+7 925 966 4690, 9am6pm (GMT+3), Monday – Friday
ÈÄ «Ôèíàíñû è êðåäèò»

JOURNALS

  

FOR AUTHORS

  

SUBSCRIBE

    
Financial Analytics: Science and Experience
 

The use of WGI methods of the World Bank to evaluate change in Russia’s institutional environment: opportunities and constraints

Vol. 9, Iss. 46, DECEMBER 2016

PDF  Article PDF Version

Received: 17 November 2016

Received in revised form: 29 November 2016

Accepted: 13 December 2016

Available online: 21 December 2016

Subject Heading: MONITORING OF ECONOMIC PROCESSES

JEL Classification: B52, E02, O11, O43, P51

Pages: 32-44

Vikharev V.V. Kuban State Technological University, Krasnodar, Krasnodar Krai, Russian Federation
v.v.viharev@mail.ru

Importance Whereas the institutional environment should be improved during the transformation of socio-economic systems, there should be relevant methodological tools to analyze and evaluate it. Researches, scholarly teams and large international organizations devised a lot of various methods, including World Governance Indicators (WGI). Therefore, it is reasonable to determine opportunities and constraints of this method for purposes of evaluation of Russia’s institutional environment.
Objectives The research identifies and indicates what impedes the use of the WGI method proposed by the World Bank, and analyzes trends in the development of Russia’s institutional environment using this method.
Methods Using methods of dynamic, situation and comparative analysis and the indicative method based on the World Bank’s WGI, I evaluate and investigate the development of Russia’s institutional environment.
Results Having evaluated the development of Russia’s institutional environment and analyzed its trends in 2000–2015, I concluded that, notwithstanding positive trends in most WGIs, almost each indicator of Russia lagged behind not only foreign countries, but also some countries of the BRICS and CIS.
Conclusions and Relevance WGI methods face certain practical constraints due their complexity, with some source indicators being incomparable in terms of time and space, and indicators used to assess WGI being disputable. If applied, the method will allow for evaluating the institutional environment by different aspect, i.e. the efficiency of governmental authorities, civil rights and freedoms, political stability, security, legislative regulation, supremacy of law, and corruption.

Keywords: WGI, institutional environment, efficiency, public administration

References:

  1. Igonina L.L. [Russia’s economic model 2: trends and contexts. The 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference in Anapa. 2013, 15–19 May]. Journal of Economic Regulation, 2013, no. 2, ðð. 135–139. (In Russ.)
  2. Igonina L.L., Sobolev E.N. [Political economy: a view on capitalism]. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossijskoj akademii nauk, 2013, no. 1, ðð. 179–188. (In Russ.)
  3. Igonina L.L. Finansovaya sistema i ekonomicheskoe razvitie: monografiya [The financial system and economic development: a monograph]. Moscow, RuScience Publ., 2016, 140 ð.
  4. Vikharev V.V. [Projected estimates of the institutional environment development in the transforming socio-economic system of Russia through the PRS Group indices as part of the ICRG model]. Ekonomiko-pravovye aspekty realizatsii strategii modernizatsii Rossii: real'nye imperativy dinamichnogo sotsiokhozyaistvennogo razvitiya: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Proc. Int. Sci. Conf. Economic and Legal Aspects of Implementing Russia’s Modernization Strategy: Real Imperatives of Dynamic Socio-Economic Development]. Krasnodar, Yuzhny Institute of Management Publ., 2014, ðð. 76–81.
  5. Gretchen C., Tufis C. Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets. Political Analysis, 2003, vol. 11, iss. 2, ðð. 196–203. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpg009
  6. Mironyuk M.G., Timofeev I.N., Vaslavskii Ya.I. [Versatile comparison using quantitative research methods]. POLIS. Politicheskie issledovaniya = Journal Polis. Political Studies, 2006, no. 5, ðð. 39–57. (In Russ.) doi: Link
  7. Polterovich V., Popov V., Tonis A. Ekonomicheskaya politika, kachestvo institutov i mekhanizmy “resursnogo proklyatiya” [Economic policy, quality of institutions and ‘resource curse’ mechanisms]. Moscow, HSE Publ., 2007, 98 ð.
  8. Petukhov A.Yu., Krasnitskii N.V. [Modeling the Russian management sub-system trends of 1996–2013]. Vektor nauki TGU = Vector of Science of Togliatti State University, 2014, no. 4, ðð. 189–195. (In Russ.)
  9. Âulach M.Kh., Krivtsova M.K. [The issue of evaluating the efficiency of governing bodies: foreign experience]. Gosudarstvennyi audit. Pravo. Ekonomika = State Audit. Law. Economics, 2015, no. 1, ðð. 104–107. (In Russ.)
  10. Tyagletsova Ya.S. [Evaluating the public administration rating in the Russian Federation]. Molodezh' i XXI vek: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [The Youth and the 21st Century]. Kursk, Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2012, ðð. 358–361.
  11. Popov V.V. [Why did the West get rich earlier than other countries? Why has China almost caught up with the West? A new reply to the old question]. Zhurnal Novoi ekonomicheskoi assotsiatsii = Journal of the New Economic Association, 2012, no. 3, ðð. 35–64. (In Russ.)
  12. Polterovich V., Popov V. [Democracy, quality of institutions and economic growth]. Prognozis, 2006, no. 3, ðð. 115–132. (In Russ.)
  13. Nurul Aqilah Binti Zamri, Wan Mohammad Taufik Bin Wan Abdullah, Nurul Nadiah Binti Ahmad. Greasing the Wheels of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) through Smart Governance Matrix (SGM) in Controlling Corruption. International Business Management, 2015, vol. 9, iss. 4, ðð. 536–539. doi: 10.3923/ibm.2015.536.539
  14. Anagnostou A., Kallioras D., Kollias C. Governance Convergence Among the EU28? Social Indicators Research, 2016, vol. 129, iss. 1, ðð. 133–146. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-1095-2
  15. Votápková J., Žák M. Institutional Efficiency of Selected EU & OECD Countries using Dea-like Approach. Prague Economic Papers, 2013, no. 2, ðð. 206–223. doi: 10.18267/j.pep.448
  16. Albassam B.A. The Influence of Budget Transparency on Quality of Governance. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2016, vol. 7, no. 1, ðð. 227–238. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n1p227
  17. Thomas M. What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure? The European Journal of Development Research, 2009, vol. 22, iss. 1, ðð. 31–54. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2009.32
  18. Langbein L., Knack S. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Six, One, or None? The Journal of Development Studies, 2010, vol. 46, iss. 2, ðð. 350–370. doi: 10.1080/00220380902952399
  19. Kaufmann D., Kraay À., Mastruzzi Ì. Growth and Governance: A Reply. The Journal of Politics, 2007, vol. 69, iss. 2, ðð. 555–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00550.x
  20. Kaufmann D., Kraay À., Mastruzzi Ì. Response to ‘What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?’ The European Journal of Development Research, 2010, vol. 22, iss. 1, ðð. 55–58. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2009.49
  21. Kaufmann D., Kraay À. Governance Indicators: Where Are We, and Where Should We Be Going? The World Bank Research Observer, 2008, vol. 23, iss. 1, ðð. 1–30. doi: 10.1093/wbro/lkm012

View all articles of issue

 

ISSN 2311-8768 (Online)
ISSN 2073-4484 (Print)

Journal current issue

Vol. 17, Iss. 1
March 2024

Archive