Book contents
- The Power of Global Performance Indicators
- The Power of Global Performance Indicators
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Ratings, Rankings, and Regulatory Behavior
- Part II The Normative Influence of Ratings and Rankings
- Part III Beyond and Within State
- Part IV Skeptical Voices
- 11 Third-Party Policymakers and the Limits of the Influence of Indicators
- 12 The Millennium Development Goals and Education
- 13 Global Performance Indicators: Themes, Findings, and an Agenda for Future Research
- Index
- Chapter 3: Appendices
- Chapter 4: Appendices
- Chapter 5: Appendix
- Chapter 6: Appendix
- Chapter 7: Appendix
- Chapter 8: Appendix
- Chapter 10: Appendix
- Chapter 11: Appendix
- Chapter 12: Appendix
- References
12 - The Millennium Development Goals and Education
Accountability and Substitution in Global Indicators
from Part IV - Skeptical Voices
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2020
Book contents
- The Power of Global Performance Indicators
- The Power of Global Performance Indicators
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Ratings, Rankings, and Regulatory Behavior
- Part II The Normative Influence of Ratings and Rankings
- Part III Beyond and Within State
- Part IV Skeptical Voices
- 11 Third-Party Policymakers and the Limits of the Influence of Indicators
- 12 The Millennium Development Goals and Education
- 13 Global Performance Indicators: Themes, Findings, and an Agenda for Future Research
- Index
- Chapter 3: Appendices
- Chapter 4: Appendices
- Chapter 5: Appendix
- Chapter 6: Appendix
- Chapter 7: Appendix
- Chapter 8: Appendix
- Chapter 10: Appendix
- Chapter 11: Appendix
- Chapter 12: Appendix
- References
Summary
Precise international metrics and assessments may induce governments to alter policies in pursuit of more favorable assessments according to these metrics. In this paper, we explore a secondary effect of Global Performance Indicators (GPIs): Insofar as governments have finite resources and make trade-offs in public goods investments, a GPI that precisely targets the provision of a particular public good may cause governments to substitute away from the provision of other, related, public goods. We argue that both the main effect of the GPI (on the measured public good) and this substitution effect vary systematically based on the domestic political institutions and informational environments of targeted states. Specifically, we contend that both the main and substitution effects of GPIs should be largest for governments that are least accountable (opaque and non-democratic) and should be smallest for those that are most accountable. We illustrate the logic of these arguments using a formal model and test these claims using data on primary and secondary enrollment rates across 114 countries. We find that countries substitute toward primary (which is targeted by the Millennium Development Goals) and away from secondary (which is not), and that these effects are mitigated as accountability rises.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Power of Global Performance Indicators , pp. 375 - 408Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adserà, Alícia, Boix, Carles, and Payne, Mark. 2003. Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 19 (2):445–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.. 1986. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6):1173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2011. Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series-Cross-Section Political Economy Data. Annual Review of Political Science 14:331–52.Google Scholar
Berliner, Daniel. 2014. The Political Origins of Transparency. Journal of Politics 76 (2):479–91.Google Scholar
Berliner, Daniel, and Erlich, Aaron. 2015. Competing for Transparency: Political Competition and Institutional Reform in Mexican States. American Political Science Review 109 (1):110–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Burgess, Robin. 2002. The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (4):1415–51.Google Scholar
Bremmer, Ian. 2006. The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Broz, J. Lawrence. 2002. Political System Transparency and Monetary Commitment Regimes. International Organization 56 (4):861–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, Aymo, and Weder, Beatrice. 2003. A Free Press Is Bad News for Corruption. Journal of Public Economics 87:1801–24.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Smith, Alastair, Siverson, Randolph M., and Morrow, James D.. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2007. Politics and the Suboptimal Provision of Counterterror. International Organization 61:9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, William Bruce. 1963. Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking, vol. 21. Random House.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1979. Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change. Evaluation and Program Planning 2 (1):67–90.Google Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2010. Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice 143:67–101.Google Scholar
Chong, Alberto, De La O, Ana L., Karlan, Dean, and Wantchekon, Leonard. 2010. Information Dissemination and Local Governments’ Electoral Returns: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Mexico. 106th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, March 2010.Google Scholar
Di Tella, Rafael, and Schargrodsky, Ernesto. 2003. The Role of Wages and Auditing during a Crackdown on Corruption in the City of Buenos Aires. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 269:269–92.Google Scholar
Djankov, Simeon, McLiesh, Caralee, Nenova, Tatiana, and Shleifer, Andrei. 2003. Who Owns the Media? Journal of Law and Economics 46 (2):341–81.Google Scholar
Edwards, Marc A., and Roy, Siddhartha. 2017. Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34 (1):51–61.Google Scholar
Evans, Alice. 2017. Amplifying Accountability by Benchmarking Results at District and National Levels. Development Policy Review 36 (2):221–40.Google Scholar
