The document provides an overview of development indicators and governance indicators for major regions and countries around the world. It contains graphs and data on per capita income, poverty rates, income inequality, human development index, incidence of poverty, and indicators of governance such as control of corruption, government effectiveness, voice and accountability, and rule of law. The document compares these metrics across regions, countries, and time periods to show international comparisons.

1. GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT:
SOME INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISONS
ROBERTO VILLARREAL
August 2012

2. CONTENTS
• This presentation depicts graphically some indicators of development (average per
capita income, poverty rate and income inequality), as well as some governance
indicators (government effectiveness, control of corruption, voice and
accountability, and rule of law).
• Their definitions and sources are indicated in the respective slides.
• Major regions and countries around the world are portrayed in comparative terms.
• The order in which slides are presented is as follows:
– Major regions of the world
– Arab countries
– East and South Asia and Pacific countries
– Eastern Europe and CIS countries
– Latin America and Caribbean countries
– OECD countries
– Sub-Saharan African countries
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

3. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
MAJOR REGIONS AROUND THE WORLD
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

4. INCOME PER CAPITA*, SELECTED REGIONS AND WORLD AVERAGES, 1990-2006
40000
1
35000
30000
25000
1 North America
2 Europe
20000 3 World
4 Central America and Caribbean
5 South America
15000 6 Middle East and North Africa
7 Asia (excluding Middle east) 2
8 Sub-Saharan Africa
10000
3
5000
4
5
6
7
0
8
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
* GDP per capita, constant US dollars (Constant 2000 US$ per person)
SOURCE: Prepared with data from http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-640.html, Development Data
Group, The World Bank. 2008. 2008 World Development Indicators Online. Washington, DC: The World Bank. See also http://
go.worldbank.org/UOFSM7AQ40 ROBERTO VILLARREAL

5. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX, BY MAJOR REGIONS, 1985-2010
0.75
EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA
LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN
0.7
EAST ASIA & PACIFIC
0.65
ARAB STATES
0.6
0.55
SOUTH ASIA
0.5
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
0.45
0.4
0.35
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the Human Development Report Database, United Nations Development Program.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/ The HDI is a composite indicator that combines measurements of per capita
income, schooling and life expectancy.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

6. AVERAGE INCOME AND POVERTY IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2005 1,2
100
300 dollars 625 dollars 1,250 dollars 2,500 dollars 5,000 dollars 10,000 dollars 20,000
dollars
per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita
90
Percentage of the population living under 1.25 dollars a day
Tanzania
80 Burundi
Rwanda Nepal Zwaziland
70
Niger
Madagascar
60 Sierra Leone
Dem. Rep. Congo Angola
Uganda Mali
50 of Congo Bangladesh
Lesotho
40 Ethiopia Togo India
Senegal Micronesia
30 Ghana
South Africa
Cote d’Ivoire Honduras Saint Lucia
20 Bolivia
Kenya Indonesia Colombia
China Belize
Yemen Panama
10 Nicaragua Guatemala
Paraguay Salvador Venezuela
Egypt TunisiaBrazil Mexico
0 Argentina
Jordan Romania
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3
Gross National Income per capita (logarithm base 10)
1 Latest available data up to year 2005 2 PPP data for 2005
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the Human Development Report database, United Nations Development
Program, http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

7. INCIDENCE AND DEPTH OF POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, MAJOR REGIONS*, 1995-2010
East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa
Millions of persons Average income shortfall
below the povety line relative to the poverty line (%)
1000 30
900
25
800
700
20
600
500 15
400
10
300
200
5
100
0 0
East Asia & Pacific East Asia & Pacific South Asia 1990 South Asia 2005 Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africa
1990 2005 1990 2005
* The bars respresent the number of persons living under 1.25 dollars a day (adjusted for international purchasing power
parity) and their magnitude is measured on the left axis in millions of persons. The dots indicate the average percentage
shortfall from the poverty line and the magnitude is expressed on the right axis in percentage.
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank Development Indicators
Database, http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

