Considering Mexico’s experience with military and corporatist autocratic rule, the country has made significant progress over the last two decades with regard to electoral competition and its overall regulatory environment, including market-oriented reforms. Economic and political elites, as well as an increasing share of the middle-class, are technically qualified and have knowledge on how best to organize the political, economic and social frameworks of their society. Mexican policymakers at both the national and regional levels are well trained, internationally experienced and often equipped with high-level qualifications from Western universities. Mexico’s tertiary education system is increasingly competitive internationally as are several major firms, including an increasing number in the manufacturing sector. At the same time, Mexico suffers from structural problems that are uncommon among most other OECD countries. These challenges mainly relate to an extremely unequal distribution of social benefits and services among the population, such as security and social opportunities. The resulting cleavages between geographic regions, rural and urban areas and social classes are among the most pressing barriers to further societal progress. In addition, uneven state capacity, both geographically and across policy sectors, often undermines the effective and coherent implementation of policies. Against this background, Mexico faced a series of major challenges in 2017.

El Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social 2018 analiza el desempeño de la política de desarrollo social en México con el propósito de que las administraciones (federal, estatales y municipales) cuenten con evidencia e información para la elaboración, monitoreo o evaluación de sus planes y programas de gobierno. Para elaborar este Informe, el CONEVAL utiliza la evidencia acumulada a lo largo de diez años en los que, además de hacer mediciones de pobreza y evaluaciones a políticas y programas de desarrollo social, ha llevado a cabo investigaciones en áreas tales como el análisis del cumplimiento de los derechos sociales y de las condiciones que enfrentan algunos grupos discriminados. El propósito principal de este Informe es mostrar la evidencia sobre la situación actual del país en relación con los avances y los retos en la pobreza y en el ejercicio de los derechos sociales de la población, poniendo énfasis en los grupos en condición de rezago.??

Recognizing the critical importance of Goal 16, this toolkit provides civil society and other nongovernment stakeholders with guidance on how to engage with their governments and other local, regional or international stakeholders to support the planning, implementation, follow-up and accountability of Goal 16. Work is already underway to localize Goal 16 and its targets and indicators, and it is essential that nongovernment stakeholders actively engage with these processes. A key feature of the approach to SDG implementation will be to ensure that national development plans, actions and indicators of progress are specifically tailored to each national context. To ensure that the SDGs are truly ‘people-centred’, SDG implementation should not be top-down, but instead must be driven by partnerships and collaborations across all sectors and segments of society—including all levels of governments, civil society, the private sector, philanthropic institutions, the United Nations (UN) system and a wide range of other relevant stakeholders. To this end, this toolkit is intended to serve as a resource to support civil society actors at local and national levels to influence decision-making processes on specific plans and action related to Goal 16. Providing initial ideas and entry points for civil society action, the toolkit has a particular focus on supporting national civil society stakeholders in their efforts to influence local and national governments to work towards the achievement of Goal 16.

Target 16.3 appears to provide a good example of ‘slippage in the level of ambition’ in moving from visionary goals to watered?down targets and indicators, due to the influence of powerful interests – in this case the UNODC. However, the SDG Agenda offers an important corrective measure, by encouraging Member States to ‘domesticate’ individual goals and targets – adapting them to local circumstances. Tunisia provides a vivid illustration of how a national SDG16 monitoring system can drive national accountability and contribute to positive change on the ground – provided indicators have broad?based buy?in and resonate with local grievances and priorities. First, the conceptual scope of the Tunisian Governance Goal was greatly expanded to include a strong focus on participation and human rights. Second the Tunisian SDG16 indicator set is dominated by survey?based indicators thus placing people's voice at the centre of the monitoring system. Third, the regular publication of national SDG16 data in Tunisia has incentivized tangible responses from public officials.

La Guía del usuario para medir la corrupción está dirigida a agentes nacionales, donantes y agentes internacionales que miden la corrupción y elaboran programas para combatirla. Expone las ventajas y las limitaciones de varios enfoques de medición. Asimismo, ofrece capacidades para una orientación práctica sobre el uso de indicadores y de los datos generados por las herramientas de medición de corrupción, que permite identificar puntos de entrada para los programas.

