World Bank Doing Business

World Bank Doing Business
Name	Doing Business
Formation	2003
Dissolved	2019
Purpose	Regulatory indicators
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Parent organization	World Bank Group

World Bank Doing Business

Doing Business was a project of the World Bank Group that produced comparative indicators on regulatory environments for starting and operating micro and small to medium-size enterprises. Launched to inform reformers in countries such as Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and Germany, the project produced annual reports used by institutions including the International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations Development Programme, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The reports influenced policy debates in capitals from Washington, D.C. to Abuja and Jakarta, and intersected with studies from Harvard University, London School of Economics, Stanford University, and Yale University.

Overview

Doing Business published standardized indicators measuring regulations and procedures affecting business life cycles in economies such as United States, Japan, France, Mexico, and Nigeria. Indicators covered topics like construction permitting in Istanbul and Dubai, property registration in Lima and Lagos, contract enforcement in Madrid and Seoul, and insolvency proceedings in Athens and Rome. Stakeholders included national ministries such as Ministry of Finance (Brazil), Ministry of Commerce (China), central banks including the Federal Reserve System and Reserve Bank of India, multilateral lenders such as the Asian Development Bank and African Development Bank, and donor agencies like USAID and DFID.

Methodology

The project used standardized case studies and surveys drawn from legal codes, procedural checklists, and time-cost accounting similar to methodologies in studies from World Health Organization and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Researchers compared datasets across jurisdictions including Ontario, Quebec, Victoria (Australia), and Bavaria using indicators such as time, cost, and number of procedures for transactions like obtaining construction permits in Beijing or registering property in Sao Paulo. Data collection involved local experts, chambers such as Confederation of British Industry and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, and verification with courts like the Supreme Court of India and corporate registries like Companies House (UK). The indicators were aggregated into ranks that were widely cited by policymakers in Berlin and Canberra.

Historical Development and Revisions

Initiated in the early 2000s, the project evolved through methodological revisions informed by consultations with entities including the International Finance Corporation, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, World Trade Organization, and academic centers like Brookings Institution and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Revisions responded to critiques from scholars at Princeton University, Columbia University, University of Chicago, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, leading to changes in indicator definitions, sample coverage, and treatment of outliers in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Singapore. High-profile policy dialogues at forums like the World Economic Forum and meetings of the G20 affected uptake and technical adjustments.

Findings and Impact on Policy

Reports highlighted reform trajectories in countries such as Rwanda, Georgia, Estonia, Ireland, and Chile, documenting reforms in tax administration in Ghana and Peru, licensing in Turkey and Philippines, and insolvency regimes in Poland and Spain. Governments used findings to design programs supported by lenders like the Inter-American Development Bank and donors including Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Private-sector actors such as World Economic Forum partners, multinational firms like General Electric and Siemens, and law firms referenced Doing Business metrics in investment assessments and advocacy.

Criticisms and Controversies

Academics and practitioners from institutions including University of Cambridge, Oxford University, New York University, and University of California, Berkeley criticized the project for oversimplification, measurement errors, and incentives that might promote deregulation in sensitive sectors in countries like Venezuela and Egypt. Civil society organizations such as Oxfam and Transparency International raised concerns about distributional effects and neglect of labor and environmental safeguards. Legal scholars cited potential misalignment with national constitutions and administrative law in jurisdictions including Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Suspension, Audit, and Discontinuation

Following allegations of data irregularities and governance concerns involving staff linked to high-level officials and interactions with governments including China and Saudi Arabia, the World Bank Group suspended the project pending an independent audit by external firms and panels that included experts from KPMG-level practices and university auditors from Columbia Business School. The suspension prompted internal investigations intersecting with inquiries by advisory bodies like the International Advisory Group and reviews referencing standards from Institute of Internal Auditors. Ultimately, the organization announced discontinuation of the public ranking in the wake of audit findings and reputational considerations, prompting responses from stakeholders including African Union, ASEAN, and European Commission.

Reception and Legacy

Reactions ranged from praise by reform advocates in Bangladesh and Tunisia to condemnation by critics in Argentina and Bolivia. The dataset legacy influenced subsequent indicator projects by institutions such as the World Bank Group itself, OECD, UNCTAD, and independent research centers at Harvard Kennedy School, London School of Economics, and Stockholm School of Economics. The debates surrounding the project continue in forums like the Bretton Woods Committee, United Nations General Assembly, and academic symposia at American Economic Association meetings, shaping contemporary discussions on measurement, transparency, and the role of international organizations in regulatory reform.

Category:World Bank Group projects