Tonga

Data cited at CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2018 by Transparency International is licensed under CC-BY-ND 4.0. Global Corruption Barometer is the largest world-wide public opinion survey on corruption. see more at https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018 Transparency International(TI) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries according to the perception of corruption in the public sector. The CPI is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about corruption, making it possible to compare countries. The CPI ranks almost 200 countries by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.

A “proximity-to-target methodology” is used to assess how close each country is to an identified policy target. Country scores are determined by how close or far countries are to targets. Scores are standardized (i.e., on a scale of 0 to 100) for comparability, weighting, and aggregation. The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is constructed through the calculation and aggregation of 20 indicators reflecting national-level environmental data. These indicators are combined into nine issue categories, each of which fit under one of two overarching objectives. The two objectives that provide the overarching structure of the EPI are Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality. Environmental Health measures the protection of human health from environmental harm. Ecosystem Vitality measures ecosystem protection and resource management. These two objectives are further divided into nine issue categories that span high-priority environmental policy issues, including air quality, forests, fisheries, and climate and energy, among others. The issue categories are extensive but not comprehensive. Underlying the nine issue categories are 20 indicators calculated from country-level data and statistics. After more than 15 years of work on environmental performance measurement and six iterations of the EPI, global data are still lacking on a number of key environmental issues. These include: freshwater quality, toxic chemical exposures, municipal solid waste management, nuclear safety, wetlands loss, agricultural soil quality and degradation, recycling rates, adaptation, vulnerability, and resiliency to climate change, desertification.

The GEM Adult Population Survey (APS) measures the level and nature of entrepreneurial activity around the world. It is administered to a representative national sample of at least 2000 respondents. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor is the world's foremost study of entrepreneurship. Through a vast, centrally coordinated, internationally executed data collection effort, GEM is able to provide high quality information, comprehensive reports and interesting stories, to enhance the understanding of the entrepreneurial phenomenon.  

The Global Innovation Index (GII) aims to capture the multi-dimensional facets of innovation and provide the tools that can assist in tailoring policies to promote long-term output growth, improved productivity, and job growth. The GII helps to create an environment in which innovation factors are continually evaluated. It provides a key tool and a rich database of detailed metrics for 141 economies this year, which represent 95.1% of the world’s population and 98.6% of global GDP.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of achievements in three key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the the three dimensions.

Data cited at: Heritage Foundation   Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself. Economic Freedom Scores: Range and level of freedom 80–100:- Free 70–79.9:- Mostly Free 60–69.9:- Moderately Free 50–59.9:- Mostly Unfree 0–49.9:- Repressed

Measuring the information society report presents a global overview of the latest developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs), based on internationally comparable data and agreed methodologies. It aims to stimulate the ICT policy debate in ITU Member States by providing an objective assessment of countries’ performance in the field of ICT and by highlighting areas that need further improvement. The ICT Development Index (IDI) is a composite index that combines 11 indicators into one benchmark measure. It is used to monitor and compare developments in information and communication technology (ICT) between countries and over time. The IDI is divided into the following three sub-indices, and a total of 11 indicators: Access sub-index: This sub-index captures ICT readiness, and includes five infrastructure and access indicators (fixed-telephone subscriptions, mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions, international Internet bandwidth per Internet user, households with a computer, and households with Internet access). Use sub-index: This sub-index captures ICT intensity, and includes three intensity and usage indicators (individuals using the Internet, fixed broadband subscriptions, and mobile-broadband subscriptions). Skills sub-index: This sub-index seeks to capture capabilities or skills which are important for ICTs. It includes three proxy indicators (mean years of schooling, gross secondary enrolment, and gross tertiary enrolment). As these are proxy indicators, rather than indicators directly measuring ICT-related skills, the skills sub-index is given less weight in the computation of the IDI than the other two sub-indices. The data has been normalized to ensure that the data set uses the same unit of measurement. The values for the indicators selected to construct the IDI are converted into the same unit of measurement, since some indicators have maximum value as 100 whereas for other indicators the maximum value exceeds 100 After normalizing the data, the individual series were all rescaled to identical ranges, from 1 to 10.

1. The EGDI is based on a comprehensive Survey of the online presence of all 193 United Nations Member States, which assesses national websites and how e-government policies and strategies are applied in general and in specific sectors for delivery of essential services. The assessment rates the e-government performance of countries relative to one another as opposed to being an absolute measurement. The results are tabulated and combined with a set of indicators embodying a country’s capacity to participate in the information society, without which e-government development efforts are of limited immediate use. Although the basic model has remained consistent, the precise meaning of these values varies from one edition of the Survey to the next as understanding of the potential of e-government changes and the underlying technology evolves. This is an important distinction because it also implies that it is a comparative framework that seeks to encompass various approaches that may evolve over time instead of advocating a linear path with an absolute goal. 2. E-Government Development Index-EGDI Very High-EGDI (Greater than 0.75) High-EGDI (Between 0.50 and 0.75) Middle-EGDI (Between 0.25 and 0.50) Low-EGDI (Less than 0.25)

Note: In recent years, Doing Business introduced improvements to all of its indicator sets. In Doing Business 2015, Resolving Insolvency introduced new measures of quality, while Getting Credit and Protecting Minority Investors broadened their existing measures. In Doing Business 2016, Dealing with Construction Permits, Getting Electricity, Registering Property and Enforcing Contracts also introduced new measures of quality, and Trading across Borders introduced a new case scenario to increase the economic relevance. In Doing Business 2017, Paying Taxes introduced new measures of post-filing processes and Starting a Business, Registering Property and Enforcing Contracts added gender components. For the details on the Doing Business methodology changes, please view the Ease of Doing Business metrics. Each methodology expansion was recalculated for one year to provide comparable indicator values and scores for the previous year. Rankings are calculated for Doing Business 2019 only. Year-to-year changes in the number of economies, number of indicators and methodology affect the comparability of prior years.

The press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders publishes every year measures the level of freedom of information in nearly 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It is based partly on a questionnaire that is sent to our partner organizations (18 freedom of expression NGOs located in all five continents), to our network of 150 correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The 179 countries ranked in this year’s index are those for which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from various sources. Some countries were not included because of a lack of reliable, confirmed data. A score and a position are assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year’s index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.