data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/afad6/afad6371ad49379410bfaf696a1ef67c9d197897" alt="" |
Conor Cradden[1] |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/022c5/022c594e18b9ac88dc80aaeb6b000e41595ac638" alt=""
There is a belief widely shared among policymakers that if arguments for a proposal or decision are supported by numbers on a page then somehow this makes that choice less political. It permits the claim that what is being proposed is not really a choice at all but something that the ‘evidence’ demands. This emphasis on quantitative indicators has meant that much policy argument has been displaced into the design of the indicators themselves. Rather than being grounded on purely technical criteria, the design of statistical indicators is a highly politicized process in which different stakeholders struggle to ensure the numbers that emerge will be more compatible with arguments in favour of
their policy predilections than those of the opposition.
The World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ (DB) indicators are a shining example of statistics that come with this kind of built-in value judgment. The DB indicators claim to be a guide to the relative ease of establishing and running a business in different countries. This is ‘measured’ on a number of dimensions, including starting up, paying taxes, getting construction permits and enforcing contracts. The indicators allow the construction of rankings, including an overall global ranking that places Singapore at the top – making it the world’s easiest place to do business – and Chad at the bottom.