Explore the data

Synthesis of the Methodology

The IIAG governance framework comprises four categories: Security & Rule of Law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations for Economic Opportunity and Human Development. These categories are made up of 16 sub-categories, consisting of 81 indicators. The 2022 IIAG is calculated using data from 47 independent, external data sources.

The IIAG is refined on a biennial basis. Refinements may be methodological, or based on the inclusion or exclusion of indicators. When new historical data are made available, or the structure of the IIAG is strengthened, the entire data set is updated for the whole time series. Users of the Index should therefore always reference the most recent version of the IIAG data set.

Calculation Stages

  • Indicators that are consistent with the Foundation’s definition of governance and meet specific standards of quality, periodicity and country coverage are selected and missing raw data values are estimated.
  • Raw data come in different scales from source. In order to be compared and combined, data are transformed to a standardised range of 0.0-100.0, where 100.0 is the best possible score.
  • Once the 81 indicators have been transformed to a common scale, a simple method of aggregation is applied to calculate the scores. The overall score is the average of the underlying category scores; the category scores the average of their underlying sub-categories, and the sub-categories the average of their constituent indicators.

Note on Decimal Place Precision in the 2022 IIAG

All figures on IIAG outputs are displayed to one decimal place. The calculation method to arrive at these scores is as follows:

  • Country scores are calculated on full-precision raw data values (using the exact values as they are collected from source). All scores are then rounded to one decimal place.
  • Group averages are calculated on the rounded, one decimal place country scores.
  • Both trends over time and ranks are calculated on the scores to one decimal place.

The exceptions to this are the annual average trend figures. These are calculated on the rounded trends over time, and displayed to two decimal places. Classifications are assigned based on the full precision of the annual average trend.

Further details of the methodology, as well as methodologies of commissioned datasets and links to all data sources can be found on our website


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

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}

About {location}

Region: {region}

REC membership(s): {memberships}

2020 IIAG Summary

Overall governance


Comparison to average scores


Highest & lowest scores



Sorry, it is only possible to compare results for up to four locations

You have already selected:

Public Perception of Overall Governance

About Citizens’ Voices

As citizens are the recipients of public leadership and governance, the assessment of governance performance of the IIAG is accompanied by the Citizens’ Voices dataset in an effort to contextualise the official and expert assessment data in the IIAG with the reality on the ground as perceived by citizens.

MIF has been working with and supporting Afrobarometer, the leading pan-African research institution conducting public opinion surveys on the continent, and the 2022 IIAG framework gives these more prominence. Formerly scattered at various levels in the IIAG, citizens’ assessments of various governance components are now highlighted in a Citizens’ Voices section, providing a comprehensive 'reality check' to complement the IIAG results.

This section mirrors the IIAG categories and provides public perception data on the closest proxies to the IIAG measures. However, whilst these measures are available to compare across the IIAG, it is important to note that their scores do not form part of the calculation for Overall Governance.

Measure Overview

Rename this view


About Quick Selection

Use these links to quickly select multiple measures at once.

Please note that this will not select any measures from the Citizens’ Voices section. To add those, simply scroll down to Public Perception of Overall Governance and use the quick select options there.

About this chart

Radar (or spider) charts are used to plot one or more groups of values over multiple common variables. Each variable has its own axis, and all axes are joined in the centre of the figure. Data from a single set of results are plotted along each axis and connected to form a polygon.

This radial chart compares the 16 IIAG sub-category scores in latest data year (2019) for the location of choice, alongside the African average scores.

Invalid Selection

The table and graph views allow you to compare one measure across many locations or multiple measures for a single location.

You have selected multiple locations and multiple measures

Please change your selection to select a single measure or single location.

Sorry, it is only possible to compare multiple locations against a single measure

You already have several measures selected. If you wish to compare these locations, select a single measure from the ones you have previously chosen:

  • Item 1
  • Item 2

Or keep your selected measures

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.

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.



{score} Out of 100.0
{rank} Out of {countries_with_rank}

2018 Ibrahim Index of African Governance | iiag.online



{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
{rank} Out of {countries_with_rank}



Out of 100.0

About {headline}



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


Awaiting content

{sub_name} scores



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_3_name}
  • About {subject}