Explore the data

About the IIAG

The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is a tool that measures and monitors governance performance in African countries.

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation (MIF) defines governance as:

the provision of political, social, economic and environmental public goods and services that every citizen has the right to expect from their government, and that a government has the responsibility to deliver to its citizens.

In the IIAG, country performance in delivering governance is measured across four key components that effectively provide indicators of a countries 'Overall Governance' performance.

The key components that form the four categories of the IIAG as described in the diagram below are: Safety & Rule of Law, Participation & Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development. Each of these categories contain sub-categories under which we have organised various indicators that provide quantifiable measures of the overarching dimensions of governance. In total, the IIAG contains 81 indicators.

Published since 2007, the IIAG was created to provide a quantifiable tool to measure and monitor governance performance in African countries, to assess their progress over time and to support the development of effective and responsive policy solutions. The IIAG focusses on measuring outputs and outcomes of policy, rather than declarations of intent, de jure statutes and levels of expenditure.

The 2022 IIAG provides data measuring the governance performance across all the dimensions described above for all 54 African countries for the years from 2012-2021. In order to provide a broad, documented and impartial picture of governance performance in every African country, the indicators used to measure governance in Africa are collected from 47 independent sources.

A revised framework

Since 2007, both the data and governance landscapes have evolved immensely. To take into account those changes, a thorough review of the IIAG was conducted between 2018 and 2020, providing a completely re-worked framework for the 2020 IIAG and successive iterations at both conceptual and methodological levels.

Highlighting Africa’s citizens’ voices

As citizens are the recipients of public leadership and governance, the assessment of governance performance needs to be rooted on results for citizens and cannot rely on official and expert assessment data alone.

Since the IIAG's inception, MIF has been working with and supporting Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public attitude surveys on the continent. For this reason, the IIAG dataset is accompanied by a complementary Afrobarometer-sourced Citizens’ Voices dataset. The structure of Citizens’ Voices mirrors the IIAG categories and provides public perception data on the closest proxies to the IIAG measures, becoming a key reference section of the IIAG to allow contextualisation of the results in the reality on the ground as perceived by citizens. However, it is important to note that these scores do not form part of the calculation for Overall Governance.

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation is fully transparent. We publish all country scores, full details and all information regarding the construction of the IIAG is available on our website.

{country}

About {classification}

The 2018 IIAG focuses on assessing country trends in the last five years (2013-2017), within the context of the last decade (2008-2017). Whilst a country can either improve or deteriorate over the decade, the trend displayed in recent years shows important and useful characteristics for analysis.

Whilst registering improvement over the decade, a country can, over the last five years:

Increase its rate of improvement;
Slow its rate of improvement;
Show recent decline.

Similarly, a country showing decline over the decade can, over the last five years:

Increase its rate of decline;
Slow its rate of decline;
Show recent improvement.

In order to capture these ‘trends within trends’, countries are classified according to the direction and size of their annual average trend in the most recent five years, compared to the direction and size of their annual average trend shown over a decade.

The time periods used for analysis are:

Ten-year period: 2008-2017
Five-year period: 2013-2017

Classification	Characteristic
	Improved
Increasing Improvement	Progress over the last ten years, with the rate of improvement increasing
Slowing Improvement	Progress over the last ten years, with the rate of improvement slowing
Bouncing Back	Decline (or no change) over the last ten years, but showing recent progress *
	Deteriorated
Warning Signs	Progress (or no change) over the last ten years, but showing recent decline *
Slowing Deterioration	Decline over the last ten years, but the rate of decline is slowing
Increasing Deterioration	Decline over the last ten years, with the rate of decline increasing

Where trends are static (show no change), the following classifications are applied: Static (over ten years) to decline (over five years): ‘Warning Signs’ | Improve (over ten years) to static (over five years): ‘Warning Signs’ | Decline (over ten years) to static (over five years): ‘Bouncing Back’ | Static (over ten years) to improve (over five years): ‘Bouncing Back’

A 'No Change' classification is applied in three instances. 1. When the annual average trend is exactly the same in both periods (if annual average trend appears the same but a classification is given, differences will exist beyond the second decimal place). 2. When a country/group achieves the best possible score (100.0) in 2012 and in 2016. 3. When a country/group achieves the worst possible score (0.0) in 2012 and 2016. In these latter two, no classification can be applied as scores cannot go higher or lower.

‘Not classified’ is applied when a country achieves the best possible score of 100.0 after 2013 and maintains it until 2017, or the worst possible score of 0.0 after 2013 and maintains it until 2017, or country data is not available for 2008, 2013 or 2017. In these instances it is not deemed that the characteristics of the trends match any classifications.

{rank_2010}

{rank_2011}

{rank_2012}

{rank_2013}

{rank_2014}

{rank_2015}

{rank_2016}

{rank_2017}

{rank_2018}

{rank_2019}

{rank_change}

{score_2010}

{score_2011}

{score_2012}

{score_2013}

{score_2014}

{score_2015}

{score_2016}

{score_2017}

{score_2018}

{score_2019}

{score_range_1}

{score_range_2}

{score_change_1}

{score_change_2}

{score_classification}

{itemName}

Too Many Measures

Sorry, it is currently only possible to view the map for a single measure

Please change your selection to select a single measure.

Compare all measures

Invalid Selection

Due to the number of items you have selected, it is not possible to produce an overview display.

When a single location is selected, the limit for measures is six. When a single measure is viewed, the limit for locations is four.

{inner}

About {location}

{location}

{subject}

{score} Out of 100.0

{trend}

Ranking

{rank} Out of {countries_with_rank}

VIEW MORE COUNTRY INFO

2018 Ibrahim Index of African Governance | iiag.online

{headline}

About {headline}

{subjects}

{subject}

{score} Out of 100.0

Trend

{change_at} {change_aat} {change_0} AAT since 2010
{change_1} AAT since {since_year_1} Absolute trend since 2010

Ranking

{rank} Out of {countries_with_rank}

{child}

{ch}

Out of 100.0

{headline}

About {headline}

{score_markup}

Ranking

{ranking}

Out of {countries_with_rank}

Trend

{overall_change_at} {overall_change_aat}

Absolute trend since 2010

{change_0} AAT since 2010
{change_1} AAT since 2015

{sub_name} scores

{inner_content}

{subject}

{score}

Out of 100.0

Trend {subject} for {location}

{ch_at} {ch_aat} {change_0} AAT since 2010
{change_1} AAT since 2015 Absolute trend since 2010

{level_4_name}

{level_5_name}

${level_1_name}$

{level_1_name}

{level_2_content}

{level_3_name}

Overall Governance

Explore the data

Quick selection

Overall Governance