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.
The basic issue why King Henry II had conflict with Thomas A Becket was because of monetary matters. In that, King Henry had taken a portion of the taxes for himself and Thomas who was the Archbishop of Canterbury opposed Henry's move
I'm not righting a paragraph so you can copy it! buy here is a thesis statement. I agree with Daniel Shay's rebellion because it showed how the national all government has the ultimate power, it revealed the weaknesses of the articles of confederation, and showed how much rights we had. we can peacefully protest without causing harm to others.
Answer: In 1832, led by Calhoun, South Carolina approved an Ordinance of Nullification, which was intended to serve notice on the United States government that South Carolina would not tolerate a high tariff. ... South Carolina's secession was the first in a series to occur before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration in March 1861. The Republican Party was relatively new; 1860 was only the second time the party had a candidate in the presidential race. The Constitutional Union Party was also new; 1860 was the first and only time the party ran a candidate for president. The results of the 1860 election pushed the nation into war. The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery". How did South Carolina respond to the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860? It called for a state convention and demanded a recount. ... It called a state convention and voted to secede from the Union. It called a state convention and voted to secede from the Union.
Hope this helps..... Stay safe and have a Merry Christmas!!!!!!! :D
