Report 1.13.09.Overview of RTI Rating

7/27/2019 Report 1.13.09.Overview of RTI Rating

1/16

RTIRatingDataAnalysisSeries:OverviewofResultsandTrends

28September2013


2/16

-1-

Introduction1

TheRTIRating,developedbyAccessInfoEurope(AIE)2andtheCentreforLawandDemocracy (CLD),3is a methodology which provides a numerical assessment or

ratingfortheoveralllegalframeworkfortherighttoinformation(RTI)inacountry,basedonhowwell that framework giveseffect tothe righttoaccess information

held by public authorities. The methodology was first launched on International

RighttoKnowDay,28September,in2010,andcomprehensiveratingsofnationalRTIlawswereprovidedin2011andthenupdatedin2012and2013.

TheRTIRatingDataAnalysisSeries currentlybeinglaunchedisaseriesofreports

whichwillprovideddetailedassessmentsoftheRTIRatingresults,witheachreport

probing into different patterns and trends embedded in the data, for example in

termsofconstitutionalprotectionofRTI,scopeofRTIlaws,proceduralrulesandsoon. This Report, the first in the Series, provides an overview of the key general

resultsandtrendsregardingRTIlegislation.4

TheRTIRatingisasetofbestpracticestandards,resultinginastringentassessmentoflegalframeworksbasedonthehighestinternationalandcomparativestandards.

Aperfectlegalframeworkwouldscore150points.However,nolegalframeworkin

theworldisperfect,andeventhemodellawsAIEandCLDhaveratedhavefallenjustshortofaperfectscore.5Atthesametime,itispossibletoachieveaverystrong

score. Serbia currently has 135points, ora score of90 percent,while India and

Slovenia have 130 points (87 percent), demonstrating that very high values are

possible.TheRTIRatingislimitedtomeasuringthelegalframeworkanddoesnotmeasure

1ThisReportwasdraftedbyTobyMendel,ExecutiveDirector,CentreforLawandDemocracy.This

workislicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike3.0Unported

Licence. You are free to copy, distribute and display this work and to make derivative works,

providedyou:1)GivecredittoAccessInfoEuropeandtheCentreforLawandDemocracy;2)Donot

usethisworkforcommercialpurposes;and3)Distributeanyworksderivedfromthispublication

underalicenceidenticaltothisone.2AccessInfoEuropeisahumanrightsorganisationdedicatedtopromotingandprotectingtheright

ofaccesstoinformationinEuropeasatoolfordefendingcivillibertiesandhumanrights,for

facilitatingpublicparticipationindecision-makingandforholdinggovernmentsaccountable.AccessInfo'smissionisthattherightofaccesstoinformationbeenshrinedinlawandworkinpractice. 3TheCentreforLawandDemocracyisaninternationalhumanrightsorganisationbasedinCanada

whichfocusesonpromotingfoundationalrightsfordemocracy,includingtherighttoinformation,

freedomofexpression,therighttoparticipateandtherightstofreedomofassociationandassembly.

Formoreinformationsee:www.law-democracy.org.4NotethatthedatausedinthisReportiscurrentto28September2013.5TheseincludetheModelInter-AmericanLawonAccesstoInformation andthe(thendraft)Model

LawonAccesstoInformationforAfrica .See:http://www.law-democracy.org/live/rti-rating-

examines-international-rti-frameworks/.


3/16

-2-

thequalityofimplementation. Evenrelativelystronglawscannotensureopenness

iftheyarenotimplementedproperlywhile,inasmallnumberofcases,countrieswith relatively weak laws may nonetheless be very open, due to superlative

implementationefforts.Atthesametime,and regardlessoftheseoutlyingsuccessstories,experiencearound theworld provides ample evidence thata strong legal

frameworkisthebackboneofagoodRTIsystem.Much attention is naturally directed to the overall scores which are attained by

different countries, and their position vis--vis other countries, given how high

profilethisis.TherealvalueoftheRTIRating,however,isthatitpinpointsprecisestrengthsandweaknessesinthelegalframework,directingattentiontothoseareas

whereitisneeded.Indeed,thecentralideabehindtheRTIRatingistoprovideRTIadvocates, reformers, legislatorsand otherswith a reliable tool for assessing the

veryspecificwaysinwhichthelegalframework,oroftenthedraftlegalframework,

forRTIintheircountrycouldbeimproved.

