|
The World Justice Project
Rule of Law Index™
2011
Mark David Agrast
Juan Carlos Botero
Alejandro Ponce
The World Justice Project
A multidisciplinary, multinational
movement to advance the rule of
law for communities of opportunity
and equity
The World Justice Project
Rule of Law Index™
2011
Mark David Agrast
Juan Carlos Botero
Alejandro Ponce
The World Justice Project
Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Emil Constantinescu, Ashraf Ghani, William C. Hubbard, Mondli
Makhanya, William H. Neukom, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat.
Officers: William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; William H. Neukom, President and Chief Executive Officer;
Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice President; Suzanne E. Gilbert, Vice President; James R. Silkenat, Vice President; Lawrence B.
Bailey, Secretary; Roderick B. Mathews, Treasurer; Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel.
Executive Director: Hongxia Liu.
Rule of Law Index 2011 Team: Mark David Agrast, Chair; Juan Carlos Botero, Director; Alejandro Ponce, Senior Economist;
Joel Martinez; Christine S. Pratt; Oussama Bouchebti; Kelly Roberts; Chantal V. Bright; Juan Manuel Botero; Nathan
Menon; Raymond Webster; Chelsea Jaetzold; Claros Morean; Elsa Khwaja; Kristina Fridman. Consultants: Jose Caballero
and Dounia Bennani.
_________________________
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ 2011 report was made possible by generous support from:
The Neukom Family Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and LexisNexis.
And from GE Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, National
Endowment for Democracy, Oak Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Allen & Overy
Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Chase Family Philanthropic Fund, Microsoft Corporation, LexisNexis,
General Electric Company, Intel Corporation, The Boeing Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., HP,
McKinsey & Company, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Texas Instruments, Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Viacom
International, Inc., K & L Gates; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, White & Case LLP, Allen & Overy LLP, Hunton &
Williams, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stower, Mason, Hayes+Curran, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Garrigues LLP, Troutman
Sanders LLP, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Turner Freeman Lawyers, Cochingyan & Peralta Law Offices, SyCip Salazar
Hernandez & Gatmaitan, Major, Lindsey & Africa, Irish Aid, American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy,
and Resources, American Bar Association Section of Health Law, American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property,
American Bar Association Section of International Law, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and individual supporters listed in the
last section of this report.
_________________________
Copyright 2011 by The World Justice Project. The WJP Rule of Law Index™ and The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index
are trademarks of The World Justice Project. All rights reserved. Requests to reproduce this document should be sent to Juan
C. Botero, the World Justice Project, 740 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A.
E-mail:boteroj@wjpnet.org
Graphic design: Joshua Steele and Jonathan Kerr.
Suggested citation:
Agrast, M., Botero, J., Ponce, A., WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. Washington, D.C.: The World Justice Project.
Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................1
Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index™ .........................5
Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World ....................................19
Regional Highlights ..........................................................................21
Country Profiles ................................................................................39
Data Tables .......................................................................................107
Data Notes ........................................................................................117
Part III: Contributing Experts .........................................................123
Part IV: Acknowledgements .............................................................139
About The World Justice Project ......................................................145
Executive Summary
1
adjudicator; and whether people can conduct their daily
activities without fear of crime or police abuse.
The Index provides new data on the following nine
dimensions of the rule of law:
» Limited government powers
» Absence of corruption
» Order and security
» Fundamental rights
» Open government
» Regulatory enforcement
» Access to civil justice
» Effective criminal justice
» Informal justice
These nine factors are further disaggregated into 52 subfactors.
The scores of these sub-factors are built from
over 400 variables drawn from assessments of the general
public (1,000 respondents per country) and local legal
experts1. The outcome of this exercise is one of the world’s
most comprehensive data sets measuring the extent to
which countries adhere to the rule of law—not in theory
but in practice.
Defining the rule of law
As used by the World Justice Project, the rule of law
refers to a rules-based system in which the following four
universal principles are upheld:
» The government and its officials and
agents are accountable under the law.
» The laws are clear, publicized, stable,
and fair, and protect fundamental rights,
including the security of persons and
property.
» The process by which the laws are enacted,
administered, and enforced is accessible,
fair, and efficient.
» Access to justice is provided by competent,
independent, and ethical adjudicators,
attorneys or representatives, and judicial
officers who are of sufficient number,
have adequate resources, and reflect the
makeup of the communities they serve.
These principles are derived from international sources
that enjoy broad acceptance across countries with differing
social, cultural, economic, and political systems, and
incorporate both substantive and procedural elements.
1 We are grateful for the generous engagement of the over 2,000 academics and
practitioners around the world who contributed their time and expertise, and the
66,000 individuals who participated in the general population poll.
Executive Summary
“The rule of law is the foundation for communities
of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for
the eradication of poverty, violence, corruption,
pandemics, and other threats to civil society.”
William H. Neukom, Founder, President and
CEO of the World Justice Project
Advancing the rule of law around the world is the
central goal of the World Justice Project (WJP).
Establishing the rule of law is fundamental to achieving
communities of opportunity and equity—communities
that offer sustainable economic development, accountable
government, and respect for fundamental rights. Without
the rule of law, medicines do not reach health facilities
due to corruption; women in rural areas remain unaware
of their rights; people are killed in criminal violence; and
firms’ costs increase because of expropriation risk. The
rule of law is the cornerstone to improving public health,
safeguarding participation, ensuring security, and fighting
poverty.
