Measuring how governments govern their entire national immunization programme — across all antigens, all procurement channels, all governance dimensions. Not what they decide, but how.Мјеримо како државе управљају цијелим националним програмом имунизације — кроз све антигене, све канале набавке, све димензије управљања. Не шта одлучују, већ како.
The Penalised Geometric Composite with Critical Floor (PGCCF) is the scoring methodology behind the Procurement Governance Index. It measures immunization procurement governance quality across 11 dimensions using publicly available data, applying mathematical penalties for uneven governance performance.
Existing systems (WUENIC, IA2030) measure coverage outcomes — how many children were vaccinated. The PGI measures governance quality — how well the decisions were made, how transparently, and how evidence-aligned. A country can achieve high DTP3 coverage through authoritarian mandate while having captured, opaque governance processes. The PGI detects this distinction.
Each country receives a score (0–100) on each of the 11 governance dimensions. The composite uses a geometric mean rather than an arithmetic mean, following the precedent set by the UNDP Human Development Index (2010 reform). The geometric mean naturally penalises countries that score very low on any single dimension — a country cannot compensate for zero procurement transparency by excelling at population readiness.
Following the penalised geometric mean of Mariani and Ciommi (Social Indicators Research, 2022; European Journal of Operational Research, 2024), Stage 2 applies an inequality penalty based on the squared coefficient of variation (CV) across dimension scores. Countries with wildly uneven governance — strong in some areas, collapsed in others — receive a steeper penalty than countries with consistently moderate scores.
The Critical Floor is a deterministic safeguard applied to the composite: if any single dimension scores below 15 (on the 0–100 scale), the composite is capped at 25, regardless of the penalised geometric mean. This reflects the principle that severe failure in any one governance domain cannot be offset by strength elsewhere. In the twelve-country pilot, no country falls below this threshold, so the Critical Floor is not triggered for any current entry.
| # | Dimension | What It Measures | Primary Data Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Evidence Alignment | Completeness of antigen schedule (7 WHO-recommended antigens: PCV, Rota, HPV, IPV, Hib, HepB, MCV2) and coverage relative to regional benchmarks | WHO WUENIC, JRF, SAGE records |
| 2 | Procedural Transparency | Published NITAG minutes, decision rationale, procurement criteria | TI CPI, WHO JRF, WB WGI |
| 3 | Administrative Responsiveness | Government response rates, timeliness, substantive quality | WB WGI (Gov. Effectiveness) |
| 4 | Specification Quality | Whether tender specifications are antigen-agnostic or supplier-tailored | WHO GBT (NRA maturity), market structure |
| 5 | Advisory Independence | NITAG composition, COI disclosure, meeting frequency | WHO JRF, NITAG reports |
| 6 | Procurement Integrity | Competitive process evidence, single-source justification patterns | TI CPI, WB WGI (Corruption Control) |
| 7 | Population Readiness | Coverage demand signals, hesitancy research, dropout patterns | WHO WUENIC (DTP1, dropout) |
| 8 | Industrial Policy Coherence | Alignment between NIP decisions and domestic manufacturing strategy | WHO GBT, Gavi transition data |
| 9 | Budget Commitment Stability | Year-on-year NIP budget trends, anti-backsliding signals | WHO GHED, WB income class |
| 10 | International Engagement | WHO/Gavi/UNICEF interaction patterns, reporting compliance | Gavi eligibility, WHO JRF reporting |
| 11 | Market Competition Quality | Actual competition in procurement, supplier diversity, barrier to entry | Market structure, WHO GBT, WB WGI (Reg. Quality) |
The PGI assesses governance across each country's entire national immunization programme — all antigens, all procurement channels. DTP3 coverage is displayed as the standard WHO benchmark proxy for programme delivery, not as a scope limitation. Dimension 1 (Evidence Alignment) scores antigen schedule completeness across 7 WHO-recommended antigens.
A country that does not publish NITAG minutes receives a low Procedural Transparency score — the absence of data IS the data. This design principle means the Index functions at different levels of data completeness. Countries with deep operational engagement data from MNIPOS subscribers will have more precise scores than countries scored from auto-sourced public data alone.
| Band | Score Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Band A | 75 – 100 | Strong governance. Transparent processes, evidence-aligned decisions, responsive administration. |
| Band B | 50 – 74 | Moderate governance. Functional systems with identifiable gaps. Improvement pathway visible. |
| Band C | 25 – 49 | Weak governance. Systemic issues across multiple dimensions. Reform required. |
| Band D | 0 – 24 | Critical governance failure. Severe opacity, unresponsiveness, or documented capture. |
Countries that procure immunisation products through multilateral pooled mechanisms — the PAHO Revolving Fund, UNICEF Supply Division, or Gavi co-financing — present a methodological challenge: the procurement governance being measured belongs to the multilateral agency, not the sovereign government. The PGI addresses this by scoring only sovereign-executed procurement (domestic tenders, national procurement agency transactions, bilateral supply agreements). A companion metric — the Multilateral Reliance Factor — reports the share of procurement value flowing through multilateral channels, and will be published when country-specific data is verified.
Countries with state-directed or exclusive domestic manufacturing arrangements require a framework for distinguishing genuine industrial investment from procurement capture disguised as industrial policy. A six-criterion sub-indicator feeds into Dimension 8 (Industrial Policy Coherence), assessing process legitimacy, manufacturing depth, investment proportionality, conditionality, time limitation, and outcome delivery.
Burden of proof defaults to the lowest level unless the company or Ministry publicly demonstrates manufacturing depth and investment. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. These assessments require verified data beyond auto-sourced indicators and will be published as country-specific assessments are completed.
The Tier 1 Index uses publicly available proxy indicators. Dimension scores are approximations — not deterministic measurements. Countries with operational MNIPOS engagement receive more precise scoring through direct evidence. No auto-sourced index can detect captured processes that produce clean-looking documentation; that requires the operational evidence layer available through the PGI Platform.
This methodology is documented in the PGI Methodology Note v2.2. The scoring engine source code is embedded in this page and can be inspected.