This data has been published here as a demo of our services: it refers to the Regions, analyzed in 2021.
To access the results for other years and/or other types of entities (Municipalities, Union of Municipalities), it is necessary to proceed to the web page dedicated to our services, since REP is a research centre which finances itself through the data produced by its own activities.
Find out how to subscribeRating classes
- PPP+ - Excellent (90, 100)
- PPP - Very Good (80, 89)
- PP+ - Good (60, 79)
- PP - Satisfactory (50, 59)
- P+ - Weak (40, 49)
- P - Poor (20, 39)
- F - Fallible (1, 19)
Public Administration
Liguria
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
PP+ - Good
Rating
64 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
71/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
53/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
33/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 3 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 6 |
| PP+ - Good* | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Administrative capacity Index: summary of the 6 macro-indicators
| Macro-indicator | Average score of Public Administrations assessed | Benchmark Public Administration for each macro-area | Score of the Public Administration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial situation | 56 | 91 | 48 |
| Governance | 56 | 82 | 71 |
| Personnel management | 54 | 95 | 58 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 54 | 88 | 78 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 44 | 84 | 84 |
| Environment | 55 | 94 | 18 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
48 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
91/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Basilicata
20/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 2 |
| P+ - Weak* | 6 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues
Weaknesses
- Financial autonomy
- New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | 85.61 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | 2,344.6 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Collection capacity | % | 86.46 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Spending capacity | % | 87.6 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Spending rigidity | % | 4.36 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | 97.02 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the accumulated current liabilities | % | 76.99 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | 1.37 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Debt per capita | € p.c. | 1,015.0 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -20.13 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 42.0 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium |
Rating
71 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
82/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
56/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 5 |
| P+ - Weak | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 3 |
| PP+ - Good* | 8 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Open data availability
- Degree of digitization
- Target achievement
- Smart Working
- Public works incompleted
- Subsidiary companies
Weaknesses
- E- Government
- Public Real Estate properties - wide report
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open data availability | v.a. | 823.0 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| E- Government | v.a. | 7.0 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Degree of digitization | v.a. | 1.38 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Target achievement | v.a. | 119.6 | High score for high values | 12 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Smart Working | v.a. | 11.0 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Public works incompleted | % | 0.73 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - wide report | v.a. | 1,000.0 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -0.23 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Subsidiary companies | % | 100.0 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | v.a. | 12.6 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Court of Auditors - update | v.a. | 1.0 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium |
Rating
58 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Lombardia
Lombardia
95/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
23/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 4 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory* | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 4 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
- Per capita personnel expenditure
- Personnel expenditure on current expenditure
- Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure
- Average days of absence (sick leave)
Weaknesses
- Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
- Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers
- Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers
Indicators of the macro-indicator Personnel management
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita personnel expenditure | € p.c. | 44.18 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Personnel expenditure on current expenditure | % | 1.71 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Expenditure for external advisory on personnel expenditure | % | 0.0 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 5.27 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Average age | a. | 54.11 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 46.1 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Average days of absence (sick leave) | gg./pers. | 2.6 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Managers on population | ‱ | 0.44 | High score for low values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | 100.0 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | v.a. | 27.93 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low |
Rating
78 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
88/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
54/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
24/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor | 6 |
| P+ - Weak | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good* | 5 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable)
- Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable)
- Landline high-speed internet access covering
- Beds in nursing homes (BES)
- Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita
- Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties
- FOIA register: accepted requests
- FOIA register: average time of reply to requests
Weaknesses
- Citizens involvement
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency indicator - reporting (multivariable) | cod. | 2.0 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision (multivariable) | cod. | 2.0 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Online services | v.a. | 0.0 | High score for high values | 5 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 46.9 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Hospital emigration | % | 13.5 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Beds in nursing homes (BES) | ‱ | 113.2 | High score for high values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Integrated home care services | % | 3.2 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Accredited private health care centers | v.a. | 2.48 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Territorial pharmaceutical expenditure per capita | € p.c. | 113.9 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Planning of renewal of disused public RE properties | v.a. | 4.5 | High score for high values | 6 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Citizens involvement | v.a. | 1.3 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| FOIA register: accepted requests | % | 95.7 | High score for high values | 4 |
|
High | |||||||||
| FOIA register: average time of reply to requests | gg. | 13.78 | High score for low values | 4 |
|
High |
Rating
84 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Liguria
Liguria
84/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
44/100
Worst score
Abruzzo
Abruzzo
17/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 1 |
| P - Poor | 9 |
| P+ - Weak | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 3 |
| PPP - Very Good* | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount
- Timeliness of payments indicator
- Per capita debt amount vs suppliers
- Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens
- Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year
Weaknesses
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public tenders and relations with suppliers
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring contractors in direct procurements | % | 26.09 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 42.38 | High score for low values | 8 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 0.62 | High score for low values | 16 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Timeliness of payments indicator | gg./pers. | -13.07 | High score for low values | 16 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Per capita debt amount vs suppliers | € | 0.26 | High score for low values | 16 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Number of corporate creditors per 10k citizens | v.a. | 0.42 | High score for low values | 10 |
|
High | |||||||||
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | 84.94 | High score for high values | 10 |
|
High |
Rating
18 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
P.A. Bolzano
P.A. Bolzano
94/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
55/100
Worst score
Liguria
Liguria
18/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible* | 1 |
| P - Poor | 3 |
| P+ - Weak | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 6 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
Weaknesses
- Air quality - PM 2.5
- Contaminated sites
- Urban waste disposal into dump
- Population exposed to landslide risk
- Population exposed to flood risk
- Renewable energy
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Trend | Evaluation of the indicator | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 84.6 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Land consumption | % | 7.2 | High score for low values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Contaminated sites | ‰ | 5.3 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Urban waste disposal into dump | % | 36.9 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 7.2 | High score for low values | 6 |
|
Medium | |||||||||
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 5.8 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 17.5 | High score for low values | 1 |
|
Low | |||||||||
| Renewable energy | % | 8.5 | High score for high values | 1 |
|
Low |