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ is an innovative
quantitative assessment tool designed to offer a
comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries
adhere to the rule of law, not in theory, but in practice.
This report is the second in an annual series.
Indices and indicators are very useful tools. The systematic
tracking of infant mortality rates, for instance, has greatly
contributed to improving health outcomes around the
globe. In a similar fashion, the WJP Rule of Law
Index™ monitors the health of a country’s institutional
environment—such as whether government officials are
accountable under the law, and whether legal institutions
protect fundamental rights and allow ordinary people
access to justice.
The WJP Rule of Law Index™
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ presents a
comprehensive set of indicators on the rule of law from
the perspective of the ordinary person. It examines
practical situations in which a rule of law deficit may
affect the daily lives of ordinary people. For instance, the
Index evaluates whether citizens can access public services
without the need to bribe a government officer; whether
a basic dispute among neighbors or companies can be
peacefully and cost-effectively resolved by an independent
WJP Rule of Law Index™
2
learned during the WJP’s implementation of the Index in
66 jurisdictions. It is anticipated that global coverage will
expand to 100 countries in 2012.
More than half of the countries included in the 2011
report were also indexed in 2010. Country profiles for
these countries are based chiefly on new data collected
during the second quarter of 2011. However, because
country scores are normalized across the entire sample of
indexed countries, individual country findings in the 2011
report are not comparable to the previous year’s results.
The Index 2011 report introduces four conceptual and
methodological changes. First, Factor 3 (Clear, Publicized
and Stable Laws) and Factor 6 (Open Government) from
the 2010 report have been merged to form Factor 5 of
the current report. The sub-factors of Factor 2 (Absence
of Corruption) have been redefined to their current
status. Third, for the first time data has been collected on
transition of power, civil conflict, freedom of assembly and
association, due process in administrative proceedings, and
criminal recidivism. Finally, in the measurement of Factor
3 (Order and Security) a few variables from third-party
sources have been incorporated into the Index. Changes
introduced in 2011 are explained in the Data Notes
section of this report, and further methodological details
are provided in Botero and Ponce, “Measuring the Rule of
Law”, 2011, available online at www.worldjusticeproject.
org.
The Index is intended for a broad audience of policymakers,
civil society, practitioners, academics, and other
constituencies. We hope that over time, this tool will help
identify strengths and weaknesses in each country under
review and encourage policy choices that advance the rule
of law.
About the World Justice Project
The World Justice Project (WJP) is a multinational and
multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the rule of law
throughout the world. It is based on two complementary
premises: first, the rule of law is the foundation for
communities of opportunity and equity; and second,
multidisciplinary collaboration is the most effective way
to advance the rule of law.
The WJP’s work is being carried out through three
complementary and mutually reinforcing program areas:
Mainstreaming, the Rule of Law Index, and Scholarship.
The Project’s efforts are dedicated to increasing public
awareness about the concept and practice of the rule
of law, developing practical programs in support of the
rule of law at the community level, and stimulating
government reforms that enhance the rule of law. Further
details are provided in the last section of this report and
at www.worldjusticeproject.org.
Uses of the Index
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ is an instrument
for strengthening the rule of law. It offers reliable,
independent, and disaggregated information for policy
makers, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and
other constituencies to:
» Assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of
law in practice;
» Identify a nation’s strengths and
weaknesses in comparison to similarly
situated countries; and
» Track changes over time.
While the WJP Rule of Law Index™ enters a crowded
field of indicators on different aspects of the rule of law, it
has a number of features that set it apart:
» Comprehensiveness. While other
indices cover aspects of the rule of law,
they do not yield a full picture of rule of
law compliance.
» New data. The Index findings are based
almost entirely on new data collected by
the WJP from independent sources. This
contrasts it with other indices based on
data aggregated from third-party sources,
or on sources that are self-reported by
governments or other interested parties.
» Rule of law in practice. The Index
measures adherence to the rule of law by
looking not to the laws as written but at
how they are actually applied in practice.
» Anchored in actual experiences.
The Index combines expert opinion with
rigorous polling of the general public
to ensure that the findings reflect the
conditions experienced by the population,
including marginalized sectors of society.
» Action oriented. Findings are presented
in disaggregated form, identifying strong
and weak performers across the nine
rule of law dimensions examined in each
country.
Despite these methodological strengths, the findings
should be interpreted in light of certain inherent
limitations. While the Index is helpful in taking the
“temperature” of the rule of law in the countries under
study, it does not provide a full diagnosis or dictate
concrete priorities for action. No single index can convey
a full picture of a country’s situation. Rule of law analysis
requires a careful consideration of multiple dimensions—
which may vary from country to country—and a
combination of sources, instruments, and methods.
This report introduces the framework of the WJP Rule
of Law Index™ and summarizes the results and lessons
Part I: Constructing the
WJP Rule of Law Index™
Mark David Agrast1 Juan Carlos Botero, and Alejandro Ponce
The World Justice Project2
1 Mr. Agrast did not participate in the collection, analysis or review of the data and results (Part II of this report).
2 This section builds on previous work developed in collaboration with Claudia J. Dumas.
Constructing the Index
7
Constructing
the WJP Rule of
Law Index™
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ is an innovative
quantitative assessment tool designed to offer a
detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to
which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.
The Index introduces new indicators on the rule
of law from the perspective of the ordinary person.
