III. >> M  ethodological Approaches to Human Rights Indicators >> Sources and data-generating mechanisms there is a predominant subjective component in the assessment of human rights under this method. The difference being that here it is the subjectivity of the experts which is reflected, as against the views of individuals in household surveys. Some of the well-known initiatives in this category have been criticized for their lack of validity and reliability, not being representative of the realities on the ground, based on personal judgements of a limited number of observers38 and not on directly quantifiable empirical data. Moreover, their acceptability is often compromised as they are seen as providing summary answers to complex issues without providing a systematic basis or examples justifying the assessments. They are also seen as lacking transparency in the selection, collection and evaluation of the information by the experts. Among the initiatives using expert judgements to assess and rank countries according to their degree of political and civil freedom, is Freedom House39 and its global survey “Freedom in the world”, which is well known and widely used. This survey has been conducted annually since 1972 and focuses on civil and political rights. The United Nations Development Programme has also experimented with this datagenerating method for monitoring aspects of human rights. In its Human Development Report 1991, it introduced a “human freedom index” based on 40 criteria and data from World Human Rights Guide developed by Charles Humana. Its Human Development Report 1992 presented a “political freedom index”, which focused on five freedoms. However, in the face of strong criticism and opposition, neither index was continued. Its Report 2010 again presented a new set of indicators on different aspects of civil and political rights, including eventsbased data (number of journalists imprisoned as recorded by the Committee to Protect Journalists), perception and opinion-survey indicators (e.g., percentage of people who voiced opinion to public officials during the past month and percentage of people who faced a bribe situation in the past year; Gallup World Poll database) and data based on expert judgement (e.g., press freedom index produced by Reporters without Borders).40 Some other well-known initiatives are Minorities at Risk,41 a research project based at the University of Maryland’s Center for International Development and Conflict Management, which follows the status and conflicts of politically active groups, using various sources of information such as the media, government reports, non-governmental reports and expert opinion.42 Transparency International compiles a “corruption perceptions index”, which is a composite index of various polls and surveys collecting data on corruption.43 Regarding governance, Business Environment Risk Intelligence44 is a private source of analysis of the business environment. It compiles various quantitative indices (for example, “political risk index” and “operation risk index”) based on qualitative evaluations undertaken by diplomats and political scientists on prevalent business environment and country prospects. IHS Global Insight45 is a private company providing similar data on country risk assessments to international investors. The World Economic Forum, in its Global Competitiveness Report, also uses expert judgements in presenting its country-level analysis of business competitiveness. 38. The lack of reliability here is reflected by the fact that different groups of experts will usually provide different values for the same indicators. 39. For further details, see www.freedomhouse.org. 40. See http://hdr.undp.org and www.rsf.org. 41. See www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/ (accessed 23 May 2012). 42. See also Human Development Report 2004, Feature 2.1: “The Minorities at Risk data set – quantifying cultural exclusion”, p. 32. More generally and in relation to indigenous groups, see the “Report of the Workshop on Data Collection and Disaggregation for Indigenous Peoples” (E/C.19/2004/2) held in January 2004 by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 43. See www.transparency.org. 44. See www.beri.com. 45. See www.globalinsight.com/. Human Rights Indicators 67