Methodology

You are here

Read a Country or a Territory Report

 
 
Methodology
 
Nations in Transit 2012 measures progress and setbacks in democratization in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia. This volume, which covers events from January 1 through December 31, 2011, is an updated edition of surveys published in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1998, 1997, and 1995.
 
Country Reports
 
The country reports in Nations in Transit 2012 follow an essay format that allowed the report authors to provide a broad analysis of the progress of democratic change in their country of expertise. Freedom House provided them with guidelines for ratings and a checklist of questions covering seven categories: electoral process, civil society, independent media, national democratic governance, local democratic governance, judicial framework and independence, and corruption. Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects. Previous editions included only one governance category. The ratings for all categories reflect the consensus of Freedom House, the Nations in Transit advisers, and the report authors.
 
Each country report is organized according to the following:
  • National Democratic Governance. Considers the democratic character and stability of the governmental system; the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of legislative and executive branches; and the democratic oversight of military and security services.
  • Electoral Process. Examines national executive and legislative elections, electoral processes, the development of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the political process.
  • Civil Society. Assesses the growth of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), their organizational capacity and financial sustainability, and the legal and political environment in which they function; the development of free trade unions; and interest group participation in the policy process.
  • Independent Media. Addresses the current state of press freedom, including libel laws, harassment of journalists, and editorial independence; the emergence of a financially viable private press; and internet access for private citizens.
  • Local Democratic Governance. Considers the decentralization of power; the responsibilities, election, and capacity of local governmental bodies; and the transparency and accountability of local authorities.
  • Judicial Framework and Independence. Highlights constitutional reform, human rights protections, criminal code reform, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and compliance with judicial decisions.
  • Corruption. Looks at public perceptions of corruption, the business interests of top policymakers, laws on financial disclosure and conflict of interest, and the efficacy of anticorruption initiatives.
 
Ratings and Scores
 
For all 29 countries in Nations in Transit 2012, Freedom House—in consultation with the report authors, a panel of academic advisers, and a group of regional expert reviewers—has provided numerical ratings in the seven categories listed above. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest and 7 the lowest level of democratic progress.
           
The ratings follow a quarter-point scale. Minor to moderate developments typically warrant a positive or negative change of a quarter point (0.25), while significant developments warrant a half point (0.50). It is rare for any category to fluctuate more than a half point in a single year.
 
The ratings process for Nations in Transit 2012 involves four steps:
 
  1. Authors of individual country reports suggests preliminary ratings in all seven categories covered by the study, ensuring that substantial evidence is provided where a score change is proposed.
  1. Each draft report is then sent to several regional expert reviewers, who provide comment on both the score change and the quality of its justification in the report’s text.
  1. Over the course of a two-day meeting, Freedom House’s academic advisory board discusses and evaluates all ratings.
  1. Report authors are given the opportunity to dispute any revised rating that differs from the original by more than 0.50 points.
 
Final editorial authority for the ratings rests with Freedom House.
 
Nations in Transit does not rate governments per se, nor does it rate countries based on governmental intentions or legislation alone. Rather, a country’s ratings are determined by considering the practical effect of the state and nongovernmental actors on an individual’s rights and freedoms.
 
The Nations in Transit ratings, which should not be taken as absolute indicators of the situation in a given country, are valuable for making general assessments of how democratic or authoritarian a country is. They also allow for comparative analysis of reforms among the countries examined and for analysis of long-term developments in a particular country.
 
