Several factors cause agencies to be positioned at the top of the index. The first factor is related to the existence of collective decision-making composed of a Board of Directors. As opposed to a single decision-making structure, a Board composed of directors with varied technical backgrounds allows more comprehensive and diverse debates on regulatory issues than a decision-making by a single policy maker. The second factor is related to the publication of information such as job vacancies, an annual report, an institutional strategy, and audited accounts. Finally, a record of the Board’s meetings and the existence of quarantine rules for directors that leave the agency also contribute to the high performance of countries at the top of the index.

Agencies with good performance in institutional transparency tend to possess characteristics related to administrative modernization. For instance, the publication of the organization’s institutional strategy, annual report, and job vacancies are indicators of agencies concerned not only with sectorbased policies related to transparency (such as the conducting of public hearings) but also with mechanisms and procedures aimed at making them more effective as administrative bodies.

Chile achieves its second highest performance in institutional transparency (ninth place) relative to its position in the other indexes. Despite the strong intervention of government authorities in Chile’s agencies, one cannot overlook the bureaucratic quality of its public administration. In fact, Chile heads the region in Government Effectiveness, a governance indicator developed by the World Bank to measure the quality of a country’s bureaucracy.<sup>8</sup>

# **C. Formal vs. informal:**

There are no significant regional variations between the formal and informal dimensions of agencies’ transparency. Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Mexico are the countries that show the largest disparities. Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala are countries with higher levels of informal transparency compared to their scores in the formal transparency index. However, Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Mexico show lower levels of informal transparency compared to their performances in the formal aspects of the variable.

**<mark>Figure 16: Informal Transparency Index</mark>**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Formal Transparency Index<br>Source: LAC Electricity Regulatory Governance Database, The World Bank, 2007.<br>1<br>.8<br>Index (0-1) .6.4<br>.2<br>0<br>T&T MEX ESV COL BRA T1 PER C R NIC URU BAR JAM ARG BOL PAN R D ECU T2 CHI HON GUA<br><!-- End of picture text -->

**Figure 17: Formal Transparency Index**

<!-- Start of picture text --> Informal Transparency Index<br>Source: LAC Electricity Regulatory Governance Database, The World Bank, 2007.<br>1<br>.8<br>Index (0-1) .6.4<br>.2<br>0<br>BOL PER T1 T&T R D ESV GUA MEX COL ARG BRA BAR JAM URU CHI C R HON T2 NIC PAN ECU<br><!-- End of picture text -->

> 8 The World Bank Government Effectiveness indicator measures the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies. It is the result of a large number of individual data sources that provide information on perceptions on governance (Kauffman, 2006).

- 29 -