Inpractice,theRTIRatinghasproventobeextremelyusefulinhelpingtocreatestronger RTI laws. To give just a couple of examples of this, the Rating hasconsistentlybeenreferredtobycampaigners,themediaandlegislativedraftersin

Pakistanatboththenationalandprovinciallevelsastheyseektoimprovethelegal frameworks for RTI in that country. It was relied on extensively by the

governmentofKhyberPakhtunkhwaprovincetoimprovethatprovincesdraftRTI

lawand,asaresult,thelawwhichwasfinallyadoptednowranksamongthebestanywhereintheworld.

In the Philippines, campaigners used the RTI Rating to identifyanumber of less

controversial areas for improvement in their draft law. Thesewere accepted by

lawmakers and incorporated into the version of the draft which was agreedbetween the Senate and Congress.Unfortunately, the draftnarrowly failed to go

throughallofthestepsrequiredtobecomealaw,buttheimpactoftheRTIRating

ontheprocesswasevident.

The RTIRating isone ofanumber ofattempts toassess the qualityofaccess toinformationsystems.Manyofthesehaveconsistedofcomparativetestingexercises,

whichseektoassessthequalityofaccessinpracticebyposingastandardsetof

requestsfor informationindifferentcountriesandthencomparing theresults.6Inothercases,RTIhasbeenincorporatedasoneelementinwidermethodologiesfor

assessing governance. The RTI Rating is unique, however, inasmuch as it is a

scientifictoolforassessingthelegalframeworkforRTI,andinasmuchasithasbeenapplieduniversally(i.e.toeverycountrythathasanRTIlaw).

6Forexample,CLDandAIE,incollaborationwiththeInternationalBudgetPartnership,conducteda

comparativerequestingexercisebyposingsixrequestsforbudgetinformationin80different

countries.See:http://www.law-democracy.org/live/global-monitoring-finds-widespread-violations-

of-right-to-information/.


4/16

-3-

ThisReportstartswithadescriptionoftheRTImethodology,sothatreaderscan

understandexactlyhowtheRTIRatingworks.ItthengoesontoprovideageneraloverviewoftheresultsofthelatestRTIRating(i.e.fromSeptember2013),looking

attherangeofscoresacrosstheRating,andwherethelegalframeworksaroundtheworldgenerallyperformbetterandworse.Ananalysisoftrendsovertimeisthen

provided,lookingatthedramaticspreadofRTIlawsoverthelast20years,wherethishastakenplaceandhowaveragescoreshaveimprovedovertime.Finally,theReportprovidesaregionaloverviewofhowcountriesperformontheRTIRating,

looking at which regions have the strongest laws, and where different regions

generallydobetterandworseintermsofmeetinginternationalstandardsinthisarea.

Methodology

TheRTIRatingmethodologyprovidesanoverallnumericalassessmentofhowwell

acountryscoresoutofamaximumof150pointsintermsofgivinglegaleffecttoRTI. At the heart of the RTI Rating methodology are 61 indicators drawn frominternational standards developed by UN and regional human rights bodies,

supplementedbya comparativestudyofnumerousrightto informationlawsfrom

aroundtheworld.TheIndicatorsweredevelopedbyAIEandCLD,andadraftsetofIndicatorswashonedintwoways.First,CLDandAIEconductedapilotapplication

ofthedraftIndicatorsonanumberofcountriesfromaroundtheworld,adapting

themtoresolveanyproblems.Second,anAdvisoryCouncilofrenownedexpertsontherighttoinformationfromaroundtheworldprovideddetailedadvicetoCLDand

AIEonthedevelopmentoftheIndicators.

ForeachIndicator,countriesearnpointswithinasetrangeofscores(inmostcases

0-2), depending on how well the legal framework delivers the Indicator. TheIndicators are grouped into sevenmain Categories, thereby providing a detailed

assessmentofthelegalframeworksspecificstrengthsandweaknessesintheseventhematicareas.TheoverallscoringbyCategoryofIndicatorisasfollows:

Category MaxPoints

1.RightofAccess 6

2.Scope 30

3.RequestingProcedures 30

4.ExceptionsandRefusals 30

5.Appeals 30

6.SanctionsandProtections 8

7.PromotionalMeasures 16

Totalscore 150


5/16

-4-

The four central features of an RTI system Scope, Requesting Procedures,

ExceptionsandRefusals,andAppealsaregivenanequalweightingof30points,whiletheotherthreefeaturesaregivenlessweightsothatoveralltheIndicators

establish a balance of weighting among the different legal features required toensurerespectforRTI.