Nations in Transit 2012 Checklist of Questions
 
National Democratic Governance
 
  1. Is the country’s governmental system democratic?
  • Does the Constitution or other national legislation enshrine the principles of democratic government?
  • Is the government open to meaningful citizen participation in political processes and decision-making in practice?
  • Is there an effective system of checks and balances between legislative, executive, and judicial authority?
  • Does a freedom of information act or similar legislation ensure access to government information by citizens and the media?
  • Is the economy free of government domination?
  1. Is the country’s governmental system stable?
  • Is there consensus among political groups and citizens on democracy as the basis of the country’s political system?
  • Is stability of the governmental system achieved without coercion, violence, or other abuses of basic rights and civil liberties by state or non-state actors?
  • Do citizens recognize the legitimacy of national authorities and the laws and policies that govern them?
  • Does the government’s authority extend over the full territory of the country?
  • Is the governmental system free of threats to stability such as war, insurgencies, and domination by the military, foreign powers, or other powerful groups?
  1. Is the legislature independent, effective, and accountable to the public?
  • Does the legislature have autonomy from the executive branch?
  • Does the legislature have the resources and capacity it needs to fulfill its lawmaking and investigative responsibilities? (consider financial resources, professional staffs, democratic management structures, etc)
  • Do citizens and the media have regular access to legislators and the legislative process through public hearings, town meetings, published congressional records, etc?
  • Do legislative bodies operate under effective audit and investigative rules that are free of political influence? 
  • Does the legislature provide leadership and reflect societal preferences by providing a forum for the peaceful and democratic resolution of differences?
  1. Is the executive branch independent, effective, and accountable to the public?
  • Is the executive branch’s role in policy making clearly defined vis-à-vis other branches of government?
  • Does the executive branch have the resources and capacity it needs to formulate and implement policies?
  • Do citizens and the media have regular access to the executive branch to comment on the formulation and implementation of policies?
  • Does a competent and professional civil service function according to democratic standards and practices?
  • Do executive bodies operate under effective audit and investigative rules that are free of political influence? 
  • Does the executive branch provide leadership and reflect societal preferences in resolving conflicts and supporting democratic development?
  1. Are the military and security services subject to democratic oversight?
  • Does the Constitution or other legislation provide for democratic oversight and civilian authority over the military and security services?
  • Is there sufficient judicial oversight of the military and security services to prevent impunity?
  • Does the legislature have transparent oversight of military and security budgets and spending?
  • Do legislators, the media, and civil society groups have sufficient information on military and security matters to provide oversight of the military and security services?
  • Does the government provide the public with accurate and timely information about the military, the security services, and their roles?
Electoral Process
  1. Is the authority of government based upon universal and equal suffrage and the will of the people as expressed by regular, free, and fair elections conducted by secret ballot?
  2. Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling, and honest tabulation of ballots?
  3. Is the electoral system free of significant barriers to political organization and registration?
  4. Is the electoral system multiparty based, with viable political parties, including an opposition party, functioning at all levels of government?
  5. Is the public engaged in the political life of the country, as evidenced by membership in political parties, voter turnout for elections, or other factors?
  6. Do ethnic and other minority groups have sufficient openings to participate in the political process?
  7. Is there opportunity for the effective rotation of power among a range of different political parties representing competing interests and policy options?
  8. Are the people’s choices free from domination by the specific interests of power groups (the military, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, regional hierarchies, and/or economic oligarchies)?
  9. Were the most recent national legislative elections judged free and fair by domestic and international election-monitoring organizations?
  10. Were the most recent presidential elections judged free and fair by domestic and international election-monitoring organizations?
Civil Society
  1. Does the state protect the rights of the independent civic sector?
  2. Is the civil society vibrant? (Consider growth in the number of charitable, nonprofit, and nongovernmental organizations; improvements in the quality of performance of civil society groups; locally led efforts to increase philanthropy and volunteerism; the public’s active participation in private voluntary activity; the presence of effective civic and cultural organizations for women and ethnic groups; the participation of religious groups in charitable activity; or other factors.)
  3. Is society free of excessive influence from extremist and intolerant nongovernmental institutions and organizations? (Consider racists, groups advocating violence or terrorism, xenophobes, private militias and vigilante groups, or other groups whose actions threaten political and social stability and the transition to democracy.)
  4. Is the legal and regulatory environment for civil society groups free of excessive state pressures and bureaucracy? (Consider ease of registration, legal rights, government regulation, fund-raising, taxation, procurement, and access-to-information issues.)
  5. Do civil society groups have sufficient organizational capacity to sustain their work? (Consider management structures with clearly delineated authority and responsibility; a core of experienced practitioners, trainers, and the like; access to information on NGO management issues in the native language; and so forth.)
  6. Are civil society groups financially viable, with adequate conditions and opportunities for raising funds that sustain their work? (Consider sufficient organizational capacity to raise funds; option of nonprofit tax status; freedom to raise funds from domestic or foreign sources; legal or tax environment that encourages private sector support; ability to compete for government procurement opportunities; ability to earn income or collect cost recovery fees.)
  7. Is the government receptive to policy advocacy by interest groups, public policy research groups, and other nonprofit organizations? Do government officials engage civil society groups by inviting them to testify, comment on, and influence pending policies or legislation?
  8. Are the media receptive to civil society groups as independent and reliable sources of information and commentary? Are they positive contributors to the country’s civic life?
  9. Does the state respect the right to form and join free trade unions?
  10. Is the education system free of political influence and propaganda?
Independent Media
  1. Are there legal protections for press freedom?
  2. Are journalists, especially investigative reporters, protected from victimization by powerful state or non-state actors?