It considers practical situations in which a rule
of law deficit may affect the daily lives of people.
For instance, whether people can access public
services without the need to bribe a government
officer; whether a basic dispute among neighbors
or companies can be peacefully and cost-effectively
resolved by an independent adjudicator; or whether
people can conduct their daily activities without
fear of crime or police abuse.
The Index provides new data on the following nine
dimensions of the rule of law: limited government
powers; absence of corruption; order and security;
fundamental rights; open government; regulatory
enforcement; access to civil justice; effective criminal
justice; and informal justice. These nine factors are
further disaggregated into 52 sub-factors.
The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of
a rigorous data collection and aggregation process.
Data comes from a global poll of the general public
and detailed questionnaires administered to local
experts. To date, over 2,000 experts and 66,000 other
individuals from around the world have participated
in this project.
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 is the second
report in an annual series. It builds on four years
WJP Rule of Law Index™
8
of the Index presented in 2010 for 66 countries,
including updated data for the 35 countries indexed
in 2010 plus new data for 31 additional countries.
We anticipate that the Index will expand to cover
100 countries in 2012.
It should be emphasized that the Index is intended
to be applied in countries with vastly differing social,
cultural, economic, and political systems. No society
has ever attained—let alone sustained—a perfect
realization of the rule of law. Every nation faces the
perpetual challenge of building and renewing the
of development, intensive consultation, and vetting
with academics, practitioners, and community
leaders from over 100 countries and 17 professional
disciplines. Version 1.0 of the Index was presented
at the first World Justice Forum in 2008, including
findings from a pilot conducted in six countries.
Version 2.0 was presented at the second World
Justice Forum in 2009, featuring preliminary
findings for 35 countries. Version 3.0 was launched
in October 2010, featuring a new version of the Index
and country profiles for the same 35 countries. The
current report introduces a slightly modified version
Box 1. Why is the rule of law important?
! "!
#
$!"
%
!
"!
!
"%
#
&
$
! %
#
%'
!
#$
( "
% !
#
%
&
)
!""
( % !
% !
$
% !
"
"
%
"
"
*!&
+# ! %
%
$
!
"
!
% "
"
!
#
!
%
!
("! $
#
"!$
" ! "
"
,-
. "
(a) Business environment
Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources
!
"
% (
# !
%
!"
" $
"
"
%
1$
!
2!
! #
!
( #
."
"
$
!
#
# $ #
-
!
" %
$
!"
!
!
"
"
%
# !
%
#
(b) Public works
3
!
!
!
4!
% "!
(
%
$ #
witnessed devastating earthquakes causing buildings
" % $
#
#
"
! !
!
%
#
1
" (
!
"
!
(c) Public health
"%
%
!
%
#
% %
5 $ $
$
" % !
#
%
%
!
6
!
%$"
!
" "
(
% #
" %
7 !
895
!
$ %" "
# 4!
3
!
! !
#
% %
#
*! "
%
*! :
to businessmen, builders, consumers, doctors, and
* !
+#
%
% (
!
Low
income
Lower-middle
income
Upper-middle
income
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
High
income
Figure 1: Corruption in public health services
5#
G " "
" %
"!
#7 !
!" %
#
9
Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database
Constructing the Index
9
was the substantive component of the rule of law. The
process by which the laws were made was not fair (only
whites, a minority of the population, had the vote). And
the laws themselves were not fair. They institutionalized
discrimination, vested broad discretionary powers in
the executive, and failed to protect fundamental rights.
Without a substantive content there would be no answer
to the criticism, sometimes voiced, that the rule of law
is ‘an empty vessel into which any law could be poured’.
The four “universal principles” that emerged from
our deliberations are as follows:
I. The government and its officials and
agents are accountable under the law.
II. The laws are clear, publicized, stable,
and fair, and protect fundamental rights,
including the security of persons and
property.
III. The process by which the laws are enacted,
administered, and enforced is accessible,
fair, and efficient.
IV. Access to justice is provided by competent,
independent, and ethical adjudicators,
attorneys or representatives, and judicial
officers who are of sufficient number,
have adequate resources, and reflect the
makeup of the communities they serve.
These principles represent an effort to strike a
balance between thinner and thicker conceptions of
the rule of law, incorporating both substantive and
procedural elements—a decision which was broadly
endorsed by the many international experts with
whom we have consulted. A few examples may be
instructive:
» The principles address the extent to which
a country provides for fair participation
in the making of the laws—certainly an
essential attribute of self-government. But
the principles do not address the further
question of whether the laws are enacted
by democratically elected representatives.
» The principles address the extent to
which a country protects fundamental
human rights. But given the impossibility
of assessing adherence to the full panoply
of civil, political, economic, social, cultural
and environmental rights recognized in
the Universal Declaration, the principles
structures, institutions, and norms that can support
and sustain a rule of law culture.
Defining the rule of law
The design of the Index began with the effort to
formulate a set of principles that would constitute
a working definition of the rule of law. Having
reviewed the extensive literature on the subject, the
project team was profoundly conscious of the many
challenges such an effort entails. Among other
things, it was recognized that for the principles
to be broadly accepted, they must be culturally
universal, avoiding Western, Anglo-American,
or other biases. Thus, the principles were derived
to the greatest extent possible from established
international standards and norms, and informed
by a thorough review of national constitutions and
scholarly literature. The principles and the factors
derived from them were tested and refined through
extensive consultations with experts from around
the world to ensure, among other things, their
cultural competence.
