracy’ for a score between 6 and 8, and a score of 8 and above earns a country the status of a ‘democracy in consolidation.’ Countries are also categorized in to 5 groups based on their market economy status ranking. The countries are categorized as ‘rudimentary’ or group 5, ‘poorly functioning’ or group 4, ‘functional flaws’ or group 3, ‘functioning’ or group 2, and ‘developed’ or group 1. A country is recognized as a member of the ‘developed’ group with a market economy status ranking/score of 8 and above. A country is grouped as ‘functioning’ if it has a score between 7 and 8. A market economy status ranking between 5 and 7 means the country is categorized to group 3 or the ‘functional flaws’ group. A score between 3 and 5 means that the country is ‘poorly functioning’ and a score below 3 means the country enjoys a ‘rudimentary’ status. Based on the management index ranking, countries are categorized as 5 or failed, 4 or weak, 3 or moderate, 2 or good, and1 or very good. A country is categorized as ‘very good’ for a score of 7 and above. It is categorized as ‘good’ for a score between 5.6 and 7, and as ‘moderate’ for a score between 4.4 and 5.5. A score between 3 and 4.3 means a country is categorized as ‘weak,’ and a score below 3 means the categorization of a country as ‘failed.’ Countries are ranked between 1 and 10 on the basis of the level of difficulty they face. The level of difficulty is further categorized as 5 or negligible, 4 or minor, 3 or moderate, 2 or substantial, and 1 or massive. A score of 8.5 and above means the categorization of the country’s level of difficulty as ‘massive, and a score below 2.5 means the categorization of the level of difficulty faced by the country as ‘negligible.’ The level of difficulty score of 2.5 to 4.4 means a country faces a ‘minor’ level of difficulty and a score between 4.5 and 6.4 means the level of difficulty faced by a country is ‘moderate.’ A country with a score of 6.5 to 8.4 faces a ‘substantial’ level of difficulty.

Freedom Status obtained by Combined Average of the Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings (Freedom Rating) Range 1-7; 1-2.5 Free; 3-5: Partly Free and 5.5-7: Not Free The score for the A. Electoral Process subcategory The score for the B. Political Pluralism and Participation subcategory The score for the C. Functioning of Government subcategory The score for the Political Rights category The score for the D. Freedom of Expression and Belief subcategory The score for the E. Associational and Organizational Rights subcategory The score for the F. Rule of Law subcategory The score for the G. Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights subcategory The score for the Civil Liberties category Total aggregate Score for all categories  

Data cited at: Germanwatch-https://www.germanwatch.org/en/cri 

The average global index score stagnated in 2022. Despite expectations of a rebound after the lifting of pandemic-related restrictions, the score was almost unchanged, at 5.29 (on a 0-10 scale), compared with 5.28 in 2021. The positive effect of the restoration of individual freedoms was cancelled out by negative developments globally. The scores of more than half of the countries measured by the index either stagnated or declined. Western Europe was a positive outlier, being the only region whose score returned to pre-pandemic levels. 

Highlights of the  Global Sustainable Competitiveness Report 2024:The GSCI is now based on a new calculation methodology incorporating 216 quantitative indicators that uses (but is not based upon) AI tools to clean data, and analyse trends and correlations • Scandinavia continues to make its mark on the Sustainable Competitiveness Index: of the top 5 spots, 4 are Scandinavian. Sweden keeps topping the Index, followed by Finland and Denmark; • Northern European countries dominate the top 20 rankings; • Only two countries in the Top 20 are not European: Japan on 10, and South on 16; • China is ranked 28, exceling in Intellectual Capital but lags in Natural Capital and Resource Efficiency, albeit with encouraging signs of efficiency improvements; • The USA is ranked 35, performing comparatively poor in resource efficiency and social capital, reflecting a decline that could potentially undermine the global status of the US in the future; • Germany ranks 9, France 8, and the UK 14; • Brazil ranks 52, India 90, and Nigeria – Africa’s most populous nation – 145; • Some of the least developed nations have a considerable higher GSCI ranking than their GDP would suggest (e.g. Vietnam, Colombia, Peu, Nepal, Bhutan, Bolivia, …) • Asian nations (South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and China) lead the Intellectual Capital Index – the basis of innovation. • The Social Capital Index ranking is headed by Northern European (Scandinavian) countries, the result of economic growth combined with a commonly accepted social consensus • Countries savaged by violent conflicts (Sudan, Yemen, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan) are at the bottom of the GSCI