El curso, que se orientó a desarrollar habilidades conceptuales y a aplicar herramientas para identificar, prevenir e intervenir en situaciones de conflictos, fue adaptado de manera especial para Colombia con el fin de enfatizar en la construcción de paz y el modelo de paz territorial que se adelanta en el país. De manera particular, con el curso se brindó asesoría en el trabajo del DNP de integrar en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2014-2018 -que está en construcción por parte del Gobierno nacional- la visión de paz desde el territorio y transversalización de dicho enfoque en la estructura del documento.

This monitoring and evaluation guide is intended to improve the effectiveness of UNDP's rule of law programming with a view to implement UNDP’s Strategic Plan. It furthers the commitment of the organization in the Plan to ensure the highest standards of delivery of development results through rigorous monitoring and quality assurance and measurement. The guide also responds to an increasing demand from a wide range of national stakeholders and UNDP Country Offices for guidance on how to measure the impact of RoL programmes. This is the first guide that focuses specifically on the measurement of UNDP's rule of law programmes and projects across the spectrum of development settings, including conflict-affected and fragile environments.

A partir del análisis de una base de datos sobre información penitenciaria (de elaboración propia), integrada con información de la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública Federal (y Gobernación, antes de 2000 y 2012), del INEGI (particularmente el censo penitenciario 2012, con información 2011), de las encuestas del CIDE a población penitenciaria del centro del país (25% de la población penitenciaria del país) de 2003, 2006 y 2009, a internos por delitos de competencia federal de 2012, Guillermo Zepeda emprende el examen del Diagnóstico Nacional de Supervisión Penitenciaria 2011, realizado por la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, para ofrecernos un dictamen general del sistema penitenciario en México, que describe las condiciones de reclusión que priva en los centros penitenciarios del país, para dar cuenta de la alta vulnerabilidad de los derechos fundamentales de las personas privadas de su libertad, derivadas de la sobrepoblación existente, la proliferación de grupos criminales que operan al interior de ellos, la alta reincidencia delictiva de los internos y los precarios resultados que arrojan los programas de reinserción social, entre otros temas.

The rise of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has augured profound changes in the landscape of global health metrics. Primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the IHME has offered donors a platform for assessing many health?related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators and a toolkit to measure the progress of different countries. The IHME's increasing influence reveals the relative sidelining of international agencies and especially the World Health Organization which has long been central to global health metrics production. This shift reflects a growing conflict between the expertise and norms of national and intergovernmental statistical production on the one hand, and the distinct epistemologies and logics of new non?state data actors. These transitions – from an international world of statistics to a more plural, global realm of data – have acute implications for the politics and accountability of knowledge production related to the SDGs and development writ large. Even as the SDGs embrace the rubric of ‘no one left behind’, the emerging data politics might be eroding the ability of poorer states to know and act upon their development problems on their own terms.

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are central to strong national systems for protection and promotion of human rights. These institutions, operating in a variety of contexts, can be instrumental in supporting democratic governance, preventing human rights violations and the escalation of conflicts, strengthening the rule of law and advancing the rights of the most marginalized and vulnerable groups. To play these demanding roles effectively, NHRIs require solid capacities to safeguard their independence and resilience to possible changes in governance infrastructures or political changes. Eight Global Principles for capacity assessments of NHRIs have been identified on the basis of considerable experience and good practices developed over the years. These principles encompass compliance with human rights norms and standards, highlighting the values that underpin effective practices. The Global Principles and the wealth of analysis contained in this volume guide and strengthen capacity assessments and development of NHRIs across the world.

La presente guía espera dar respuesta a la creciente demanda de orientación, por parte de las Oficinas de País del PNUD y de numerosas partes interesadas nacionales, en torno a la multitud de herramientas y métodos utilizados para medir, evaluar y supervisar la gobernabilidad a escala local. El término “gobernabilidad local” utilizado en la guía abarca el conjunto de temas de gobernabilidad tratados en el ámbito local, incluida la descentralización de políticas y procesos, el papel y las relaciones entre los distintos actores e instituciones y el desempeño de la democracia y del gobierno local. La guía expone asuntos teóricos y conceptuales relacionados con la gobernabilidad local y analiza iniciativas pasadas y actuales de evaluación de gobernabilidad local. La proliferación de diferentes evaluaciones e indicadores ha propiciado cierta confusión sobre las herramientas que se deben utilizar,su aplicación,sus ventajas y desventajas.