It also was recognized that any effort to define
the rule of law must grapple with the distinction
between what scholars call a “thin” or minimalist
conception of the rule of law that focuses on
formal, procedural rules, and a “thick” conception
that includes substantive characteristics, such as
self-government and various fundamental rights
and freedoms. On one hand, it was felt that if the
Index was to have utility and gain wide acceptance,
the definition must be broadly applicable to many
types of social and political systems, including some
which lack many of the features that characterize
democratic nations. On the other hand, it was
recognized that the rule of law must be more than
merely a system of rules—that indeed, a system of
positive law that fails to respect core human rights
guaranteed under international law is at best “rule by
law”, and does not deserve to be called a rule of law
system. In the words of Arthur Chaskalson, former
Chief Justice of South Africa,
[T]he apartheid government, its officers and agents
were accountable in accordance with the laws; the laws
were clear; publicized, and stable, and were upheld by
law enforcement officials and judges. What was missing
WJP Rule of Law Index™
10
» Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
» Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Limited Government Powers
The first factor measures the extent to which those
who govern are subject to law. It comprises the
means, both constitutional and institutional, by
which the powers of the government and its officials
and agents are limited and by which they are held
accountable under the law. It also includes nongovernmental
checks on the government’s power,
such as a free and independent press.
This factor is particularly difficult to measure in a
standardized manner across countries, since there
is no single formula for the proper distribution of
powers among organs of the government to ensure
that each is held in check. Governmental checks take
many forms; they do not operate solely in systems
marked by a formal separation of powers, nor are
they necessarily codified in law. What is essential
is that authority is distributed, whether by formal
rules or by convention, in a manner that ensures
that no single organ of government has the practical
ability to exercise unchecked power.1
The factor measures the effective limitation
of government powers in the fundamental
law; institutional checks on government power
by the legislature, the judiciary and independent
auditing and review agencies2; effective sanctions for
misconduct of government officers and agents in all
branches of government; non-governmental checks on
government power3; and whether transfers of power
occur in accordance with the law.
Absence of Corruption
The second factor measures the absence of
corruption. The Index considers three forms of
1 The Index does not address the further question of whether the laws are enacted by
democratically elected representatives.
2 This includes a wide range of institutions, from financial comptrollers and auditing
agencies to the diverse array of entities that monitor human rights compliance (e.g.
“Human Rights Defender”, “Ombudsman”, “People’s Advocate”, “Defensor del
Pueblo”, “Ouvidoria”, “Human Rights Commissioner”, “Õiguskantsler”, “Médiateur de
la République”, “Citizen’s Advocate”, “Avocatul Poporului”). In some countries these
functions are performed by judges or other state officials; in others, they are carried
out by independent agencies.
3 This includes the media, citizen activism, and civic and political organizations.
treat a more modest menu of rights,
primarily civil and political, that are
firmly established under international law
and bear the most immediate relationship
to rule of law concerns.
» The principles address access to justice,
but chiefly in terms of access to legal
representation and access to the courts,
rather than in the “thicker” sense in
which access to justice is sometimes
seen as synonymous with broad
legal empowerment of the poor and
disfranchised. Access to justice in this
more limited sense is a critical cornerstone
for the implementation of policies and
rights that empower the poor.
In limiting the scope of the principles in this fashion,
we do not wish to suggest any disagreement with a
more robust and inclusive vision of self-government,
fundamental rights, or access to justice, all of which
are addressed in other important and influential
indices, as well as in various papers developed by
WJP scholars. Indeed, it is among the premises of
the project as a whole that a healthy rule of law is
critical to advancing such goals.
Moreover, the WJP’s conception of the rule of law is
not incompatible with the notion that these universal
principles may interact with each other in multiple
ways. For example, concrete improvements in one
dimension of the rule of law may affect societies
in more than one way, depending on the prevailing
cultural and institutional environments. It is our
hope that by providing data on nine independent
dimensions of the rule of law, the Index will become
a useful tool for academics and other constituencies
to further our understanding of these interactions.
The 2011 WJP Rule
of Law Index™
This new version of the Index is composed of nine
factors derived from the WJP’s universal principles.
These factors are divided into 52 sub-factors which
incorporate essential elements of the rule of law.
Accountable Government (Factors 1 and 2)
The first principle measures government
accountability by means of two factors:
Constructing the Index
11
WJP Rule of Law Index ™
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers
1.1 Government powers are defined in the fundamental law.
1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature.
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary.
1.4 Government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review.
1.5 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct.
1.6 Government powers are effectively limited by non-governmental checks.
1.7 Transfers of power occur in accordance with the law.
Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public office for private gain.
2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public office for private gain.
2.3 Government officials in the police and the military do not use public office for private gain.
2.4 Government officials in the legislature do not use public office for private gain.
Factor 3: Order and Security
3.1 Crime is effectively controlled.
3.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited.
3.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances.
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination are effectively guaranteed.
4.2 The right to life and security of the person is effectively guaranteed.
4.3 Due process of law and the rights of the accused are effectively guaranteed.
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively guaranteed.
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion is effectively guaranteed.
4.6 The right to privacy is effectively guaranteed.
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association is effectively guaranteed.
4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed.