  3. Does the state oppose onerous libel laws and other excessive legal penalties for "irresponsible" journalism?
  4. Are the media’s editorial independence and news-gathering functions free of interference from the government or private owners? 
  5. Does the public enjoy a diverse selection of print and electronic sources of information, at both the national and local level, that represent a range of political viewpoints?
  6. Are the majority of print and electronic media privately owned and free of excessive ownership concentration?
  7. Is the private media’s financial viability subject only to market forces (that is, is it free of political or other influences)?
  8. Is the distribution of newspapers privately controlled?
  9. Are journalists and media outlets able to form their own viable professional associations?
  10. Does society enjoy free access to and use of the Internet, is diversity of opinion available through online sources, and does government make no attempt to control the Internet?
Local Democratic Governance
  1. Are the principles of local democratic government enshrined in law and respected in practice?
  • Does the Constitution or other national legislation provide a framework for democratic local self-government?
  • Have substantial government powers and responsibilities been decentralized in practice?
  • Are local authorities free to design and adopt institutions and processes of governance that reflect local needs and conditions?
  • Do central authorities consult local governments in planning and decision-making processes that directly affect the local level?
  1. Are citizens able to choose their local leaders in free and fair elections?
  • Does the Constitution or other national legislation provide for local elections held on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot?
  • Do local governments derive their power on the basis of regular, free, and fair local elections (either through direct election or through election by local assemblies or councils)?
  • Are free and fair local elections held at regular intervals and subject to independent monitoring and oversight?
  • Do multiple candidates representing a range of views participate in local elections and in local government bodies?
  • Are voters’ choices in local elections free from domination by power groups such as national political parties, central authorities, economic oligarchies, etc?
  • Are citizens engaged in local electoral processes, as evidenced by party membership, voter turnout, or other factors?
  1. Are citizens ensured meaningful participation in local government decision-making?
  • Do local governments invite input from civil society, business, trade unions, and other groups on important policy issues before decisions are made and implemented?
  • Do local governments initiate committees, focus groups, or other partnerships with civil society to address common concerns and needs?
  • Are individuals and civil society groups free to submit petitions, organize demonstrations, or initiate other activities that influence local decision-making?
  • Do women, ethnic groups, and other minorities participate in local government?
  • Do the media regularly report the views of local civic groups, the private business sector, and other nongovernmental entities about local government policy and performance?
  1. Do democratically elected local authorities exercise their powers freely and autonomously?
  • Do central authorities respect local decision-making authority and independence?
  • Are local governments free to pass and enforce laws needed to fulfill their responsibilities?
  • Do local authorities have the right to judicial remedy to protect their powers?
  • Do local governments have the right to form associations at the domestic and international level for protecting and promoting their interests?
  1. Do democratically elected local authorities have the resources and capacity needed to fulfill their responsibilities?
  • Are local governments free to collect taxes, fees, and other revenues commensurate with their responsibilities?
  • Do local governments automatically and regularly receive resources that are due from central authorities?
  • Do local governments set budgets and allocate resources free of excessive political influences and central controls?
  • Are local authorities empowered to set staff salaries, staff size and staffing patterns, and is recruitment based on merit and experience?
  • Do local governments have the resources (material, financial, and human) to provide quality services, ensure a safe local environment, and implement sound policies in practice?
  1. Do democratically elected local authorities operate with transparency and accountability to citizens?
  • Are local authorities subject to clear and consistent standards of disclosure, oversight, and accountability?
  • Are local authorities free from domination by power groups (economic oligarchies, organized crime, etc) that prevent them from representing the views and needs of the citizens who elected them?
  • Are public meetings mandated by law and held at regular intervals?
  • Do citizens and the media have regular access to public records and information?
  • Are media free to investigate and report on local politics and government without fear of victimization?
Judicial Framework and Independence
  1. Does the constitutional or other national legislation provide protections for fundamental political, civil, and human rights? (Includes freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of association, and business and property rights.)
  2. Do the state and nongovernmental actors respect fundamental political, civil, and human rights in practice?
  3. Is there independence and impartiality in the interpretation and enforcement of the constitution?
  4. Is there equality before the law?
  5. Has there been effective reform of the criminal code/criminal law? (Consider presumption of innocence until proven guilty, access to a fair and public hearing, introduction of jury trials, access to independent counsel/public defender, independence of prosecutors, and so forth.)
  6. Are suspects and prisoners protected in practice against arbitrary arrest, detention without trial, searches without warrants, torture and abuse, and excessive delays in the criminal justice system?
  7. Are judges appointed in a fair and unbiased manner, and do they have adequate legal training before assuming the bench?
  8. Do judges rule fairly and impartially, and are courts free of political control and influence?
  9. Do legislative, executive, and other governmental authorities comply with judicial decisions, and are judicial decisions effectively enforced?
Corruption
  1. Has the government implemented effective anticorruption initiatives?
  2. Is the country’s economy free of excessive state involvement?
  3. Is the government free from excessive bureaucratic regulations, registration requirements, and other controls that increase opportunities for corruption?
  4. Are there significant limitations on the participation of government officials in economic life?
  5. Are there adequate laws requiring financial disclosure and disallowing conflict of interest?
  6. Does the government advertise jobs and contracts?
  7. Does the state enforce an effective legislative or administrative process—particularly one that is free of prejudice against one’s political opponents—to prevent, investigate, and prosecute the corruption of government officials and civil servants?
  8. Do whistle-blowers, anticorruption activists, investigators, and journalists enjoy legal protections that make them feel secure about reporting cases of bribery and corruption?
  9. Are allegations of corruption given wide and extensive airing in the media?
  10. Does the public display a high intolerance for official corruption?
 
