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.
Find out how to subscribe
Regions 2023
Basilicata
Rating 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
Basilicata
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
P - Poor
Rating
28 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
68/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
50/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Molise
Basilicata
Molise
28/100
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 | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 9 |
| PP+ - Good | 4 |
| 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 | 49 | 79 | 8 |
| Governance | 43 | 65 | 25 |
| Personnel management | 51 | 87 | 31 |
| Public services and relations with citizens | 51 | 74 | 36 |
| Public tenders and relations with suppliers | 60 | 100 | 18 |
| Environment | 51 | 69 | 63 |
Administrative Capacity Index
Details of the indicators by individual macro-indicators
Rating
8 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
79/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
49/100
Worst score
Sicilia
Molise
Sicilia
Molise
6/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible* | 3 |
| P - Poor | 3 |
| P+ - Weak | 2 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 6 |
| PP+ - Good | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
Weaknesses
Indicators of the macro-indicator Financial situation
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial autonomy | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Financial pressure per capita | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Collection capacity | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Spending capacity | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Spending rigidity | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita debt from financing | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Off-budget debts recognized and financed | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Coverage of current expenditure and loan repayments through current revenues | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| New liabilities generated in the current period on the current accumulated liabilities | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Capital account expenditure financed by loans and bonds | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Deficit/surplus on health expenditure per capita | € p.c. | -18.4518 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| EU funds management - effected payments | % | 76.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
Rating
25 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
65/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
43/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
21/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor* | 9 |
| P+ - Weak | 6 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 5 |
| PP+ - Good | 1 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Compliance with public works supervision
Weaknesses
- Working from home (WFH)
- Public Real Estate properties - report
- Subsidiary companies
- Anti-corruption measures undertaken
Indicators of the macro-indicator Governance
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E- Government | absolute value | 104.0 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Degree of digitalization | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Performance | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Working from home (WFH) | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Public Real Estate properties - report | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Public Real Estate properties - management | € p.c. | -0.0248 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Subsidiary companies | absolute value | 66.6667 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Anti-corruption measures undertaken | absolute value | 4.4 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Service outsourcing | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Efficiency indicator - reporting | absolute value | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Efficiency indicator - timing supervision | absolute value | 10.0 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Average completion time for public works | mean value | 1.029 | High score for low values | 2 | Medium |
| Compliance with public works supervision | % | 65.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
31 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Emilia-Romagna
Emilia-Romagna
87/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Molise
Molise
27/100
Distribution of Public Administrations with respect to the rating class
| Rating class | Number of administrations |
|---|---|
| ND - Unavailable | 0 |
| F - Fallible | 0 |
| P - Poor* | 7 |
| P+ - Weak | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 5 |
| PPP - Very Good | 1 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel
Weaknesses
- Average age
- Average of training days
- Women managers on total managers
Indicators of the macro-indicator Personnel management
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita personnel expenditure | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Personnel with a permanent contract per 1,000 inhabitants | val./1.000 ab. | 1.8615 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Personnel with fixed-term contract on total personnel | % | 0.2108 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Average age | years | 56.7703 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Personnel with a degree on total personnel | % | 45.5455 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Average days of absence (except holidays and training) | days per person | 13.7528 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Average of training days | days | 0.035 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Total managers on total personnel | % | 4.1041 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Women managers on total managers | % | 26.8293 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Provided bonus out of allocated ones to managers | % | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Degree of differentiation of bonus paid to managers | variance | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
36 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Toscana
Toscana
74/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Puglia
Puglia
28/100
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 | 3 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good | 8 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Integrated Home Care services
- Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants
- Services guaranteed in time (priority class B)
Weaknesses
- Landline high-speed internet access covering
- Hospital migration
- Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure
- Essential levels of care - territorial area
- Essential levels of care - hospital area
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public services and relations with citizens
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landline high-speed internet access covering | % | 26.9 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Per capita expenditure on transport and right to mobility | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita expenditure on economic development and competitiveness | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Per capita expenditure on labour policies and vocational education | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Hospital migration | % | 26.9 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Beds in residential healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 75.1 | High score for high values | 3 | Medium |
| Integrated Home Care services | % | 3.9 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
| Accredited private healthcare facilities per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | 1.7 | High score for low values | 8 | High |
| Per capita territorial pharmaceutical expenditure | € p.c. | 13.2 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - prevention area | absolute value | 79.6301 | High score for high values | 4 | Medium |
| Essential levels of care - territorial area | absolute value | 64.2247 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Essential levels of care - hospital area | absolute value | 63.691 | High score for high values | 1 | Low |
| Services guaranteed in time (priority class B) | absolute value | 100.0 | High score for high values | 8 | High |
Rating
18 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Liguria
Liguria
100/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
60/100
Worst score
Basilicata
Basilicata
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 | 2 |
| P+ - Weak | 4 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 2 |
| PP+ - Good | 9 |
| PPP - Very Good | 2 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 1 |
Strengths
Weaknesses
Indicators of the macro-indicator Public tenders and relations with suppliers
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - number | % | 72.7074 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Direct procurements on global public tenders - amount | % | 8.8269 | High score for low values | 4 | Medium |
| Timeliness of payments indicator | days | 11.1 | High score for low values | 10 | Medium |
| Per capita total amount of debts with suppliers | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Number of corporate creditor per 10k inhabitants | val./10.000 ab. | n.d. | High score for low values | 0 | N.A. |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during the fiscal year | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
| Settlement of commercial debts incurred during previous years | % | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |
Rating
63 out of 100Chronological trend
Benchmark score
Benchmark
Valle d'Aosta
Valle d'Aosta
69/100
Average score of the Public Administrations
51/100
Worst score
Liguria
Liguria
32/100
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 | 5 |
| PP - Satisfactory | 4 |
| PP+ - Good* | 7 |
| PPP - Very Good | 0 |
| PPP+ - Excellent | 0 |
Strengths
- Air quality - PM 2.5
- Land consumption
- Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering
- Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources
- Population exposed to flood risk
Weaknesses
- Urban waste disposal at landfill
- Population exposed to landslide risk
Indicators of the macro-indicator Environment
| Indicator name | Unit of measure | Value | Scoring criteria | Score | Evaluation of the indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air quality - PM 2.5 | % | 8.3 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Land consumption | % | 3.17 | High score for low values | 12 | High |
| Contaminated sites | ‰ inhabitants | 4.0 | High score for low values | 5 | Medium |
| Urban waste disposal at landfill | % | 44.0 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Soil waterproofing due to artificial covering | % | 3.2 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Electricity consumption covered by renewable sources | % | 111.5 | High score for high values | 12 | High |
| Population exposed to landslide risk | % | 7.0 | High score for low values | 1 | Low |
| Population exposed to flood risk | % | 1.1 | High score for low values | 10 | High |
| Per capita expenditure on sustainable development and environmental protection | € p.c. | n.d. | High score for high values | 0 | N.A. |