Each record describes something a country built that the indicators do not capture. The source provides the published number; the mechanism is our interpretation.
Scores describe outcomes. These records describe how a country acted, what it needed and what happened. 742 of 742 records include a mechanism. They do not affect scores.
Since 2001, Cadastro รnico has identified and characterized low-income families across Brazil and has become the entry point for more than 40 federal, state and municipal social programmes.
One shared identity and needs record lets multiple programmes see the same household, reducing the need for each programme to build its own eligibility system and making the state more legible to people it serves.
Preconditions
A national identity key that can link people across programmes
Municipal service points able to collect and update household information
Rules that let several programmes use the same record while preserving eligibility distinctions
Limits: A registry and its programme count show administrative reach, not whether citizens trust the state or whether benefits arrive accurately and on time. The source is the ministry responsible for the registry, and coverage depends on families keeping their records current.
๐ง๐ทBrazilsince 2004still operatingbears on Trust in public institutions
Launched in 2004, Portal da Transparรชncia has spent 20 years publishing federal revenue, expenditure, personnel and transfer information so citizens can inspect how public money is used.
The government turns its own administrative records into a public interface, so oversight can begin with the same transaction detail that the bureaucracy uses to execute and audit spending.
Preconditions
Administrative records detailed enough to publish at transaction level
A legal duty to disclose public spending
An oversight body able to maintain the interface and respond to findings
Limits: Publication creates the possibility of scrutiny, not evidence that people use the data or trust the institutions being scrutinized. The portal mainly covers federal government execution and excludes some state-owned and non-federal activity.
๐ฐ๐ทSouth Koreasince 2023still operatingbears on Trust in public institutions
South Korea's MyData policy gives people a route to request and direct the transfer of personal data between services, with the Personal Information Protection Commission describing the scheme as a way to give people control over data portability after the March 2023 legal amendment.
The state gives people a legal route to move their own data between providers, shifting data access from a private platform choice toward a user-directed right.
Preconditions
A privacy authority able to define consent and portability rules
Interoperable data formats and secure transfer channels
Providers willing and able to respond to a person's authorised request
Limits: A portability right shows a legal design for user control, not whether people understand it, use it safely or receive better services. The policy notice describes the legal framework and is not an independent assessment of outcomes.
๐ธ๐ฌSingaporesince 2006still operatingbears on Court case clearance rate
Singapore's State Courts disposed of 21,816 civil cases against 20,358 filings in 2023, a 107% civil clearance rate; its Community Justice and Tribunals courts recorded a 99% clearance rate in the same year.
107 % of incoming civil cases, state courts civil-case clearance rate, 2023. 99 % of incoming cases, community justice and tribunals clearance rate, 2023. Singapore Judiciary, Caseload statistics 2023, retrieved 2026-08-31.
The move, and what it needed
Singapore Courts publish workload by court and case type, set clearance as a management measure and combine procedural reform with specialised tribunals and dispute-resolution pathways. The public series makes backlogs visible while the court system can shift suitable disputes into faster channels without pretending that every case is the same.
Preconditions
A judiciary with reliable case-management data and authority to redesign procedure across court tiers
Registries, judges, mediators and tribunals that can route cases by complexity rather than use one queue for all disputes
A public accountability norm that treats unresolved caseload as an operational problem while protecting judicial independence
Where else it has been used: Court-clearance management travels when administrative data, triage and dispute resolution reduce stock without turning speed into the only definition of justice.
Limits: Clearance is disposals divided by filings in the same year, so it can exceed 100% when courts work through earlier stock; it does not show timeliness, fairness, legal-aid access, enforcement or the quality of decisions. The Singapore figures cover court workloads and are not a comparable cross-country civil-justice index without harmonised case definitions.
๐ต๐นPortugalsince 2013still operatingbears on Court case clearance rate
The CEPEJ Portugal country fiche records a 96.1% clearance rate for civil and commercial litigious cases at first instance in 2023, alongside 101.1% at second instance and 105.5% at the Supreme Court; first-instance disposition time was 267 days.
Portugal's courts feed case-flow data into a recurring national and European monitoring framework, making incoming, resolved and pending civil cases visible by instance and allowing backlog pressure to be compared over time.
Preconditions
Court case registers with consistent definitions of incoming, resolved and pending matters
A justice statistics authority that can aggregate courts without changing the underlying case counts
A management response that uses the series to allocate judges, staff or procedural capacity
Where else it has been used: Clearance monitoring travels when case definitions stay stable and managers act on the series; a published percentage without backlog, duration and instance detail can reward fast closure rather than justice.
Limits: The clearance rate is an administrative throughput measure for one year and one case class, not a judgment-quality, access-to-justice or public-trust measure. Disposition time is a theoretical estimate derived from pending and resolved cases, and rates differ sharply by court instance; CEPEJ republishes national data and the fiche cannot identify which reforms or court-management practices caused the result.