Democracy Score
Freedom House introduced a Democracy Score—a straight average of the ratings for all categories covered by Nations in Transit—beginning with the 2004 edition. Freedom House provided this aggregate for comparative and interpretive purposes of evaluating progress and setbacks in the countries under study.
            Background note: In the years before the 2004 edition, Freedom House used two aggregate scores to assist in the analysis of reform in the 27 countries covered by the Nations in Transit study.  These were Democratization (average of electoral process, civil society, independent media, and governance) and Rule of Law (average of corruption and constitutional, legislative, and judicial framework).  Analysis showed a high level of correlation between the previous scoring categories and the Democracy Score.
            For Nations in Transit 2012, Freedom House once again uses the Democracy Score.  Based on the Democracy Score and its scale of 1 to 7, Freedom House defined the following regime types:
 
Democracy Score
Regime Type
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1–2
Consolidated Democracy
 
 
 
 
3
Semi-Consolidated Democracy
 
 
 
4
Transitional Government or Hybrid Regime
 
 
5
Semi-Consolidated Authoritarian Regime
 
 
 
6–7
Consolidated Authoritarian Regime
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ratings and Democracy Score Guidelines
Beginning with the 2006 edition, the following guidelines were used to assist Freedom House staff and consultants in determining the ratings for electoral process; civil society; independent media; national democratic governance; local democratic governance; judicial framework and independence; and corruption.  Based on the aggregate Democracy Scores, the descriptions are intended to explain generally the conditions of democratic institutions in the different regime classifications.
 
1.00–2.99 Consolidated Democracies
 
1.00–1.99 Countries receiving a Democracy Score of 1.001.99 closely embody the best policies and practices of liberal democracy.
 