Themethodologyalsoincludesadetailedsetofscoringrules,whichindicatehowpointsareallocatedundereachIndicator.Thisensuresthattheallocationofpoints

is consistent across different countries. The original assessments were done by

researchers at CLD and AIE, with each researcher conducting blind comparativeassessmentsoncountriesdonebyotherresearchers,toensurestandardisation.To

checktheseassessments,andtoensurethatthewiderlegalcontextwastakenintoaccount, local RTI experts were asked to review and comment on the original

assessments,andthesecommentswerethenintegratedintothescoring.

GeneralOverviewofresultsAsof September 2013, 95 countries, from all regions of the world, had adopted

national RTI laws.7Perhaps surprisingly, Serbia tops the list with 135 points,

followedbyIndiaandSlovenia,eachwith130.Lookingupfromthebottom,wefindAustria,withjust37points,followedbyLiechtensteinwith42pointsandTajikistan

with51points.

Overall, the results demonstrate that there is vast room for improvement. The

resultsfallintoaroughbellcurve,asindicatedinTable1andFigure1below.Table1 shows the number of countries falling into three equal (tercile) score ranges

(cropped to remove the as yet unattained bottom and top score ranges), while

Figure1showsthenumberofcountriesby10-pointscoreranges.

Table1:ResultsDividedintoTercileScoreRanges

ScoreRange NumberofCountries

37-69 24

70-102 49

102-135 22

AsdemonstratedinTable1,almostexactlyone-halfofthecountriesscoredinthe

middle tercile,between 70 and 102points out of150,with about one-quarter ineachof the top and bottom terciles. Looked atdifferently, thismeans that three-

quarters of all countries received less than two-thirds (66 percent) of the total

7TheRTIRatinghasnotyetdoneacomprehensiveassessmentofsub-national(i.e.stateor

provinciallevel)laws,ofwhichthereare100saroundtheworldinfederalStateslikeIndia,Mexico

andtheUnitedStates.


6/16

-5-

possiblepoints.Theoverallaveragescorewasnearly86points,orabout57percent

ofthe150points.

Figure1illustratesmoreclearlytheroughbellcurvedistributionofscoresacrosstherangeofattainedscores,witharoughlyequalnumberofcountriesineachofthe

four10-pointrangesfrom60-99.Theoneclearoutlieristhenumberofcountriesinthe110-119range,whichisfarhigherthanitsbellcurvepositionwouldindicate.

Figure1:NumberofLawsper10-pointScoreRanges

Note:They-axisrepresentsthescorerangeofthelawandthex-axisrepresentsthenumberoflaws

inthisrange

In terms of performance by the seven Categories of Indicator (Right of Access,

Scope, Requesting Procedures, Exceptions and Refusals, Appeals, Sanctions andProtections,andPromotionalMeasures),byfarthestrongestareaofachievementis

Category 2: Scope, with an average score of nearly 77 percent of the possible

maximum.Theworst performerwasCategory 6: Sanctions and Protections,withjust over33 percentof the possiblemaximum,whilethe other Categories are all

relatively close, more-or-less in the 50-60 percent range (see Figure 2). These

results may reflect the fact that Scope and Sanctions and Protections are,

respectively, relatively easy or challenging performance areas on the Rating, orsimplythatcountriesaredoingbetterandworse,respectively,intheseCategories.

0

2

4

68

10

12

14

16

18


7/16

-6-

Figure2:AveragePercentageScorebyCategoryandTotalScore

Note:C1-7onthey-axisrepresentCategories1to7intheRTIRating

Comparingthegapsbetweenthebottom,middleandtoptercilescoringcountries

byCategory(seeFigure3),wecanseethatbyfarthelargestdifferences,ofabout32

and31 percentbetweenthe bottom,middle and top terciles, respectively, are inCategory7:PromotionalMeasures.Thisisinterestingbecauseitshowsthatbetter

laws tend to be more heavily outperforming in terms of structural measures topromote implementation, something one might postulate would also correlate

stronglywithbetterimplementationinpractice.

