MEASURING URBAN GOVERNANCE USING GOVERNANCE AND LEGISLATION INDEX: A CASE STUDY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA

Pub Date : 2019-04-01 DOI:10.11113/IJBES.V6.N1-2.389
Soo Po Xuan, G. Ling
{"title":"MEASURING URBAN GOVERNANCE USING GOVERNANCE AND LEGISLATION INDEX: A CASE STUDY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA","authors":"Soo Po Xuan, G. Ling","doi":"10.11113/IJBES.V6.N1-2.389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It was recognized that good governance is important to achieve the equitable and sustainable development which secure the common future. This is because active, effective and fair governance helps promotes the business development by putting in place integrated policymaking capacity and ensuring stable and secure societies towards sustainable development. Seeing this, hundreds of governance-indicator datasets have emerged. Stakeholders have relied heavily on these data in making cross-border decisions. Nevertheless, it is argued that most of these data are perception-based indicators; therefore, the decision made is bias and incorrect. On this ground, this paper attempts to identify and explain the quality of governance for the Kuala Lumpur city using an objective data-driven index, the City Prosperity Index (CPI). This paper employed content analysis of secondary data and literature, relying on statistical data from Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Election Commission of Malaysia and The World Bank. Results have shown that governance in Kuala Lumpur is a moderate solid factor (65.0) in contributing to the city’s prosperity. Comparing to other cities, Kuala Lumpur ranked 20 out of 47 selected cities. There is still plenty of room Kuala Lumpur to improve its governance to remain competitive and sustainable. In conclusion, objective data is good as data produced will not be bias. Nevertheless, it should not be generalized to reflect the overall quality of governance. This is because there are many other governance related variables can only be obtained via perception-based data. It is recommended that the GLI measured in this paper should be use together with other subjective data to give a most complete coverage of the overall quality of governance of a city.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11113/IJBES.V6.N1-2.389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It was recognized that good governance is important to achieve the equitable and sustainable development which secure the common future. This is because active, effective and fair governance helps promotes the business development by putting in place integrated policymaking capacity and ensuring stable and secure societies towards sustainable development. Seeing this, hundreds of governance-indicator datasets have emerged. Stakeholders have relied heavily on these data in making cross-border decisions. Nevertheless, it is argued that most of these data are perception-based indicators; therefore, the decision made is bias and incorrect. On this ground, this paper attempts to identify and explain the quality of governance for the Kuala Lumpur city using an objective data-driven index, the City Prosperity Index (CPI). This paper employed content analysis of secondary data and literature, relying on statistical data from Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Election Commission of Malaysia and The World Bank. Results have shown that governance in Kuala Lumpur is a moderate solid factor (65.0) in contributing to the city’s prosperity. Comparing to other cities, Kuala Lumpur ranked 20 out of 47 selected cities. There is still plenty of room Kuala Lumpur to improve its governance to remain competitive and sustainable. In conclusion, objective data is good as data produced will not be bias. Nevertheless, it should not be generalized to reflect the overall quality of governance. This is because there are many other governance related variables can only be obtained via perception-based data. It is recommended that the GLI measured in this paper should be use together with other subjective data to give a most complete coverage of the overall quality of governance of a city.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
运用治理与立法指数衡量城市治理:以马来西亚吉隆坡为例
人们认识到,善政对于实现公平和可持续的发展至关重要,这将确保共同的未来。这是因为积极、有效和公平的治理有助于促进企业发展,建立综合决策能力,确保社会稳定和安全,实现可持续发展。看到这一点,已经出现了数百个治理指标数据集。利益相关者在做出跨境决策时严重依赖这些数据。然而,有人认为,这些数据大多是基于感知的指标;因此,作出的决定是有偏见和不正确的。在此基础上,本文试图使用一个客观的数据驱动指数——城市繁荣指数(CPI)来识别和解释吉隆坡城市的治理质量。本文采用二次数据和文献的内容分析,以吉隆坡市政厅、马来西亚选举委员会和世界银行的统计数据为依据。结果表明,吉隆坡的治理是促进该市繁荣的一个中等坚实因素(65.0)。与其他城市相比,吉隆坡在47个入选城市中排名第20。吉隆坡仍有很大的空间来改善其治理,以保持竞争力和可持续性。总之,客观数据是好的,因为产生的数据不会有偏差。然而,不应将其概括为反映治理的总体质量。这是因为还有许多其他与治理相关的变量只能通过基于感知的数据获得。建议将本文测量的GLI与其他主观数据一起使用,以最完整地覆盖城市的整体治理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1