  • The authority of government is based on universal and equal suffrage as expressed in regular, free, and fair elections conducted by secret ballot. Elections are competitive, and power rotates among a range of different political parties.
  • Civil society is independent, vibrant, and sustainable. Rights of assembly and association are protected and free of excessive state pressures and bureaucracy.
  • Media are independent, diverse, and sustainable. Freedom of expression is protected, and journalists are free from excessive interference by powerful political and economic interests.
  • National and local governmental systems are stable, democratic, and accountable to the public. Central branches of government are independent, and an effective system of checks and balances exists. Local authorities exercise their powers freely and autonomously of the central government.
  • The judiciary is independent, impartial, timely, and able to defend fundamental political, civil, and human rights. There is equality before the law, and judicial decisions are enforced.
  • Government, the economy, and society are free of excessive corruption. Legislative framework, including strong conflict-of-interest protection, is in place so that journalists and other citizens feel secure to investigate, provide media coverage of, and prosecute allegations of corruption.
2.002.99 Countries receiving a Democracy Score of 2.002.99 closely embody the best policies and practices of liberal democracy. However, challenges largely associated with corruption contribute to a slightly lower score.
  • The authority of government is based on universal and equal suffrage as expressed in regular, free, and fair elections conducted by secret ballot. Elections are competitive, and power rotates among a range of different political parties.
  • Civil society is independent, vibrant, and sustainable. Rights of assembly and association are protected and free of excessive state pressures and bureaucracy.
  • Media are independent, diverse, and sustainable. Freedom of expression is protected, and journalists are free from excessive interference by powerful political or economic interests.
  • National and local governmental systems are stable, democratic, and accountable to the public. Central branches of government are independent, and an effective system of checks and balances exists. Local authorities exercise their powers freely and autonomously of the central government.
  • The judiciary is independent, impartial, and able to defend fundamental political, civil, and human rights. There is equality before the law, and judicial decisions are enforced, though timeliness remains an area of concern.
  • While government, the economy, and society are increasingly free of corruption, implementation of effective anticorruption programs may be slow and revelations of high-level corruption may be frequent.
3.00–3.99  Semi-Consolidated Democracies
Countries receiving a Democracy Score of 3.00–3.99 are electoral democracies that meet relatively high standards for the selection of national leaders but exhibit some weaknesses in their defense of political rights and civil liberties.
  • The authority of government is based on universal and equal suffrage as expressed in regular elections conducted by secret ballot. While elections are typically free, fair, and competitive, irregularities may occur. Power rotates among a range of different political parties.
  • Civil society is independent and active. Rights of assembly and association are protected. However, the organizational capacity of groups remains limited and dependence on foreign funding is a barrier to long-term sustainability. Groups may be susceptible to some political or economic pressure.
  • Media are generally independent and diverse, and freedom of expression is largely protected in legislative framework and in practice. However, special interests—both political and economic—do exert influence on reporting and editorial independence and may lead to self-censorship. While print media are largely free of government influence and control, electronic media are not.
  • National and local systems of government are stable and democratic. While laws and structures are in place to promote government transparency and accountability, implementation is lacking. The system of checks and balances may be weak, and decentralization of powers and resources to local self-governments incomplete.
  • The framework for an independent judiciary is in place. However, judicial independence and the protection of basic rights, especially those of ethnic and religious minorities, are weak. Judicial processes are slow, inconsistent, and open to abuse.
  • Corruption is widespread and state capacities to investigate and prosecute corruption are weak. Efforts to combat the problem produce limited results.
4.00–4.99 Transitional or Hybrid Regimes
Countries receiving a Democracy Score of 4.00–4.99 are typically electoral democracies that meet only minimum standards for the selection of national leaders. Democratic institutions are fragile and substantial challenges to the protection of political rights and civil liberties exist. The potential for sustainable, liberal democracy is unclear.
  • National elections are regular and competitive, but substantial irregularities may prevent them from being free and fair. Government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common.
  • Civil society is independent and growing, and rights of assembly and association are generally protected. However, philanthropy and volunteerism are weak, and dependence on foreign funding is a barrier to long-term sustainability. Democratically oriented NGOs are the most visible and active groups, especially during election seasons, and may be subject to government pressure.