Figure3:ScoresbyCategoryBrokenDownbyTercilePerformance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7Total

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Total

Bottom

Middle

Top


8/16

-7-

Otherwise, the gaps between the bottom and middle tercile laws are around 10

percentagepointsforCategories1and2,growingto13to18percentforCategories3-6.Therearelargeraveragegapsbetweenthemiddleandtoptercilelaws,allof

between15and22percentagepointsforCategories1to6.Thiscorrespondstothetotal average score gaps by tercile, which is 16 percentage points between the

bottomandmiddlecountries, and20pointsbetween themiddleand topterciles.Thiswouldappeartoreflecttherelativestrengthofthetopcountries,whichFigure1showsbaulkingthebellcurve,witharelativelyheavyconcentrationinthemiddle

ofthistercile,namelythescorerangeof110-119.

RTIandDateofAdoption8

AsFigure4shows, the rateof adoption ofnewRTI lawswas slowand relatively

steady between around 1980 and 1998, after which the curve increases

dramaticallyandholdsmore-or-lesssteadyuntilthepresentday.9

Figure4:GrowthinNumberofRTILawsoverTime

Figure5showsthedistributionofthisgrowthbyregion.Until1995,almostallofthe(relativelyslow)growthcouldbeattributedtodevelopedcountries,withonly

fivelawscumulativelyhavingbeenadoptedinallfiveotherregionsoftheworldby

thatdate.Forthenexttenyears,nearlyone-halfofallnewlawscamefromEastand

CentralEurope,with19newlaws,withtheotherhalflargelybeingsharedbetweenLatin American and the Caribbean (LAC) and Asia (ten and nine new laws,respectively),andfourlawsbeingadoptedinSub-SaharanAfrica.By2005,almost

8SomeofthematerialinthissectionisdrawnfromanupcomingWorldBankpublicationauthored

byTobyMendeloftheCentreforLawandDemocracy,HistoricalSpreadofRighttoInformation(RTI)

Legislation.9Notethattheapparentlyslopingoffofthecurveattheendisnotrepresentativesincethegapthere

isofjustoneyear,asopposedtotwoyearsforeachoftheothergraphpoints.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


9/16

-8-

allEuropeancountrieshadlaws,andgrowthintheeightyearssincethenhasbeen

concentratedinLatinAmericaand theCaribbean (eight),Asia (seven)andAfrica(six),withall threeof the laws intheArabWorldalsobeingadoptedduring this

period.

Figure5:GrowthinNumberofRTILawsoverTimeandbyRegion

In terms of scope of regional coverage, Table 2 shows the number of countries

whichhaveadoptedRTIlawsbyregion.

Table2:RTILawsbyRegion10

Regions Numberof

Laws

EasternandCentralEurope 24

DevelopedCountries 22

LatinAmericaandCaribbean 20

AsiaandPacific 16

Sub-SaharanAfrica 10

ArabWorld 3

Total 95

Bothdevelopedcountries andEasternandCentralEuropeare largelycoveredbyRTIlaws,withafewnotableexceptions,suchasSpainintheformerandBelarusin

thelatter.OnlyoneoftheislandStatesinthePacifictheCookIslandshasanRTI

10Forpurposesofthesenumbers,IsraelandCentralAsiaarecountedaspartofAsia,whileTurkeyis

countedaspartofEasternEurope.ThetermDevelopedCountriesisperhapsamisnomerinthe

modernworld,butthisgroupiscomprisedofWesternEuropeancountriesalongwithAustralia,

Canada,NewZealandandtheUnitedStates.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Developed

EEurope

LAC

Asia

AfricaArab


10/16

-9-

law,and lessthanone-halfof theCaribbean Islandshave laws,which isprobably

mainly a reflection of the special challenges facing these mostly very smallpopulation countries. Otherwise, roughly two-thirds of the countries of Latin

AmericahaveadoptedRTIlaws,alongwithaboutone-halfofthecountriesinAsia.TheratedropsoffsharplyforSub-SaharanAfricaandtheArabWorld,eachofwhich

hasonlyabout20percentcoverage.Anumber ofobservationsmaybedrawn fromtheseresults. EasternandCentral