Factor 5: Open Government
5.1 The laws are comprehensible to the public.
5.2 The laws are publicized and widely accessible.
5.3 The laws are stable.
5.4 The right of petition and public participation is effectively guaranteed.
5.5 Official drafts of laws are available to the public.
5.6 Official information is available to the public.
Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement
6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced.
6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced without improper influence.
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delay.
6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings.
6.5 The Government does not expropriate property without adequate compensation.
Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice
7.1 People are aware of available remedies.
7.2 People can access and afford legal advice and representation.
7.3 People can access and afford civil courts.
7.4 Civil justice is free of discrimination.
7.5 Civil justice is free of corruption.
7.6 Civil justice is free of improper government influence.
7.7 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delays.
7.8 Civil justice is effectively enforced.
7.9 ADR systems are accessible, impartial, and effective.
Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice
8.1 Crimes are effectively investigated.
8.2 Crimes are effectively and timely adjudicated.
8.3 The correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior.
8.4 The criminal justice system is impartial.
8.5 The criminal justice system is free of corruption.
8.6 The criminal justice system is free of improper government influence.
8.7 The criminal justice system accords the accused due process of law.
Factor 9: Informal Justice
9.1 Informal justice is timely and effective.
9.2 Informal justice is impartial and free of improper influence.
9.3 Informal justice respects and protects fundamental rights.
WJP Rule of Law Index™
12
Fundamental Rights
The fourth factor measures protection of
fundamental human rights. It recognizes that the
rule of law must be more than merely a system of
rules—that indeed, a system of positive law that
fails to respect core human rights guaranteed and
established under international law is at best “rule
by law”, and does not deserve to be called a rule of
law system.
Sixty years after its adoption, the Universal
Declaration remains the touchstone for determining
which rights may be considered fundamental,
even as newer rights continue to emerge and gain
acceptance. At WJP regional meetings conducted in
2008 and 2009, there was spirited discussion over
which rights should be encompassed within the
Index. Many urged that the list be confined to civil
and political rights, particularly freedom of thought
and opinion, which bear an essential relationship to
the rule of law itself. Others argued for a broader
treatment that would encompass social, economic,
and cultural rights.
While the debate may never be fully resolved, it was
determined as a practical matter that since there are
many other indices that address human rights in all
of these dimensions, and as it would be impossible
for the Index to assess adherence to the full range
of rights, the Index should focus on a relatively
modest menu of rights that are firmly established
under international law and are most closely
related to rule of law concerns. Accordingly, factor
4 covers effective enforcement of laws that ensure
equal protection8; freedom of thought, religion, and
expression; freedom of assembly and association;
fundamental labor rights (including the right to
collective bargaining, the prohibition of forced and
Colombia or Liberia, or in those experiencing high levels of political violence or
terrorism in recent years, such as Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, and Uganda.
8 The laws can be fair only if they do not make arbitrary or irrational distinctions based
on economic or social status—the latter defined to include race, color, ethnic or social
origin, caste, nationality, alienage, religion, language, political opinion or affiliation,
gender, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity, age, and disability. It
must be acknowledged that for some societies, including some traditional societies,
certain of these categories may be problematic. In addition, there may be differences
both within and among such societies as to whether a given distinction is arbitrary or
irrational. Despite these difficulties, it was determined that only an inclusive list would
accord full respect to the principles of equality and non-discrimination embodied in
the Universal Declaration and emerging norms of international law.
corruption: bribery, improper influence by public
or private interests, and misappropriation of public
funds or other resources.
These three forms of corruption are examined with
respect to government officers in the executive
branch (including the police and the military),
and those in the judiciary and the legislature. Our
instruments take into account a wide range of
possible situations in which corruption, from petty
bribery to kinds of fraud, can occur, including the
provision of public services, procurement procedures,
and administrative enforcement of environmental,
labor, and health and safety regulations, among
others.
Security and Fundamental
Rights (Factors 3 and 4)
The second principle encompasses two factors:
» Factor 3: Order and Security
» Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Order and Security
The third factor measures how well the society
assures the security of persons and property. It
encompasses three dimensions: absence of crime4;
absence of civil conflict, including terrorism and
armed conflict; and absence of violence as a socially
acceptable means to redress personal grievances.
A few variables from third-party sources have been
incorporated into this factor in order to measure
structural rule of law situations that may not be
captured through general population polls or expert
opinion. These include, among others, the number
of events and deaths resulting from high-casualty
terrorist bombings5, the number of battle-related
deaths, and the number of casualties resulting from
one-sided violence.6 These indicators are proxies for
civil conflict (sub-factor 3.2).7
4 This factor focuses on conventional crime, including homicide, kidnapping, burglary,
and theft.
5 Source: Center for Systemic Peace.
6 Source: Uppsala Conflict Data Program.
7 Results for sub-factor 3.2 in this report are limited. This is for two reasons. First,
because most countries experiencing conflict or high levels of terrorism in 2011 were
not included in the sample of 66 countries indexed this year, with the exception of
Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, India. Second, because the included proxy variables
do not fully capture conflict-related instability in post-conflict countries such as
Constructing the Index
13
measure the presence or absence of particular forms
of regulation or examine how much regulation of
a particular activity is appropriate. Rather, it seeks
to assess how well regulations are implemented and
enforced. This includes the absence of improper
influence by public officials or private interests;
adherence to administrative procedures that are
fair, consistent, and predictable; and freedom from
government taking of private property without
adequate compensation.