Muchas cosas han cambiado en nuestro país en los últimos dos años. El gobierno y la oposición le dieron una oportunidad al diálogo constructivo para avanzar la agenda de reformas más ambiciosa de nuestro tiempo. La democracia mexicana demostró que era posible construir consensos en un contexto de pluralidad y competencia política. Si observamos un mapa del mundo es difícil encontrar un país que haya cambiado tanto en tan poco tiempo. Cambios fundamentales de política pública que estuvieron detenidos por lustros, finalmente fueron procesados en el Congreso de la Unión. En meses recientes México ha vivido momentos dolorosos y agitados. Sin embargo, un análisis objetivo de nuestra realidad no puede regatear el potencial de grandeza de las reformas estructurales. A veces los seres humanos vivimos muy cerca del presente y en consecuencia resulta complicado aquilatar la trascendencia histórica de los cambios que son analizados en este nuevo estudio del IMCO. Los desafíos que tiene hoy el país en materia de seguridad pública serían menos agudos si tuviéramos tasas más aceleradas de crecimiento económico. Necesitamos crear mejores oportunidades de prosperidad y empleo formal. Necesitamos una economía con más incentivos a la productividad, o lo que es lo mismo, mayores incentivos a la formalidad. Necesitamos fortalecer la capacidad de atraer talento e inversión, a nuestras ciudades, a nuestros estados y a nuestro país.

2013 se ha posicionado como el año del gobierno abierto. El progresivo avance de la Alianza para el Gobierno Abierto (Open Government Partnership) supone la consolidación de un proceso que, en menos de dos años, ha logrado contagiar la promesa de promover e implementar políticas públicas fundadas en los principios de la transparencia y del acceso a la información pública, la participación ciudadana, la integridad y un mayor uso de las tecnologías para la apertura y rendición de cuentas en 63 países de todo el mundo. En particular, la región de América Latina y el Caribe se destaca por ser la que tiene la más amplia participación, con 15 países miembros, 14 de los cuales cuentan con planes de acción en proceso de implementación y/o evaluación que recogen sus compromisos de gobierno abierto (Trinidad y Tobago es el próximo país que presentará un plan). A la fecha, algunos países están desarrollando procesos de consulta pública y espacios de participación para formular nuevos compromisos de gobierno abierto para un nuevo período. Por ello, conviene detenerse en analizar la experiencia comparada en la región a partir de la revisión de los compromisos impulsados en los planes de acción y la visión que los propios actores involucrados tienen sobre el proceso. Todo ello como parte de la necesaria reflexión que permita seguir abonando en este territorio emergente que se va configurando como un nuevo paradigma de reforma de la política y de la gestión pública en el siglo XXI.

El Índice de Paz México 2018 (IPM), elaborado por el Instituto para la Economía y la Paz (IEP), proporciona una medición integral de los niveles de paz en México. El IPM se basa en la metodología del Índice de Paz Global, la más reconocida medición de la paz en el mundo, y ha sido elaborado por el IEP cada año desde 2007. Esta es la quinta edición anual del IPM y en ella se presentan las principales tendencias, los modelos y los factores que impulsan la paz en México; asimismo, se destacan las oportunidades de política pública más importantes para las autoridades de los tres niveles de gobierno. En el informe se analiza la dinámica de la violencia en México, así como las debilidades y fortalezas de las actitudes, instituciones y estructuras que crean y sostienen sociedades pacíficas, conocidas como Paz Positiva, necesarias para reducir sustancialmente las tasas de violencia en México. Asimismo, se cuantifica el considerable impacto económico de la violencia sobre la economía mexicana y la necesidad de aumentar el nivel de inversión en su contención. Por último, se proporciona evidencia cuantitativamente sólida para ayudar a desarrollar políticas públicas orientadas a crear una sociedad más pacífica. Esta investigación será útil para formuladores de políticas, investigadores, líderes empresariales, organizaciones de sociedad civil y, en general, cualquier persona interesada en la tarea de construir la paz en México.