EuropestarteditstrajectorytowardsRTIrelativelyearly(around1995)compared

toallregionsoftheworldapartfromdevelopedcountries,andmovedrapidlyandcomprehensivelytowardsalmosttotalcoveragewithinjusttenyears.Thisprobably

reflectsastrongbeliefintheneedforopennessingovernment,ahangoverfromthecommunistyears,aswellasthestrongpulltowardsdemocratisationbeingexerted

bytheEuropeanUnionandWesternEuropeancountries.Asiastarteditstrajectory

aroundthesametime(i.e.1995),buthasmovedfarmoreslowly,onlyachieving50percentcoveragetodate.Nodoubtpartofthereasonforthisisthepatchworkof

democracies,emergingdemocraciesandauthoritarianregimesacrossthisregion,aswellasitsheterogeneityandlackofconsistentexternalpressureforreform.

For theirpart, bothLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean andAfricabasically startedadoptingRTIlawsinearnestaboutfiveyearsafterEasternandCentralEuropeand

Asia. LAC hasmovedmore rapidly thanAsia orAfrica inadopting RTI laws, but

progress has been hampered in part by a few less democratic countries in theregion.IntermsofAfrica,thereisadegreeofresidualscepticismaboutthisissuein

manycountries,someofwhichincludingGhana,Kenya,MaliandZambiahaveseenlong-standingcampaignsandevengovernmentalpromisestoadoptlawsstill

nothavingcometofruition.Withonenotableexception,theArabWorldsRTIlaws

havecomewiththeArabSpring,areflectionofthefactthat,priortothat,theregionwasalmostentirelydominatedbynon-democraticStates.

ThestrengthofRTIlawshasimprovedbothdramaticallyandlargelyconsistentlyovertime,apartfromasmalldropbetween2005and2010,fromalowaverageof

78pointsin1985toahighof91in2013.

Thisiscertainlyaverysignificantprogressionbut,atthesametime,itshouldnot

necessarilybevery surprising, sincestandardsontheright to informationbothinternational and in terms of better comparative practice are continuously

evolving.Lawsthatweredraftedmorerecentlyhavehadtheadvantagesoflearning

fromthemistakesorfailuresoflawsthatwerewrittenearlierandofbeingabletoreference clear international standards in thisarea. Furthermore, theyears since

1995haveseentheemergenceofincreasinglypowerfulbothcivilsocietynetworksand international community advocacy in favour of strong RTI laws,which have

facilitated the sharing of information about better practice and international

standards,andalsocreatedpressureforpositivelawreform.


11/16

-10-

Figure6:StrengthofRTILawsoverTime

Note:The1995figurerepresentstheaveragescoreofalllawsadopteduntilthatdate,whilethe

otherfiguresrepresentlawsadoptedbetweenthetwodatesindicated

Figure7showsthechangeinstrengthofRTIlawsovertime,brokendownbyRTI

Rating Category. By far the most dramatic increase has come in Category 7:PromotionalMeasures,whichhadby2013increasedby77percentoverits1995

starting point, despite a small drop between 2010 and 2013. This might beexplained by the growing recognition of the importance of making the

implementation of promotional measures legally binding, since otherwise early

enthusiasmmightgivewaytodecliningeffort.

Figure7:StrengthofRTILawsoverTime,byCategory

76.00

78.00

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

1995

2000

20052010

2013


12/16

-11-

OtherstrongincreaseswerepostedinCategory2:Scope(24percent),despitean

alreadystrongstartingpositionin1995,Category4:Exceptions(21percent)andCategory6:SanctionsandProtections(30percent).Somepossibleexplanationsfor

thismightbethegrowingrecognitionoftheneedforallbranchesofgovernmenttobecoveredbyRTIlaws,anissueonwhichearlierlawstendedtobeweak,betterunderstandingofwhatinformationreallydoesneedtobekeptconfidential,along

witharecognitionthataccessasahumanrightdemandednarrowexceptions,and

an understanding that it was necessary to protect individuals who discloseinformationingoodfaith.