  • Media are generally independent and diverse. Legislative framework to protect media may be in place but is not matched by practice. Special interests—both political and economic—exert influence on reporting and editorial independence, and may lead to self-censorship. Harassment of and pressure on journalists may occur.
  • National and local systems of government are weak and lacking in transparency. While the balance of power is fragile, a vocal yet fractionalized opposition may be present in parliament. Governance may remain highly centralized. Local self-government is not fully in place, with some local or regional authorities owing allegiance to the central authorities who appointed them.
  • The judiciary struggles to maintain its independence from the government. Respect for basic political, civil, and human rights is selective, and equality before the law is not guaranteed. In addition to the judiciary being slow, abuses occur. Use of torture in prisons may be a problem.
  • Corruption is widespread and presents a major impediment to political and economic development. Anticorruption efforts are inconsistent.
5.00–5.99 Semi-Consolidated Authoritarian Regimes
Countries receiving a Democracy Score of 5.005.99 attempt to mask authoritarianism or rely on external power structures with limited respect for the institutions and practices of democracy. They typically fail to meet even the minimum standards of self-governing, electoral democracy.
  • While national elections may be held at regular intervals and contested by opposition parties and candidates, they are marred by irregularities and deemed undemocratic by international observers. Public resources and state employees are used to guarantee incumbent victories. Political power may change hands, yet turnovers in the executive are well orchestrated and may fail to reflect voter preferences.
  • Power is highly centralized, and national and local levels of government are neither democratic nor accountable to citizens. Meaningful checks on executive power do not exist, and stability is achieved by undemocratic means.
  • Space for independent civil society is narrow. While governments encourage nongovernmental organizations that perform important social functions, they are hostile to groups that challenge state policy. Institutional weaknesses and insufficient funding, save international support, also contribute to the limited impact of politically oriented groups.
  • While independent media exist, they operate under government pressure and risk harassment for reporting that is critical of the regime. Investigative reporting on corruption and organized crime is especially risky. Harsh libel laws sustain a culture of self-censorship. Most media, particularly radio and television, are controlled or co-opted by the state.
  • The judiciary is restrained in its ability to act independently of the executive, and equality before the law is not guaranteed. The judiciary is frequently co-opted as a tool to silence opposition figures and has limited ability to protect the basic rights and liberties of citizens.
  • State involvement in the economic sector is sizable and corruption is widespread. Efforts to combat corruption are usually politically motivated.
6.00–7.00 Consolidated Authoritarian Regimes
Countries receiving a Democracy Score of 6.007.00 are closed societies in which dictators prevent political competition and pluralism and are responsible for widespread violations of basic political, civil, and human rights.
  • Elections serve to reinforce the rule of dictators who enjoy unlimited authority for prolonged periods of time. Pro-governmental parties and candidates dominate elections, while an independent opposition is typically barred from seeking office. Rotations of executive power are unlikely absent death or revolution.
  • Power is highly centralized, and the country’s national and local governmental systems are neither democratic nor accountable to the public.
  • Civil society faces excessive government restrictions and repression. A formal state ideology, or cult of personality, may dominate society and serve to justify the regime.
  • Freedom of expression is stifled, and independent media are virtually nonexistent. Media are typically state-owned or controlled by individuals connected to the regime. Censorship is pervasive, and repression for independent reporting or criticism of the government is severe.
  • The rule of law is subordinate to the regime, and violations of basic political, civil, and human rights are widespread. Courts are used to harass members of the opposition.
  • Corruption and state involvement in the economy are excessive. Allegations of corruption are usually intended to silence political opponents of the regime.
Research Team and Data Sources
 
Freedom House developed the initial survey and subsequent editions after consultations with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Freedom House staff members and consultants researched and wrote the country reports.  Consultants are regional or country specialists recommended by recognized authorities. The research team used a wide variety of sources in writing the reports, including information from nongovernmental organizations, multilateral lending institutions and other international organizations, local newspapers and magazines, and select government data.
 
The economic and social data contained in the country header pages of the 2012 edition were taken from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2011 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, April 2011).