Data Cited at: UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, Human Development Data Center The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of achievements in three key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the the three dimensions.

Data Cited at - Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. (2019): Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). The Sustainable Development Report 2020 presents the SDG Index and Dashboards for all UN member states and frames the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in terms of six broad transformations. It was prepared by teams of independent experts at the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and the Bertelsmann Stiftung.

The Chinn-Ito index (KAOPEN) is an index measuring a country's degree of capital account openness. The index was initially introduced in Chinn and Ito (Journal of Development Economics, 2006). KAOPEN is based on the binary dummy variables that codify the tabulation of restrictions on cross-border financial transactions reported in the IMF's Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (AREAER).   Chinn, Menzie D. and Hiro Ito (2008). "A New Measure of Financial Openness". Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 309 – 322 (September). Ito, Hiro (2006). "Financial Development in Asia: Thresholds, Institutions, and the Sequence of Liberalization". North American Journal of Economics and Finance, issue 17(3) (December). Chinn, Menzie D. and Hiro Ito (2006)."What Matters for Financial Development? Capital Controls, Institutions, and Interactions," Journal of Development Economics, Volume 81, Issue 1, Pages 163-192 (October). The longer version is available as NBER Working Paper No. 11370 (May 2005). The previous version is "Capital Account Liberalization, Institutions and Financial Development: Cross Country Evidence," (with Menzie Chinn) NBER Working Paper Series, #8967 (June 2002).  

The Global Slavery Index, the flagship report of the Walk Free Foundation. The Global Slavery Index estimates the number of people in modern slavery in 167 countries. It is a tool for citizens, non government organisations, businesses and public officials to understand the size of the problem, existing responses and contributing factors, so they can build sound policies that will end modern slavery. The Global Slavery Index answers the following questions: What is the estimated prevalence of modern slavery country by country, and what is the absolute number by population? How are governments tackling modern slavery? What factors explain or predict the prevalence of modern slavery? Government Response Rating by Country A - 70 to 79.9 BBB - 60 to 69.9 BB - 50 to 59.9 B - 40 to 49.9 CCC - 30 to 39.9 DC - 20 to 29.9 C - 10 to 19.9 D - <0 to 9.9

Data cited at: UN E-Government Knowledgebase - https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/ 1. The EGDI is based on a comprehensive Survey of the online presence of all 193 United Nations Member States, which assesses national websites and how e-government policies and strategies are applied in general and in specific sectors for delivery of essential services. The assessment rates the e-government performance of countries relative to one another as opposed to being an absolute measurement. The results are tabulated and combined with a set of indicators embodying a country’s capacity to participate in the information society, without which e-government development efforts are of limited immediate use. Although the basic model has remained consistent, the precise meaning of these values varies from one edition of the Survey to the next as understanding of the potential of e-government changes and the underlying technology evolves. This is an important distinction because it also implies that it is a comparative framework that seeks to encompass various approaches that may evolve over time instead of advocating a linear path with an absolute goal. 2. E-Government Development Index-EGDI Very High-EGDI (Greater than 0.75) High-EGDI (Between 0.50 and 0.75) Middle-EGDI (Between 0.25 and 0.50) Low-EGDI (Less than 0.25)

The primary World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially-recognized international sources. It presents the most current and accurate global development data available, and includes national, regional and global estimates