Declines were actually posted in Category 1: Right of Access (four percent) and

Category5:Appeals(eightpercent).Theformermaybeexplainedbythefactthat

countries without constitutional provisions on the right of access to informationmoved to adopted laws in line with the global trend and national civil society

campaigns. It should also be noted that one-third of the points in this Categorydependonconstitutionalprotection for RTI,and that the dateofadoptionoftheconstitution wouldnormally be different from the RTI law, thereby skewing the

data.Thelattermaybeexplainedinpartbythefactthatthisisarelativelystrongarea in developed country laws, which tend to have been adopted earlier (see

below).

RegionalTrends

OneofthemoststrikingaspectsoftheRTIRatingresultsisthepreponderanceof

new and emerging democracies among the top scoring countries, and the

concomitantclusteringofolderandbetter-establisheddemocraciesatthebottom.Morespecifically,ofthetop21countries,11onlyoneisfromWesternEurope,eight

arefromEastandCentralEurope,fivefromLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,threeeachfromAfricaandAsiaandonefromtheMiddleEast.Withacoupleofexceptions,

thesearecountrieswherethegeneraloutlookintermsofhumanrightsandgood

governancetendstobeimproving.Fromthisperspective,strongprotectionforRTImay be seen as an early indicator of coming improvements in the protection of

human rightsmore generally.Andas theprevioussectiondemonstrated, there is

alsoastrongcorrelationbetweenthebetterperformersandtherecentadoptionofthelaw.

Ontheotherhand,WesternEuropedominatesthebottom20countries,withnine

entries, followed by Asia with five, Eastern Europe and Latin American and the

Caribbeaneachwithtwo,andAfricaandtheMiddleEastwithoneeach.Thisisaninteresting mix of strong and relatively healthy democracies, new and emerging

11Threecountriesaretiedatthe19 thposition.


13/16

-12-

democracies and less democratic countries. No doubt there are a number of

explanationsforthisindifferentcountries,includingafailureofsomeoftheearlyadopterstoupdatetheirlaws,alackofseriousintentiontoadoptastronglawinthe

firstplaceinsomecountries,andacombinationoflocalfactorsinafewemergingdemocracieswhichresultedinpoorlawsbeingadopted.

Thisfitsapicturethatwillbe familiar tomanywhoworkin the fieldofaccesstoinformation,namelythatpeoplelivingincountriesthathaverecentlyexperienced

oppressionanddictatorshipoften tend tosafeguard their libertiesmore carefully

thanthosewhotaketheirdemocraciesforgranted.Anotherwayoflookingatthisistonotethatcitizensinestablisheddemocraciesoftenfeeltheyhavealesspressing

needfortransparencyingovernmentsince,onthewhole,theytendtofacelowerlevelsofcorruptionandabuseofpower.However,thisobviouslydoesnotholdtrue

forallofthedemocraticcountriesatthebottomofthelist,suchasGreeceandItaly,

whichareamongthemorecorruptStatesinEurope.

Figure 8 showsthe average totalscoreonthe RTI Ratingbyregion.Consistentlywiththeobservationsaboveonthetopandbottomperformers,developedcountriesperformtheworst,andtheyconstitutetheonlyregionwithanaveragepercentage

scoreofbelow50percent.TheyarefollowedbyAsia/PacificandtheArabWorld,at54 and 56 percent, respectively, and then Latin America/Caribbean, Africa and

East/CentralEurope,allbetween60and62percent.

Figure8:AverageTotalPercentageScoresbyRegion

Perhaps the most pertinent observation here is the relative lack of disparity

between the three top-performing regions, despite the fact that they differsignificantlyintermsofwealthandothersocial,politicalandeconomicindicators,

particularlyinthecaseofAfrica.TherelativelystrongperformanceofAfricamaybeexplainedinpartbythelimitedpenetrationoflawsinthisregion,whichmeansthat

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00


14/16

-13-

those countries that have adopted laws tend to be among the more democratic.

Thereare, however,exceptions to this, suchasEthiopiaand Zimbabwe,with theformerevenhavingachievedatop-tenscore.

The weaker performance of Asia/Pacific may in part be due to the chequered

historyofdemocratisationandinpartbythehugelyheterogeneousnatureoftheregion.TheArabWorldsampleofjustthreecountriesmaybetoosmalltodrawanyfirm conclusions, although this very fact may also signal the relative weak

penetrationofdemocraciesintheregion.