Access to Justice (Factors 7, 8, and 9)
The fourth and final principle measures access to
justice by means of three factors:
» Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice
» Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice
» Factor 9: Informal Justice
These factors measure whether ordinary people can
peacefully and effectively resolve their grievances in
accordance with generally accepted social norms,
rather than resorting to violence or self-help.
Access to civil justice requires that the system
be affordable, effective, impartial, and culturally
competent. Effective criminal justice systems are
capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal
offences impartially and effectively, while ensuring
that the rights of suspects and victims are protected.
Impartiality includes absence of arbitrary or
irrational distinctions based on social or economic
status, and other forms of bias, as well as decisions
that are free of improper influence by public officials
or private interests.
Accessibility includes general awareness of available
remedies; availability and affordability of legal
advice and representation; and absence of excessive
or unreasonable fees, procedural hurdles, and other
barriers to access to formal dispute resolution
systems. Access to justice also requires fair and
effective enforcement.
Finally, factor 9 concerns the role played in many
countries by “informal” systems of law – including
traditional, tribal, and religious courts, as well as
community based systems – in resolving disputes.
child labor, and the elimination of discrimination)9;
the rights to privacy and religion; the right to life
and security of the person10; and due process of law
and the rights of the accused.11
Open Government and Regulatory
Enforcement (Factors 5 and 6)
The third principle includes two factors:
» Factor 5: Open Government
» Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement
Factors 5 and 6 concern the extent to which the
process by which the laws are enacted, administered,
and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
Factor 5 measures open government, which includes
at its core the opportunity to know what the law is
and what conduct is permitted and prohibited. This
requires that the law be comprehensible and its
meaning sufficiently clear, publicized, and explained
to the general public in plain language, for them to
be able to abide by it. This is one of the most basic
preconditions for achieving and maintaining a rule
of law society capable of guaranteeing public order,
personal security, and fundamental rights.
Open government also encompasses the opportunity
to participate in the process by which the laws are
made and administered. Among the indicia of
participation are: whether people have the right
to petition the government; whether proceedings
are held with timely notice and are open to the
public; and whether drafts of legislation, records
of legislative and administrative proceedings, and
other kinds of official information are available to
the public.
Factor 6 concerns the fair and effective enforcement
of administrative regulations. The Index does not
9 Sub-factor 4.8 includes the four fundamental principles recognized by the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 1998: (1) the freedom
of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (2)
the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; (3) the effective abolition
of child labor; and (4) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment
and occupation.
10 Sub-factor 4.2 concerns police brutality and other abuses—including arbitrary
detention, torture and extrajudicial execution—perpetrated by agents of the state
against criminal suspects, political dissidents, members of the media, and ordinary
people.
11 This includes the presumption of innocence, illegal detention, abusive treatment of
suspects and detainees, access to legal counsel and translators, opportunity to challenge
evidence, and prisoners’ rights.
WJP Rule of Law Index™
14
These systems often play a large role in cultures
in which formal legal institutions fail to provide
effective remedies for large segments of the
population.12
Measuring the rule of law
The WJP Rule of Law Index is a first attempt to
quantify systematically and comprehensively a set
of rule of law outcomes by linking the conceptual
definitions to concrete questions. These questions
are then administered to a representative sample of
the general public, and to local experts, and then are
analyzed and cross-checked pursuant to a rigorous
triangulation methodology. The outcome of this
exercise is one of the world’s most comprehensive
data sets regarding adherence to the rule of law in
practice.
Approach
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ 2011 measures
outcomes rather than inputs. More specifically, our
aim is to provide a picture of where countries stand
with regard to a number of widely accepted outcomes
that rule of law societies seek to achieve, as opposed
to measuring the institutional means, such as the
legal and regulatory frameworks, by which a given
society may seek to attain them. Some examples of
outcomes measured by the Index include respect
for fundamental rights, absence of corruption, and
access to justice. Examples of inputs might include
the number of courts, the number of police officers,
and the judicial budget.
Data
The WJP’s Rule of Law Index™ methodology
utilizes two main sources of new data: (i) a general
population poll (GPP), designed by The World
Justice Project and conducted by leading local
polling companies using a representative sample of
1,000 respondents in three cities per country; and
(ii) a qualified respondents’ questionnaire(QRQ)
12 Significant effort has been devoted during the last two years to collecting data on
informal justice in a dozen countries. Nonetheless, the complexities of these systems
and the difficulties of measuring their fairness and effectiveness in a manner that is
both systematic and comparable across countries, make assessments extraordinarily
challenging. A preliminary overview of informal justice will be included in the WJP
Rule of Law Index 2012.
Box 2: The WJP Rule of Law Index™
methodology in a nutshell
3"
! Z!
, .[ %
!
"
8 3 #
" "!
(
!
.-
RN ! 1
$ !
$"
$
!%
!
N 3 . #
" #4!
.- "!
($
."
"!
Questionnaires were translated into several languages
"
% !
."
3
!
"
.
!
N]]X
O 3 $ #
$
O]]
"
."
"
!
%
"
4!
" - 4!
$
#
"
"
Q
" !"
1"
!
#%
"!
!
. $
!
!
#%
R 3 4!
."
!
S 3 .
""
RN! 1
T 3 .
!
!
#1""
4!
!
#
!
!
