Global Social Indicators, Comparison, and Commensuration: A Case Study of COVID Rankings

Abstract

Global social indicators, as a form of governance and soft regulation, can exert pressure for change and compliance through the way they compare and then rank the relative performance of states or other units. Is it reasonable to expect the comparisons they make in the process of carrying out such strategic exercises to be accurate and fair? In particular, how far can they, or should they, be required to be faithful to the requirement to “compare like with like”? This chapter first summarises some of the key features of global social indicators. It then goes on to analyse the differences (and overlap) between the tasks of comparing (learning about similarities and differences) and commensuration (showing equivalence and seeking to make matters come into line). Using as an example the role of indicators in documenting and responding to the current coronavirus epidemic, the chapter traces the way the hybrid and sometimes inconsistent commitment to both comparison and commensuration helps account for the difficulty they have had so far at establishing stable rankings of best practice. What can be learnt may also be of more general relevance.