ThechartsinFigure9showthebreakdownofscoresbyregion,andthenintermsof

Categoryandtotal(bypercentage).AnalysingthesebyCategory,andcontrollingforaregionsrelativestrengthorweaknesscomparedtotheaverage(i.e.factoringout

the regions overall score relative to the average score), we can observe that

developedcountriesdopoorlyintermsofRightofAccessandScopeandbetterintermsofAppeals.Thisprobablyreflectstheabsenceofconstitutionalprotectionfor

RTI inmanydevelopedcountries, the limited scope of their laws in termsof thelegislature and judicial branches of government, and their stronger belief inindependentoversight.EasternandCentralEurope,ontheotherhand,doespoorly

on Appeals, perhaps reflecting their lack of experience with independentadministrativebodies,andexceptionallywellonScope,perhapsareflectionoftheir

beliefintheneedtobringallpublicbodiesundertheambitofthelawtoavoidthe

abusesofthepast.Figure9a:DevelopedCountries Figure9b:EasternandCentralEurope

CountriesinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanoutperformtheiraveragescoresbythe largestmargins onPromotionalMeasures and the Right ofAccess, the latter

probablypartlyaresultofthewidespreadconstitutionalguaranteesintheregionand the former perhapsinparta reflectionof the export ofpositivepromotional

models from countries like Mexico, especially in relation to education, assigned

information officials and reporting. They fall short, however, on Appeals, sincerelativelyfewcountriesintheregionhaveindependentoversightbodies.Asiaand

Pacific does best on Appeals and Right of Access, and worst on Promotional

-10.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

70.00

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00


15/16

-14-

Measures, followedbyScope. Thereasons for thisarenot immediatelyapparent,

andtheregionisprobablytoodiversetodrawfirmconclusions.Figure9c:LatinAmericaandCaribbean Figure9d:AsiaandPacific

Africa,foritspart,doessuperlativelywellonSanctionsandProtectionsrelativeto

its already strong overall average, and also performs strongly in terms ofExceptions.ThelattermaybeinpartduetotheinfluenceofSouthAfricawhich,asthefirstcountryintheregiontohavealaw,hasinfluencedotherregionallaws,and

whichhas a very tightregime ofexceptions. The formermay bedue toa strong

desireforbothprotectionforgoodfaithbehaviourandaccountabilityinthefaceofwrongdoing. Finally, the Arab World is very strong in terms of Promotional

MeasuresandexceptionallyweakintermsoftheRightofAccessbut,onceagain,thesamplesizeforthisisreallytoosmalltodrawanystrongconclusions.

Figure9e:Sub-SaharanAfrica Figure9f:ArabWorld

Conclusion

ThepasttwentyyearshaveseenthenumberofRTIlawsgloballymultiplybymore

thanfivetimes,fromjust18in1993to95today.AsmeasuredbytheRTIRating,thequalityoftheselawsisdistributedroughlyoverabellcurve,withanaveragescore,

inbothmedianandmeanterms,ofabout86points,or57percentofthepossibletotalof150,andtheaveragescoreinmostoftheRTIRatingCategoriesfallinginto

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

Total

-

20.00

40.00

60.0080.00

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00100.00

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

Total

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00100.00

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

Total


16/16

-15-

the50-60percentrange.TheRTIRatingalsoshowsthatthequalityofRTIlawshas

improvedfairlydramaticallyandconsistentlyoverthosesametwentyyears.

Onlytimewilltellwhetherthegrowthintermsofbothnumberandqualityoflawswillcontinue.Intermsoftheformer,themoredemocraticregionsoftheworldare

allapproachingfullpenetrationoflaws,withpotentialforfurthergrowthinAfrica,theArabWorld,AsiaandamongthesmallislandStatesofboththeCaribbeanandPacific.

Improvementinaveragequalitycancomeboththroughtheadoptionofstrongnewlaws the primary engine of growth in this area so far and through the

improvement of existing laws. The weak performance of developed countriesindicates strong potential for improvement in the latter area, although thereare

unfortunatelyfewconcreteindicationsthatthisislikelytohappeninpractice.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	live-law
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Report 1.13.09.Overview of RTI Rating

Documents