!
%
%
"
#
#!
7."
"!
9
^
5
! 1
! "
#
!
( !
X 3
! *
%
"
W
. "
$ .
1(
! 1
S]
1"
% !
$
! 4! #
4!
#
Y 5 #%
% ! %
+
5""
6
+!
" - Z
$
collaboration with the Index team, to assess the
%
!
8]W
%$
!
%
"
$
$ !
"
"
Constructing the Index
15
Using the WJP Rule
of Law Index™
The WJP Rule of Law Index™ is intended for
multiple audiences. It is designed to offer a reliable
and independent data source for policy makers,
businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and
other constituencies to:
» Assess a nation’s adherence to the rule
of law in practice, as perceived and
experienced by the average person;
» Identify a nation’s strengths and
weaknesses in comparison to similarly
situated countries; and
» Track changes over time.
While other indices touch on various aspects of the
rule of law, the WJP Rule of Law Index has new
features that set it apart:
» Comprehensiveness. While existing
indices cover aspects of the rule of law,
they do not yield a full picture of rule of
law compliance.
» New data. The Index findings are based
almost entirely on new data collected
by the WJP from independent sources.
This contrasts with indices based on
data aggregated from third-party sources,
or on sources that are self-reported by
governments or other interested parties.
» Rule of law in practice. The Index
measures adherence to the rule of law by
looking not to the laws as written but to
how they are actually applied.
» Anchored in actual experiences.
The Index combines expert opinion with
rigorous polling of the general public
to ensure that the findings reflect the
conditions experienced by the population,
including marginalized sectors of society.
» Action oriented. Findings are presented
in disaggregated form, identifying areas
of strength and weakness across the nine
rule of law dimensions examined in each
country.
These features make the Index a powerful tool that
can inform policy debates in and across countries.
However, the Index’s findings must be interpreted
in light of certain inherent limitations.
1. The WJP Rule of Law Index does not
provide specific recipes or identify
priorities for reform.
consisting of closed ended questions completed
by in-country practitioners and academics with
expertise in civil and commercial law, criminal
justice, labor law, and public health.
Box 3: Law in practice vs. law on books
#
!
!
#
!
%$ "
# !
!
%-
! _ #
$
!
%
(
%
7de jure) but at how
%
!
% "
"
."
%
! *
(de facto96
(
$-Rule
of Law Index
% !
%
!
"
The QRQ is administered on a yearly basis in each
surveyed country, and the GPP is carried out every
three years. In addition, some variables from thirdparty
sources have been incorporated into this
version of the Index, to capture certain structural
rule of law situations such as terrorist bombings
and battle-related deaths that may not be captured
through general population polls or expert opinion.
Finally, existing domestic and international data
sources and legal resources is used to cross-check
the findings.
The Index comprises more than 400 different
variables, organized into nine factors and 52 subfactors.
These variables are aggregated and compiled
into numerical scores.
To date, over 2,000 experts from 66 nations and
jurisdictions have contributed their knowledge and
expertise to the Index.
In addition, over 66,000 individuals from these
countries have participated in the general population
poll. The countries indexed in this volume are
presented in Table 1. Data presented in this volume
was collected and analyzed in the second quarter
of 2011, with the exception of general population
data for the initial 35 countries, which was collected
during the fall of 2009. A detailed description of
the process by which data is collected and the rule
of law is measured is provided in the final section of
this report, and in Botero and Ponce (2011).
WJP Rule of Law Index™
16
Table 1: Countries Indexed in 2011
Source: The World Bank
2. The Index data is not intended to establish
causation or to ascertain the complex
relationship among different rule of law
dimensions in various countries.
3. The Index’s rankings and scores are
the product of a very rigorous data
collection and aggregation methodology.
Nonetheless, as with all measures, they are
subject to measurement error.13
4. Indices and indicators are subject to
potential abuse and misinterpretation.
Once released to the public, they can take
on a life of their own and be used for
purposes unanticipated by their creators.
If data is taken out of context, it can
lead to unintended or erroneous policy
decisions.
5. Rule of law concepts measured by the
Index may have different meanings
across countries. Users are encouraged
to consult the specific definitions of the
variables employed in the construction of
the Index, which are discussed in greater
detail in Botero and Ponce (2011).
6. The Index is generally intended to be used
in combination with other instruments,
both quantitative and qualitative. Just as in
the areas of health or economics no single
index conveys a full picture of a country’s
situation, policymaking in the area of
rule of law requires careful consideration
of all relevant dimensions—which may
vary from country to country—and a
combination of sources, instruments and
methods. The Index does not provide a
full diagnosis or dictate concrete priorities
for action.
7. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis of the
Index data conducted in collaboration with
the Econometrics and Applied Statistics
Unit of the European Commission’s Joint
Research Centre, confidence intervals have
been calculated for all figures included in
the WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. These
confidence intervals and other relevant
considerations regarding measurement
error are reported in Saisana and Saltelli
(2010) and Botero and Ponce (2011).
13 Users of the Index for policy debate who wish to have a sound understanding of its
methodology are encouraged to review the following papers:
a. Botero, J and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”. WJP Working Paper
No. 1, available online at: www.worldjusticeproject.org
b. Saisana, M and Saltelli, A. (2010) “Statistical Audit of the WJP Rule of Law Index”,
available online at: www.worldjusticeproject.org
Constructing the Index
17
Complementarity with
other WJP initiatives
The Index’s development is highly integrated with
other dimensions of the WJP.
