Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
For the
following question, these would be the answer:
1.
federalism or letter C
2. focus
on minimizing costs while maximizing the benefits or A
3. courts have interpreted it in many cases to
mean that state governments must also guarantee certain rights or D
I am hoping that these answers have satisfied your queries and
it will be able to help you.
Things fall apart, nice...
Answer: Okonkwo and Obierka are best friends, but their personalities don't exactly match. Obierika is the kind of person who refrains from using violence, open for change, thinks before they act. On the other hand, Okonkwo doesnt think before he acts, he resorts to violence when things dont go his way, and he able to cope with new cultural changes.
Obierika ctitizized Okonkwo because Obierika was against the fact okonkwo took part in Ikemefunas death. Obierika stated his actions were something the Earth wouldn't please.
Dharma is your life circumstances. It could be if your in the upper class or lower class or if you have a great job or not.
It is C. the dindus made it gold treasure