Ferraz, Claudio, and Finan, Frederico. 2008. Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effects of Brazil’s Publically Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (2):703–45.Google Scholar
Fuller, Sarah C., and Ladd, Helen F.. 2013. School-Based Accountability and the Distribution of Teacher Quality across Grades in Elementary School. Education 8 (4):528–59.Google Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., and Goldin, Claudia, eds. 2006. Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America’s Economic History. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Taylor, and Lebo, Matthew J.. 2016. Error Correction Methods with Political Time Series. Political Analysis 24 (1):3–30.Google Scholar
Grief, Avner. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel N., and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2009. Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Harding, Robin, and Stasavage, David. 2014. What Democracy Does (and Doesn’t Do) for Basic Services: School Fees, School Inputs, and African Elections. Journal of Politics 76 (1):229–45.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., Stixrud, Jora, and Urzua, Sergio. 2006. The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior. Journal of Labor Economics 24 (3):411–82.Google Scholar
Heston, Alan, Summers, Robert, and Aten, Bettina. 2009. Penn World Table Version 6.3. Technical Report, Center of International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2011. Democracy and Transparency. Journal of Politics 73 (4):1–15.Google Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2014. Measuring Transparency. Political Analysis 22 (4):413–34.Google Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2015. Transparency, Protest and Autocratic Instability. American Political Science Review 109 (4):764–84.Google Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2018. Information, Democracy and Autocracy: Economic Transparency and Political (In)Stability, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, Bengt, and Milgrom, Paul. 1991. Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 7:24–52.Google Scholar
Honaker, James, King, Gary, Blackwell, Matthew, et al. 2011. Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data. Journal of Statistical Software 45 (7):1–47.Google Scholar
Honig, Dan, and Weaver, Catherine. 2020. A Race to the Top? The Aid Transparency Index and the Normative Power of Global Performance Assessments. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulme, David. 2009. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A Short History of the World’s Biggest Promise. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper 100.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2010. Identification, Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects. Statistical Science 25 (1):51–71.Google Scholar
Islam, Roumeen. 2006. Does More Transparency Go Along with Better Governance? Economics and Politics 18 (2):121–67.Google Scholar
Johns, Leslie. 2012. Courts as Coordinators: Endogenous Enforcement and Jurisdiction in International Adjudication. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56 (2):257–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2015. Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations. American Journal of Political Science 59 (1):55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2020. Global Assessment Power in the Twenty-First Century. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., Simmons, Beth A., and Doshi, Rush. 2020. The Power of Ranking: The Ease of Doing Business Indicator as a Form of Social Pressure. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kijima, Rie, and Phillip, Lipscy. 2019. The Politics of International Testing. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kosack, Stephen, and Fung, Archon. 2014. Does Transparency Improve Governance? Annual Review of Political Science 17:65–87.Google Scholar
Le, Ahn, and Malesky, Edmund. 2020. Do Subnational Assessments (SPAs) Lead to Improved Governance? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Vietnam. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James H., and Voeten, Erik. 2009. The Cost of Shame: International Organizations and Foreign Aid in the Punishing of Human Rights Violations. Journal of Peace Research 46 (1):79–97.Google Scholar
Macartney, Hugh. 2016. The Dynamic Effects of Educational Accountability. Journal of Labor Economics 34 (1):1–28.Google Scholar
Mani, Anandi, and Mukand, Sharun. 2007. Democracy, Visibility and Public Good Provision. Journal of Development Economics 83 (2):506–29.Google Scholar
Mark, Copelovitch, Christopher, Gandrud, Mark, Hallerberg. 2018. Financial Data Transparency, International Institutions, and Sovereign Borrowing Costs, International Studies Quarterly, 62(1):Pages 23–41.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul R., and North, Douglass C.. 1990. The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champaign Fairs. Economics & Politics 2 (1):1–23.Google Scholar
Morse, Julia C. 2020. Blacklists, Market Enforcement, and the Global Regime to Combat Terrorist Financing. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, John G., and Welch, Susan. 1980. The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 74:697–708.Google Scholar
Reinikka, Ritva, and Svensson, Jakob. 2003. The Power of Information: Evidence from a Newspaper Campaign to Reduce Capture. Working Paper: Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1999. The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction. In The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, edited by Risse, Thomas, Sikkink, Kathryn, and Ropp, Stephen C., 1–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skagerlind, Helena Hede. 2020. The Power of Indicators in Global Development Policy: The Millennium Development Goals. The Power of Global Performance Indicators. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stasavage, David. 2005. Democracy and Education Spending in Africa. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2):343–58.Google Scholar