The selection of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , targets and indicators for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) can only be understood in the light of struggles to advance these rights amid a context of the growing reliance on indicators to measure progress. If the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) de?politicized inherently polemical issues in SRHR, the (re)production of knowledge of rights in the SDGs poses a subtler, but just as serious, threat. Although rights, and SRHR in particular, are apparently taken into account, the apparent neutrality of these metrics obscures politics and ideology. There is a danger that over?reliance on quantitative indicators obscures the structural challenges facing the advancement of SRHR, and therefore indicators should be coupled with qualitative information derived in context.

The GPI covers 99.7 per cent of the world’s population, using 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators from highly respected sources and measures the state of peace using three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation. In addition to presenting the findings from the 2017 GPI, this year’s report includes analysis of the Positive Peace factors that are most important for transitioning to higher levels of peace and how deteriorations in Positive Peace are linked to the rise of populism in Europe. The report also assesses the trends in peacekeeping and militarisation, including a cost/benefit analysis highlighting the positive economic benefits from early peacebuilding interventions.

This report explores the connections between peace and corruption, focusing on the empirical trends between the most authoritative measures of peace and corruption. It fills an important gap as the linkages between peace and corruption are still being deeply studied. The analysis finds that there is a statistically significant relationship between peace and corruption. The most striking aspect of this relationship is the presence of a ‘tipping point’. If a country has low levels of corruption then increases in corruption will have little effect on peace. However, once a certain threshold is reached then small increases in corruption can result in large decreases in peace.

This paper is based on the conclusions of a workshop entitled ‘Perspectives on Open Government in Latin America’, organised by the Latin America International Affairs Program (LAIAP) of LSE IDEAS on 30 October 2013. Sponsored by the World Bank Group, the OGP’s Civil Society Coordination, the Organisation of American States (OAS), the Government of Peru, the Federal Institute of Access to Public Information of Mexico (Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información Pública—IFAI) and the Alianza Regional por la Libertad de Expresion e Informacion, the event brought together more than 40 representatives from Latin American national governments, civil society and multilateral organisations with the objective of deepening the understanding of the OGP, its main challenges and opportunities within the regional context. The event was convened by Fabrizio Scrollini, a PhD candidate at the LSE Government Department. This report was co-written by Dr Ursula Durand Ochoa and Fabrizio Scrollini. The analysis is also based on the discussions and debates that took place during the 2013 OGP London Summit.

The World Justice Project (WJP) joins previous efforts to produce reliable data on open government through the WJP Open Government Index™ 2015, a report that measures government openness in practice based on the experiences and perceptions of the general public and in-country experts worldwide. We hope this biennial publication, anchored in actual experiences, will enhance efforts to evaluate the extent to which countries provide official information to their citizens, encourage community involvement, and improve government responsiveness. The WJP Open Government Index 2015 provides scores and rankings on four dimensions of government openness: (1) publicized laws and government data, (2) right to information, (3) civic participation, and (4) complaint mechanisms. These dimensions are intended to reflect how people experience varying degrees of openness in their daily interaction with government officials.

The papers in this special issue provide accounts of the politics and knowledge that shaped the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The open and transparent processes in the Open Working Group (OWG) and Post?2015 agenda consultations challenged the MDG paradigm and set more transformative and ambitious goals. But across many goals, there was slippage in ambition when targets and indicators were selected. In some cases, this is due to genuine difficulty in defining a suitable indicator. In other cases, there is clearly a contestation about the agenda, and indicators are used to reorient or pervert the meaning of the goal. The accounts of the negotiations– concerning inequality, sustainable agriculture, access to justice, education, environment – show how the selection of an indicator is purportedly a technical matter but is highly political, though obscured behind the veil of an objective and technical choice. The papers also highlight how the increasing role of big data and other non?traditional sources of data is altering data production, dissemination and use, and fundamentally altering the epistemology of information and knowledge. This raises questions about ‘data for whom and for what’ – fundamental issues concerning the power of data to shape knowledge, the democratic governance of SDG indicators and of knowledge for development overall.