The Resource Governance Index

The Resource Governance Index
Name	Resource Governance Index
Caption	Logo of the Resource Governance Index
Established	2017
Publisher	Natural Resource Governance Institute
Focus	Evaluation of oil, gas, and mining governance
Country	Global

The Resource Governance Index is an assessment framework that evaluates how well countries manage revenues and assets from oil, gas, and mining. Developed by the Natural Resource Governance Institute, the Index ranks national systems across policy, institutional, legal, and financial dimensions to inform reform by governments, civil society, investors, and multilateral institutions. It intersects with debates involving transparency, accountability, development finance, and extractive-industry investment decisions in resource-rich jurisdictions.

Overview

The Index was created by the Natural Resource Governance Institute with contributions from experts affiliated with World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations Development Programme, OECD, Transparency International, Open Government Partnership, Revenue Watch, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Oxford, London School of Economics, University of Cape Town, University of Texas at Austin, University of Ghana, University of Pretoria, Georgetown University, University of Melbourne, SOAS University of London, University of Edinburgh, Yale University, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Cambridge, Duke University, University of Toronto, King's College London, Australian National University, Copenhagen Business School, University of British Columbia, McGill University, University of Nairobi, University of Lagos, Peking University, Tsinghua University, National University of Singapore, University of São Paulo, Universidad de los Andes, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, University of Cape Coast, University of Ibadan, Makerere University, Chulalongkorn University, Seoul National University, University of Tokyo, The Hague Institute for Global Justice to ensure multidisciplinary inputs. The Index covers policy frameworks, state-owned enterprises, national budgets, licensing, and subnational arrangements across resource sectors in dozens of jurisdictions including Norway, United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, India, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Trinidad and Tobago, Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Papua New Guinea, Guyana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Equatorial Guinea, Algeria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates.

Methodology

The Index employs expert assessments and publicly available documentation to operationalize criteria drawn from international best practices promoted by Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Open Contracting Partnership, Publish What You Pay, Global Witness, Oxfam International, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Budget Partnership, and standards from International Organization of Securities Commissions and International Accounting Standards Board. Data collection involves questionnaires completed by local and international specialists, verification with ministries such as Ministry of Finance (Norway), Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (Norway), Ministry of Mines and Petroleum (Ethiopia), and engagement with state-owned enterprises like Equinor, Saudi Aramco, Rosneft, Petrobras, Pemex, Petronas, Chevron, BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, ENI, ExxonMobil, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Sonatrach, Staatsolie, PDVSA, PetroChina, Gazprom, National Iranian Oil Company for corroboration.

Scoring and Indicators

Scores aggregate across three main subindices: the legal and institutional setting for resource governance, the reporting practices and safeguards for state-owned enterprises, and the value realization and revenue management systems. Indicators draw on governance elements found in instruments such as the African Union's standards, European Union directives on transparency, US Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules, UK Bribery Act 2010, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative criteria, and International Monetary Fund guidance on fiscal transparency. The methodology produces quantitative scores and qualitative notes for countries including benchmarking against peers like Norway, Australia, Canada, Chile, Botswana, Ghana, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Azerbaijan, Angola, Nigeria, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia.

Regional and Country Results

Regional patterns revealed by the Index align with resource curse debates involving cases such as Norway (high performance), Botswana (diamonds management), Chile (copper), Mexico (oil reform), Brazil (Petrobras scandals), Nigeria (oil revenue opacity), Angola (oil sector), Russia (hydrocarbons governance), Venezuela (PDVSA), Iraq (post-conflict reconstruction), Liberia (mining), Sierra Leone (diamonds), Democratic Republic of the Congo (minerals), Gabon (oil), Ghana (gold), Peru (mining conflict), Ecuador (oil policy), Indonesia (coal and gas), Malaysia (Petronas governance), Kazakhstan (oil and gas), Azerbaijan (State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan), Trinidad and Tobago (energy sector), Guyana (recent oil discoveries), Mozambique (LNG), Tanzania (gas), Uganda (oil development), Papua New Guinea (mining disputes), Colombia (hydrocarbons), Ecuador (Yasuní debates), Australia (royalties), Canada (Alberta oil sands), United States (state-level management), Qatar (gas), Kuwait (sovereign wealth), United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi National Oil Company), Saudi Arabia (Aramco).

Impact and Reception

Policymakers, legislators, and advocates reference Index findings in forums such as United Nations General Assembly debates, World Economic Forum discussions, International Monetary Fund country consultations, World Bank project appraisals, African Development Bank briefings, and Inter-American Development Bank programs. The Index has informed reforms in countries engaging with initiatives from Open Government Partnership, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and civil society campaigns led by Global Witness, Publish What You Pay, Transparency International national chapters, Centre for Public Integrity, Natural Resource Governance Institute partners, and local think tanks like Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Ghana Revenue Authority discussions, Brazilian Federal Audit Court proceedings, and parliamentary inquiries in United Kingdom and Australia.

Criticisms and Limitations

Scholars and practitioners have critiqued the Index on grounds similar to debates around indicators like the Corruption Perceptions Index, Human Development Index, and Ease of Doing Business index: concerns about expert bias, data availability, national context sensitivity, and the comparability across sectors and legal systems. Critics from institutions such as International Monetary Fund staff, regional scholars at African Economic Research Consortium, and NGOs including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have argued for more attention to subnational fiscal arrangements, customary land rights, gendered impacts highlighted by UN Women, and conflict dynamics addressed by International Crisis Group and Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance.

Updates and Future Developments

NRI and partners periodically revise methodology in consultation with actors like Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Open Contracting Partnership, International Budget Partnership, United Nations Development Programme, and academic collaborators. Future developments discussed at venues including Paris Peace Forum, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group meetings, and COP sessions consider integrating climate transition variables, commodity price shocks tracked by International Energy Agency, OPEC, and sovereign wealth fund practices exemplified by Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. Ongoing dialogues with financial institutions such as BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, World Bank Group, and International Finance Corporation aim to refine indicators to better serve investors, civil society, and governments.

Category:Extractive industry governance