ORGANIZATIONAL REFORM
Do governments identify and respond to the need for institutional reform?
Organizational reform capacity scores are weighted composites. Two qualitative policy assessments [ 
] each contribute one-half of this weighting.
Scores and methodology
] each contribute one-half of this weighting. Scores and methodology
Organizational reformKey findings: Organizational reform capacity
Each 
represents an individual country and is positioned on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (best). Position cursor over to see scores for individual countries.
Click country name in list or text for details.
represents an individual country and is positioned on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (best). Position cursor over to see scores for individual countries.Click country name in list or text for details.
Score distribution
In this top group, institutional government arrangements are regularly monitored, and modified if deemed inappropriate to changing circumstances.
The Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden) all have effective formal or informal monitoring processes, though Sweden's autonomous agencies offer some frustration.
Canada’s government has focused on improving existing structures, rather than creating new ones. New Zealand’s departmental performance is regularly reviewed.
The Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden) all have effective formal or informal monitoring processes, though Sweden's autonomous agencies offer some frustration.
Canada’s government has focused on improving existing structures, rather than creating new ones. New Zealand’s departmental performance is regularly reviewed.
7.0
7
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.3
13
6.3
5.5
15
5.5
5.5
4.8
18
4.8
4.8
In this middle group, formal monitoring mechanisms are rare, and the success of institutional reform is often mixed.
A number of countries (Austria, Portugal, Switzerland, UK, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia) lack regular systems of institutional assessment. Germany and the United Kingdom have demonstrated reform capacity nevertheless.
Australia, Mexico and South Korea have engaged in strategic reform, but with inconsistent outcomes. Hungary launched large-scale reforms in 2006.
Iceland’s review process is largely informal. The United States, under Bush, conducted little objective review.
In Switzerland and the Netherlands, institutional change is publicly controversial.
A number of countries (Austria, Portugal, Switzerland, UK, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia) lack regular systems of institutional assessment. Germany and the United Kingdom have demonstrated reform capacity nevertheless.
Australia, Mexico and South Korea have engaged in strategic reform, but with inconsistent outcomes. Hungary launched large-scale reforms in 2006.
Iceland’s review process is largely informal. The United States, under Bush, conducted little objective review.
In Switzerland and the Netherlands, institutional change is publicly controversial.
4.0
21
4.0
3.3
23
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.8
28
1.8
1.0
30
In this lower group, governments often lack the will or expertise to conduct systematic assessments of their own institutions.
In a number of countries (Luxembourg, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, Turkey), monitoring processes are relatively weak, and resulting reforms modest.
Poland and Belgium rarely initiate strategic institutional change. France’s reform is typically reactive, resulting from public pressure or EU guidelines.
Following criticism, Japan has sought to boost its institutional monitoring capabilities. Greece lacks the mechanisms and expertise to conduct thorough assessments.
In a number of countries (Luxembourg, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, Turkey), monitoring processes are relatively weak, and resulting reforms modest.
Poland and Belgium rarely initiate strategic institutional change. France’s reform is typically reactive, resulting from public pressure or EU guidelines.
Following criticism, Japan has sought to boost its institutional monitoring capabilities. Greece lacks the mechanisms and expertise to conduct thorough assessments.
Rationale
Economic and political change can render even the most effective institutions obsolete.
Organizational reform capacity assesses governments' willingness and ability to monitor whether institutional arrangements of governing remain appropriate despite changes in the political and economic environment.
The criterion further examines whether governments successfully improve strategic capacity by means of reform in these institutional arrangements.
Performance comparison
Use drop-down menus for selections. In all cases, higher scores reflect better performance.
