Abstract:
New Zealand is ranked highly on the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), which assess performance on six dimensions of governance: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. In addition, New Zealand has long been rated by Transparency International‘s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) as having the very lowest rates of corruption. It was rated as first, or first equal (that is, perceived as the least corrupt or equally least corrupt country in the world), in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and sat alone atop the rankings in 2009 and 2011. In 2012 it was ranked first equal again. This paper gives some attention to methodological and related arguments about the general validity of both the WGI and the CPI, and is based on the premise that these international rankings are not only widely accepted as valid statements of relative fact, but also can divert attention away from pertinent issues of good government within particular countries. It may be claimed on the basis of these indicators that relative to the performance of most other countries New Zealanders have little to be worried about regarding the quality of their governing institutions and processes. Yet ‗good governance‘, including low levels of corruption, needs to be assessed against the country‘s own standards over time, and informed by historical understanding. International league tables, using precise indexes and indicators have their uses. However, they should not be reified or allowed to dominate or supplant valid social criticism in the form of political discourse and historical narrative, which are essential in assessing any country‘s quality of governance.