8. INCIDENCE AND DEPTH OF POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, MAJOR REGIONS*, 1995-2010
Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Central Asia
Millions of persons Average income shortfall
below the povety line relative to the poverty line (%)
60 6
50 5
40 4
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
Latin America & Latin America & Middle East & Middle East & Europe & Central Europe & Central
Caribbean 1990 Caribbean 2005 North Africa 1990 North Africa 2005 Asia 1990 Asia 2005
* The bars respresent the number of persons living under 1.25 dollars a day (adjusted for international purchasing power
parity) and their magnitude is measured on the left axis in millions of persons. The dots indicate the average percentage
shortfall from the poverty line and the magnitude is expressed on the right axis in percentage.
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank Development Indicators
Database, http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

9. INCOME AND INCOME INEQUALITY IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE
WORLD, 2005
70
LOW INCOME Latvia HIGH INCOME
65 HIGH INEQUALITY HIGH INEQUALITY
Swaziland
60 Brazil Poland
Angola
Colombia
HondurasBelize South Africa
55 Bolivia Thailand
Liberia Rwanda Sao Tome e Guatemala Panama
Principe
Paraguay
50 Nicaragua Dominican Mexico
Rep.
Income inequality 1
Madagascar
Kenya El Salvador Argentina
Dem. Rep. Mozambique
45 Philippines Malaysia
of Congo Jamaica
Uganda Cambodia Russian Fed.
Morocco China Gabon
United States
Qatar
40 Ghana Mauritania
India Jordan Tunisia Turkey
Guinea Lithuania Italy
Tanzania Algeria Iran
35 Lao Indonesia
Croatia
Spain Belgium
Kyrgyzstan Albania Switzerland
Burundi Niger Togo Greece
Egypt Kazahstan Hungary
30 Bangladesh Timor Canada France
Leste Armenia Romania Austria
Ethiopia
Tajikistan Serbia Estonia Germany
25 Ukraine Finland
Belarus Norway
LOW INCOME Sweden HIGH INCOME
Chile
20 LOW INEQUALITY Seychelles LOW INEQUALITY
150 dollars 300 dollars 625 dollars 1,250 dollars 2,500 dollars 5,000 dollars 10,000 dollars 20,000 dollars 40,000 dollars 80,000 dollars
15 per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita per capita
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5
Average income level 2
1 Latest available value of the income Gini coefficient in the period 1995-2009.
2 Gross National Intome per capita, 2005. Scale in logarithm base 10.
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the Hhuman Development Report database, United Nations Development
Program, http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

10. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2010
2.5 Higher Finland
effectiveness Singapore Denmark
in government Sweden
2 Austria Canada
Australia New
Belgium Luxemburg
Barbados UK Zealand
Netherlands
1.5 France Germany Iceland
Israel Estonia USA Japan Ireland
Malaysia Korea Cayman Is Chile
Portugal
1 Czech RepSlovenia Spain Qatar
Croatia Hungary Dominica Bahamas
Italy Oman Uruguay
Greece0.5 Poland Antigua and
South Botswana Barbuda
Less control Mexico Africa Costa Rica More control
of corruption China Colombia Tunisia Brazil Puerto Rico of corruption
Armenia 0 Rwanda
Argentina Saudi
-2 -1.5 Peru -1 -0.5 0 Arabia 0.5Cuba 1 1.5 2 2.5
Russia Kenya Egypt Morocco
Kyrgystan -0.5 Lesotho
Uzbekistan Syria
Cambodia Zambia
Iraq Burundi Madagascar
-1
Angola Nigeria Liberia Djibouti
Zimbabwe Central
Afghanistan Chad Togo African Eritrea -1.5
Myanmar Haiti Rep
Equatorial CongoDemRep Comoros
Guinea North Korea
-2 Lower
Somalia effectiveness
in government
-2.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
ROBERTO VILLARREAL
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such

11. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES
AROUND THE WORLD, 2010
3 More control
of corruption
2.5 New Zealand Denmark
Singapore Finland Sweden
Australia Norway
2 Iceland Luxemburg
Germany Austria
Qatar Japan
1.5 Antigua and Chile France
Barbuda Belgium
Bahamas UK
United Arab Cayman United States
Emirates Islands Portugal Spain
Bhutan 1 Botswana Martinique
Brunei Slovenia
Cuba Rwanda Israel
Grenada Costa Rica
Oman Kuwait 0.5 Namibia Korea Poland
Lower voice and Lesotho Higher voice and
accountability Saudi Arabia Bahrain Ghana accountability
Malaysia Hungary
Jordan Brazil South Africa
Swaziland 0
Tunisia Belize Georgia Mexico
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 Argentina 0.5 Greece1 1.5 2
Algeria Sri Lanka
Viet Nam -0.5 Marshall
Eritrea China Egypt Armenia India Islands
Iran Belorus Nepal Benin
Mali
Yemen Russia -1
Lybia Kenya
Uzbekistan Chad Pakistan
Sudan Papua and
North Korea Haiti New Guinea
Turkmenistan Zimbabwe Iraq Angola -1.5
Equatorial Less control
Myanmar Guinea Afghanistan
Somalia of corruption
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as fredom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

12. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION, RULE OF LAW AND VOICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, 2009
2 Higher Voice and Accountability
Denmark
Iceland
Sweden
1.5 Belgium France
St Lucia New Zealand
Portugal Canada
Australia
Marshall Is NauaruCosta Rica
Micronesia Japan
Italy UK
1 USA
Grenada Mauritius Anguilla
Chile
Belize Tuvalu
Kiribati
Brazil Vanuatu Israel Korea Rep
Jamaica Hong Kong SAR China
0.5
Bulgaria
Benin Romania
Suriname Antigua Barbuda
Botswana
Papua New Guinea Namibia Netherland
Macedonia
Worse Rule of Law Timor Leste Mexico Seychelles s Better Rule of Law
Bolivia 0
Tonga
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 Kenya -0.5 0 Turkey 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Ecuador Burkina Faso
Bangladesh Singapore
Nicaragua -0.5 Malaysia
Haiti Uganda Kuwait
Guinea Bissau Morocco Bhutan Bahrain Brunei
Venezuela Nigeria Cambodia
Kyrgyztan Rusia Armenia Jordan Qatar
Angola -1
Azerbaijan United Arab Emirates
Iraq Oman
Cote D’Iivoire Egypt
Afghanistan Yemen Rwanda Tunisia
Congo DR Iran Syria
Chad Belarus -1.5
Zimbabwe Guinea Lao
Sudan China
Equatorial Guinea Cuba
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Turkmenistan Uzbekistan -2
Somalia
Myanmar
Korea DR
-2.5
Lower Voice and Accountability
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Rule of Law” indicator measures the degree to which actiors
have confidence in and abide by the rules of sociery, including contract enforcement, property rights, police, and courts, as well as the
ROBERTO VILLARREAL
likelihood of crime and violence. It is represented by the size of the circles, solid ones denote positive values and clear ones negative; their
size is proportional to the absolute value.

13. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
ARAB COUNTRIES
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

14. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN ARAB COUNTRIES, 2010
1.5
Higher
effectiveness
in government
1 Qatar
United
Arab
Bahrain Emirates
Oman
0.5
Less control Tunisia More control
of corruption Jordan Kuwait of corruption
0
Morocco
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 Saudi 0.5 1 1.5 2
Lebanon Arabia
Egypt
-0.5
Syria Algeria
Yemen
-1
Lower
Iraq effectiveness
Sudan Libya in government
-1.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨¨Government Effectiveness¨indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
policies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL

15. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN ARAB COUNTRIES, 2010
2
More control
of corruption
Qatar
1.5
United
Arab 1
Emirates
0.5
Oman Kuwait
Lower voice and Bahrain Higher voice and
accountability Saudi Arabia Jordan accountability
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 Tunisia -1 Morocco -0.5 0
-0.5
Egypt Algeria
Lebanon
-1
Syria Yemen
Libya Less control
Sudan of corruption
Iraq
-1.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

16. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
EAST AND SOUTH ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

17. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF EAST ASIA, 2010
2.5
Higher
effectiveness Singapore
in government
2
1.5
Malaysia
1
Brunei
0.5
Less control China Thailand More control
of corruption of corruption
0
Phillipines
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Indonesia Vietnam
-0.5
Cambodia
Mongolia
-1
Laos
-1.5
Myanmar
North Korea -2
Lower
effectiveness
in government
-2.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
ROBERTO VILLARREAL
policies.

18. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF EAST ASIA, 2010
2.5
More control
Singapore of corruption
2
1.5
1
Brunei
0.5
Lower voice and Higher voice and
accountability Malaysia accountability
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
Thailand
-0.5
China Vietnam Indonesia Mongolia
Philippines
Laos -1
Cambodia
North Korea
-1.5
Myanmar Less control
of corruption
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

19. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF SOUTH ASIA, 2010
1
Higher
effectiveness
in government
Bhutan
0.5
India
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 Sri Lanka 0 0.5 1
Less control
of corruption Maldives More control
of corruption
-0.5
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh Nepal
-1
Afghanistan
-1.5
Lower
effectiveness
in government
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
policies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL

20. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF SOUTH ASIA, 2010
1
More control
Bhutan of corruption
0.5
Lower voice and Higher voice and
accountability accountability
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Sri Lanka
-0.5
Maldives India
Nepal
Iran
Bangladesh -1
Pakistan
-1.5
Afghanistan
Less control
of corruption
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

21. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF THE PACIFIC, 2010
Higher
effectiveness
in government
0
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Less control
Samoa More control
of corruption -0.2 of corruption
Tonga
Vanuatu
-0.4
Tuvalu
-0.6
Papua and Fiji
New Guinea
Micronesia
-0.8
Solomon
Islands Kiribati
-1
-1.2
Lower
Marshall effectiveness
Islands -1.4
in government
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
ROBERTO VILLARREAL
policies.

22. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF THE PACIFIC, 2010
0.6
More control
of corruption
0.4
Vanuatu
0.2
Lower voice and Samoa Higher voice and
accountability accountability
0
Kiribati
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Micronesia 1.5
-0.2 Tuvalu
Tonga
-0.4 Marshall Islands
Solomon Islands
-0.6
-0.8
Fiji
-1
Papua and New Guinea
-1.2
Less control
of corruption
-1.4
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

23. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
EASTERN EUROPE AND COUNTRIES OF THE
COMMUNITY OF INDEPENDENT STATES (CIS)
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

24. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF EASTERN EUROPE AND CIS, 2010
1
Higher
effectiveness Latvia
in government Lithuania
0.5 Croatia
Georgia
Less control More control
of corruption Bulgaria of corruption
0
Serbia
-1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
Romania 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Kazahstan Armenia Macedonia
Russia Albania
-0.5
Kyrgystan
Uzbekistan Azerbaijan Moldova
Ukraine Bosnia Albania
Herzegovina
Tajikistan -1
Belarus
-1.5
Turkmenistan Lower
effectiveness
in government
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
ROBERTO VILLARREAL
policies.

25. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN EASTERN EUROPEAN AND CIS*
COUNTRIES, 2010
0.4 More control
of corruption Lithuania
0.2 Latvia
Croacia
0
Macedonia
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
Georgia 0 Romania 0.5 1 1.5
-0.2 Bulgaria
Lower voice and Serbia Higher voice and
Bosnia-Herzegovina
accountability accountability
-0.4
Albania
-0.6
Armenia
Moldova
Belarus -0.8
Kazakhstan Ukraine
-1
Kyrgystan Russia
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan -1.2
Uzbekistan
-1.4
Turkmenistan Less control
of corruption
-1.6
* Community of Independent States, formed after the Soviet Union.
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

26. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBEAN
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

27. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, 2010
1.5
Higher French
effectiveness Guiana Chile
in government
1
Uruguay
0.5
Costa Rica
Mexico
Less control Colombia El Brazil More control
of corruption Panama Salvador of corruption
0
-1.5 -1
Guyana -0.5 Suriname 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Argentina Peru
-0.5
Honduras Bolivia Belize
Ecuador
Guatemala
Paraguay
Nicaragua -1
Venezuela
Lower
effectiveness
in government
-1.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
policies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL

28. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, 2010
2
More control
of corruption
1.5 Chile
Uruguay
French Guiana
1
Costa Rica
0.5
Lower voice and Higher voice and
accountability Brazil accountability
0
Belize
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 El Salvador
Peru 0.5 1 1.5
Mexico Panama
Colombia Argentina Suriname
Guatemala -0.5
Bolivia Guyana
Nicaragua Paraguay
Honduras Ecuador
-1
Venezuela Less control
of corruption
-1.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

29. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES, 2010
2
Higher
effectiveness
in government
1.5
Cayman Barbados
Islands
Bermuda
1 St. Lucia Bahamas
Martinique
Dominica Antigua and
0.5 Barbuda
Jamaica Puerto Rico St. Vincent St. Kitts
Less control Trinidad and the and Nevis More control
of corruption and Tobago Grenada Grenadines of corruption
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Cuba
-0.5
Dominican
Republic
-1
-1.5
Lower
Haiti effectiveness
in government
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
policies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL

30. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN COUNTRIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, 2010
2
More control
of corruption
1.5 Antigua and Barbados
Bahamas Bermuda
Barbuda
Cayman St. Lucia
Islands St. Kitts St. Vincent and
1 and Nevis the Ggrenedines
Martinique
Dominica
Cuba
0.5 Puerto Rico
Grenada
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Lower voice and Jamaica Trinidad and Higher voice and
accountability Tobago accountability
-0.5
Dominican
-1 Republic
Haiti Less control
of corruption
-1.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

31. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
OECD* COUNTRIES
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

32. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN OECD COUNTRIES, 2010
2.5
Higher
effectiveness Finland
in government Denmark
2
Sweden
Switzerland
Austria Canada New Zealand
Norway
Belgium Netherlands
Australia
Luxembourg
1.5
United Kingdom Iceland
United States Germany
France Japan
Israel Estonia
Korea Rep. Ireland
Czech Rep Chile
1 Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Hungary Poland
Greece0.5 Italy
Turkey
Mexico
Less control More control
of corruption 0 of corruption
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨Government Effectiveness¨ indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
policies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL

33. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN OECD COUNTRIES, 2010
2.5
More control New Zealand Denmark
of corruption
Netherlands Sweden
Finland
Canada Norway
2 Australia Iceland Switzerland
Luxembourg
Germany
Ireland
Austria
Japan United
1.5
Chile Kingdom Belgium
France
United
States
1
Portugal Spain
Slovenia Estonia
Israel
0.5
Korea Poland
Hungary
Lower voice and Slovakia Czech Rep Higher voice and
accountability accountability
0
Turkey Italy
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Greece 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Less control
of corruption Mexico
-0.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

34. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS SUB-
SAHARAN AFRICA
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

35. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS IN
GOVERNMENT, IN COUNTRIES OF SUBSAHARAN AFRICA, 2010
1
Higher
effectiveness Mauritius
in government
Botswana
0.5
South Africa
Seychelles
Ghana Namibia
0
Rwanda
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 Cape 1 1.5
Verte More control
Less control Ethiopia Malawi Lesotho of corruption
of corruption Senegal Mozambique
Kenya Tanzania -0.5
Swaziland
Uganda Benin Burkina Faso
Niger Gambia Sao Tome e Principe
Cameroon Gabon Zambia
Mali Madagascar
Mauritania -1
Angola Burundi Djibouti
Guinea Guinea Bissau
Sierra Leone
Congo Nigeria Liberia
Cote d’Ivoire Central Eritrea
Chad Togo African
Zimbabwe -1.5
Republic
Equatorial Dem
Guinea Rep Comoros
Congo
-2
Somalia Lower
effectiveness
in government
-2.5
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to
perceptions of the extent to which public power is excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of
corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts. The ¨¨Government Effectiveness¨indicator reflects
perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political
pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government´s commitment to such
policies. ROBERTO VILLARREAL

36. VOICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONTROL OF
CORRUPTION, IN SUBSAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES, 2010
1.5
More control
of corruption
1 Botswana
Cape Verte
Rwanda Mauritius
0.5
Seychelles
Lower voice and Namibia Higher voice and
Lesotho Ghana
accountability South Africa accountability
0
Swaziland
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1
Madagascar -0.5 Malawi Mozambique
0 0.5 1 1.5
Djibouti Burkina Faso
Eritrea Sao Tome e Principe
Gambia Mauritania Niger Liberia -0.5 Tanzania
Zambia Mali
Ethiopia Senegal Benin
Central African Rep Gabon Comoros Sierra Leone
Cameroon Togo Nigeria Uganda Kenya -1
Guinea-Bissau
Cote d’Ivoire Burundi
Chad Congo Guinea
Angola
Equatorial Guinea Zimbabwe Congo Dem. Rep.
-1.5
Somalia Less control
of corruption
-2
SOURCE: Prepared with data from the World Bank, public governance indicators
database, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls . The “Voice and Accountability” indicator reflects perceptions of
the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of
association and free media. The ¨Control of Corruption¨ indicator corresponds to perceptions of the extent to which public power is
excercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as ´capture´of the State by elites and private intersts.
ROBERTO VILLARREAL

37. END OF PRESENTATION
ROBERTO VILLARREAL