Social Indicator is a diverse dataset of indicators designed to capture social conditions in Latin America and the Caribbean. The indicators are derived from national household survey data, Censuses, and other sources covering 21 countries from 1990 to date. While the Sociómetro includes traditional global indicators, the database also includes tailor-made indicators in five areas: Demographics, Education, Labor Market, Housing, and Income, to better capture conditions in LAC.

Moreover, unlike traditional aggregate indicators, the Sociómetro indicators are disaggregated by ethnicity and race (when available) and by gender, geographic residence, education, and income quintile.

The management and implementation of the Sociómetro are provided by the Social Sector (SCL) of the Vice Presidency of Knowledge and Sectors to strengthen the analytical content of projects and studies. The indicators are not intended to serve as official data for any particular country but instead aim to provide a comparable set of social indicators for the Latin American region.

The Urban Dashboard allows to explore and compare more than 150 quantitative indicators, public opinion polls and interactive maps of intermediate cities in Latin America and the Caribbean. These are cities that have an outstanding economic and population growth, and receive technical assistance from the Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative (ESCI) of the IDB. This dataset was created to feed the urbandashboard.org platform. It contains all the survey questions and answers that took place in 25 ESCI cities and 5 megacities.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/idb/dataset/75uh-zme7

The Database of Political Institutions presents institutional and electoral results data such as measures of checks and balances, tenure and stability of the government, identification of party affiliation and ideology, and fragmentation of opposition and government parties in the legislature, among others. The current version of the database, which is now hosted at the IDB, expands its coverage to about 180 countries for 40 years, 1975–2015. Researchers at the World Bank Development Research Group first compiled the database in 2000 (see citation information below). It has become one of the most cited databases in comparative political economy and comparative political institutions. Almost 3000 studies have used this database so far as a source of institutional and political data in their empirical analysis.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/idb/dataset/ngy5-9h9d/

Results of the Civil Service Development Index (CSDI), obtained from diagnostics of the institutional quality of civil service systems in 16 Latin American countries. The IDB supported the design of a methodology that evaluates critical points to assess the civil services and carried out country evaluations in 2004. Between 2011 and 2013, a second group of diagnostics second group of diagnostics were completed (with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank, and in the case of Central American countries and Dominican Republic with the support of the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development –AECID- and the Central American Integration System-SICA). Scores are available for 2004, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (year of second and/or third measurement varies per country). During the first assessment, 93 critical points were identified; each of those fed a subsystem and an index. In 2010 the methodology was simplified to 33 critical points and the base line was recalibrated to ensure comparability. The methodology is based in the identification of critical points that feed 8 subsystems: 1. Human Resources Planning, 2. Work Organization, 3. Employment management, 4. Performance management, 5. Compensation management, 6. Development management, 7. Human and social relations management, 8. HR Function organization; and 5 indexes: 1. Efficiency, 2. Merit, 3. Structural consistency, 4. Functional capacity, and 5. Integrating capacity.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/d/ddw5-db4y

Results of the Civil Service Development Index (CSDI), obtained from diagnostics of the institutional quality of civil service systems in 16 Latin American countries. The IDB supported the design of a methodology that evaluates critical points to assess the civil services and carried out country evaluations in 2004. Between 2011 and 2013, a second group of diagnostics second group of diagnostics were completed (with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank, and in the case of Central American countries and Dominican Republic with the support of the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development –AECID- and the Central American Integration System-SICA). Scores are available for 2004, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019 (year of second and/or third measurement varies per country). In 2015, 2017 and 2019, the IDB completed the third series of diagnosis. During the first assessment, 93 critical points were identified; each of those fed a subsystem and an index. In 2010 the methodology was simplified to 33 critical points and the base line was recalibrated to ensure comparability. The methodology is based in the identification of critical points that feed 8 subsystems: 1. Human Resources Planning, 2. Work Organization, 3. Employment management, 4. Performance management, 5. Compensation management, 6. Development management, 7. Human and social relations management, 8. HR Function organization; and 5 indexes: 1. Efficiency, 2. Merit, 3. Structural consistency, 4. Functional capacity, and 5. Integrating capacity.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/idb/dataset/ddw5-db4y

The OECD indicators of employment protection are synthetic indicators of the strictness of regulation on dismissals and the use of temporary contracts. They are compiled from 21 items covering three different aspects of employment protection regulations as they were in force on January 1st of each year.
Indicators for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries have been constructed in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). In these countries, data for 2014 refer to regulations in force on December 31st, 2013.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/d/fzc8-jx54

This set comprises the data collected to inform the 2016 Cybersecurity Report entitled Cybersecurity Are we ready in Latin America and the Caribbean?, result of the collaboration between the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) at the University of Oxford. It was collected through an online survey based on the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (CMM) developed by the GCSCC and translated into two languages (English and Spanish). After a piloting stage, the survey was administered to a wide cross-section of national stakeholders in 32 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The responses received were aggregated, reviewed, cleaned and complimented with additional sources of information.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/d/cd6z-sjjc

This set comprises the data collected to inform the 2016 Cybersecurity Report entitled Cybersecurity Are we ready in Latin America and the Caribbean?, result of the collaboration between the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) at the University of Oxford. It was collected through an online survey based on the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (CMM) developed by the GCSCC and translated into two languages (English and Spanish). After a piloting stage, the survey was administered to a wide cross-section of national stakeholders in 32 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The responses received were aggregated, reviewed, cleaned and complimented with additional sources of information.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/d/cd6z-sjjc

The database allows estimating structural fiscal balances for 20 countries in the region under different assumptions regarding the output gap and commodity structural prices. It is a unique database of its kind since: 1) It takes into consideration the distinct responsiveness of different types of revenues to changes in the output gap: In order to adjust for the impact of the business cycle on revenues, we calculate individual elasticities for each source of revenue (i.e. direct taxes, indirect taxes, revenues from non-renewable resources, etc.). Since the different types of revenues in the region have different sensitivities to changes in the output gap, this disaggregated approach allows for a more fine-tuned adjustment. 2) It includes estimations of SFBs based on output gaps’ projections available in “real time”. In addition to giving estimations of the actual SFBs, we provide with estimations of the SFBs that would have resulted should the projections on output gaps available to policymakers at the time of designing fiscal policy (data in “real time”) have been correct. This is in contrast to much of the existing work on structural fiscal balances that makes only an “ex post” analysis using actual and revised information on the output gaps. 3) It allows assessing the response of fiscal policy to the business cycle. We provide with measures of the fiscal impulse, assessing not only the actual but also the intentional fiscal stance, as well as the degree of procyclicality of fiscal policy.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/idb/dataset/3itg-avtz

The Public Management Evaluation Tool (PET) evaluates five “pillars” of the public policies' management cycle that are considered important for the implementation of Management for Development Results (MfDR): (i) results-based planning, (ii) results-based budgeting, (iii) public financial management (including auditing and procurement), (iv) program and project management (including the public investment system), and (v) monitoring and evaluation of public management. These pillars are broken down into components that track the maturity of institutional systems. The components are in turn composed of indicators and minimum requirements that these systems must have in an MfDR environment. All of these measures (minimum requirements, indicators, components, and pillars) are scored on a scale from 0 to 5, where a 5 indicates an ideal institutional situation.

Click here to access the data: https://mydata.iadb.org/d/c89t-dh9r