» The Index findings for a growing
number of countries will be presented
and discussed in detail at successive
World Justice Forums and WJP regional
conferences.
» Many of the issues identified by the
Index in various countries will become
fertile areas for the design of rule of law
programs by Forum participants.
» The results of various WJP programs will
be presented at each World Justice Forum,
enabling a more detailed discussion of
concrete issues covered by the Index.
» Detailed discussions of Index findings
at successive World Justice Forums
and regional outreach meetings will
generate useful information for further
refinement of the Index methodology and
measurement, as well as an opportunity to
disseminate the results of both the Index
and WJP programs.
» WJP scholars will provide conceptual
and methodological advice for the
improvement and expansion of the Index,
and the Index’s findings and data will be
made available to researchers around the
world.
Next steps
This volume presents the results and lessons learned
during the WJP’s implementation of the Index in
66 countries in 2011. The Index remains a work in
progress, with the next steps including:
» Expanded coverage to include a total of
100 countries by 2012.
» Publication of topic-specific reports and
other comparative materials.
Part II: The Rule of Law
Around the World
Juan Carlos Botero, Joel Martinez, Alejandro Ponce, and Christine S. Pratt
The World Justice Project1
1 Country assessments are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the World Justice Project, or its Officers, Directors, and Honorary Chairs.
Regional Trends
21
Regional Highlights
The following section provides an overview of
regional trends revealed by the WJP Rule of Law
Index™ 2011 report, which covers 66 countries.
This section also presents highlights for a number
of countries in each of seven regions: Western
Europe and North America, Latin America and
the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia,
Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and
North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Adherence
to the rule of law varies widely around the world
and appears to be positively correlated with per
capita income. The average rankings for each region
are shown in Table 2. The detailed rankings are
shown in the data tables at the end of the report.
Additional scores and rankings are available in
Botero and Ponce [2011].
Western Europe and
North America
Countries in Western Europe and North America
tend to outperform most other countries in all
dimensions. These countries are characterized
by relatively low levels of corruption, open and
accountable governments, and effective criminal
justice systems. The greatest weakness in Western
Europe and North America appears to be related to
the accessibility of the civil justice system, especially
for marginalized segments of the population. In the
area of access to legal counsel, for instance, Austria,
Canada, the United States, and Norway rank 26th,
22nd, 21st, and 20th, respectively. These are areas that
require attention from both policy makers and civil
society to ensure that all people are able to benefit
from the civil justice system. While protection of
fundamental rights in this region is the highest in
the world, police discrimination against foreigners
and ethnic minorities remains an issue in need of
attention in most countries. In most dimensions,
countries in Western Europe obtain higher scores
than the United States.
WJP Rule of Law Index™
22
of attorneys, accessibility and efficiency of courts,
and lack of undue influence. Police discrimination
against foreigners, however, is perceived to occur.
Austria ranks among the top ten in seven
dimensions of the rule of law. The country is ranked
fourth out of the ten Western European countries
covered by the Index in the following dimensions:
absence of corruption, order and security, respect
for fundamental rights, and effectiveness of the
criminal justice system. Although the country is
very open, people in Austria face more difficulties in
accessing official documentation than do individuals
in most developed nations, including the United
States, Germany, and France. In addition, police
discrimination against foreigners is perceived to be
significant.
The United Kingdom is among the top five
countries in the world in the areas of open
government and effective regulatory enforcement,
ranking fourth and fifth, respectively. It scores well
on government accountability (ranking seventh),
and corruption is minimal. While the court system
is independent and free of undue influence, it is not
as accessible and affordable as others in the region.
The correctional system underperforms its incomegroup
and regional peers.
France performs well in all eight dimensions of
the rule of law. The country’s notable strengths
include absence of corruption and an independent,
accessible, and affordable civil justice system.
Nonetheless, judicial delays are a weakness in both
civil and criminal justice, where cases can take
years to resolve. France also obtains high marks
The Nordic countries rank at the top in most
dimensions of the rule of law. Sweden ranks first
in three of eight areas -fundamental rights, open
government, and regulatory enforcement- and is
located in the top five in seven of the eight categories.
Sweden’s administrative agencies and courts are
rated among the most effective and transparent in
the world, and generally observe fundamental rights.
Norway also ranks first in three areas -government
accountability, access to civil justice, and effective
criminal justice- and it places no lower than fifth in
all but one of the rule of law indicators. Norway’s
public institutions are very strong. Access to justice
is generally guaranteed to citizens in both countries,
although access to affordable legal counsel remains
limited, particularly for disadvantaged groups.
Police discrimination against foreigners and ethnic
minorities is perceived to be a problem in both
countries.
The Netherlands ranks among the top three in two
categories -open government and access to civil
justice- and performs very well in most of the other
six dimensions measured by the Index. The overall
regulatory environment is transparent and efficient.
The country’s courts are accessible and free of
improper influence, with criminal courts displaying
an outstanding respect for due process of law, where
they rank first in the world.
Germany is one of the world’s leaders in many
dimensions of the rule of law. Government
accountability is strong (ranking 5th out of 66
countries) and corruption is minimal (ranking 12th).
The country’s civil justice system ranks 2nd out of all
countries, which is characterized by the affordability
Table 2: Average rankings by region
W
|
