Introduction

The adage “what gets measured gets managed” holds critical relevance in the spheres of governance, development, and fiscal efficiency. At its core, measurement empowers policymakers to assess performance, evaluate the outcomes of interventions, and make informed decisions on resource allocation. Whether through indices, benchmarking, or real-time monitoring systems, the act of measuring institutional inputs and outputs serves as the foundation for effective governance. This principle, though deceptively simple, has profound implications for how governments deliver public services and achieve developmental goals.

At the core of effective governance lies the capacity to measure institutional and policy performance in a systematic and meaningful manner. Without such measurement, governance remains abstract, with limited ability to translate intent into observable and verifiable outcomes. Metrics serve as the operational link between political will and administrative action, enabling policymakers to anchor normative goals in empirical realities. This alignment is critical for improving service delivery, ensuring policy coherence, and fostering adaptive governance.

Philosophically, the act of measurement is a reflection of rationalism in public administration, embodying values such as objectivity, accountability, and transparency (Behn, 2003)¹. The commitment to track performance is not merely instrumental but also normative, signaling a willingness to be evaluated and held accountable for results. It aligns with Max Weber’s conception of modern bureaucracy, wherein rational-legal authority depends on rules, procedures, and record-keeping as tools of legitimacy and efficiency (Weber, 1978)². Measurement thus becomes central to the project of depersonalised, rule-bound, and performance-oriented governance.

Empirical evidence suggests that measurement and performance tracking are closely linked to macroeconomic stability and institutional efficiency. For instance, Amir and Gokmenoglu (2020)³ find that institutional quality, particularly when measured and monitored, plays a significant role in promoting financial sector development in emerging markets. Similarly, Heylen, Hoebeeck, and Schoonackers (2013)⁴ demonstrate that institutional efficiency is positively correlated with prudent fiscal policy, reducing budget deficits and enhancing long-term sustainability. Cooray (2011)⁵ also emphasises that robust governance institutions—those with mechanisms for measurement and performance appraisal—are strongly associated with higher levels of economic development and improved human welfare.

Therefore, measurement is more than a managerial tool but a strategic governance instrument. It helps identify institutional bottlenecks, facilitate inter-jurisdictional comparisons, and support evidence-based policymaking. In doing so, it contributes to building institutional resilience, enhancing administrative capacity, and fostering democratic legitimacy. A governance architecture that embeds systematic measurement is better equipped to deliver on developmental objectives while remaining responsive and accountable to its citizens.

Further, ranking subnational governments (in India’s case, state governments) on various indices plays a crucial role in fostering competitive federalism, which enhances governance and socio-economic outcomes. Empirical evidence suggests that when states are ranked based on their performance in sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure, it creates a competitive environment where governments strive to improve their services and attract investment. For instance, the NITI Aayog in India has implemented several indices, such as the School Education Quality Index and the State Health Index, which not only provide transparency but also incentivise states to enhance their performance (NITI Aayog, 2025)⁶. This competitive spirit can lead to significant improvements in public service delivery and overall state development.

Research indicates that competitive federalism encourages states to adopt innovative practices and policies that can lead to better governance. By publicly ranking states and districts, governments are held accountable for their performance, fostering a culture of improvement and responsiveness to citizens’ needs (OECD, 2018)⁷. The success of initiatives like India’s Ease-of-Doing Business Index demonstrates how competition among states can drive reforms that enhance the business environment, ultimately contributing to economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2019)⁸. Such rankings serve as benchmarks that guide policymakers in identifying areas needing attention and reform.

Furthermore, the competitive federalism framework promotes equitable resource allocation and development across regions. States with lower socio-economic indicators are motivated to improve their standings through targeted interventions, which can help bridge regional. The empirical evidence supports the notion that when subnational governments are evaluated and ranked based on objective criteria, it leads to more efficient use of resources and better outcomes for citizens. This dynamic not only benefits individual states but also strengthens the overall federal structure by ensuring that all regions work towards common developmental goals.

It is abundantly clear that on a large and diverse federal polity like India, the state is not a monolith. Governance capacity, developmental outcomes, and fiscal prudence vary dramatically across states. Yet policymaking often assumes uniformity, sidelining the heterogeneity of state capabilities. To address this, the SKOCH Development Foundation has developed six analytically rigorous indices that rank states on essential dimensions of public policy. These indices are not mere rankings—they are instruments of institutional benchmarking, inter-jurisdictional learning, and accountability. The indices are as follows:

SKOCH State of Governance Index

Anchored in public administration and institutional theory (Ostrom, 1990), this index measures the quality of bureaucratic institutions, administrative responsiveness, and the capacity of the state to deliver essential services and public goods. The SKOCH State of Governance framework stands out as a groundbreaking approach in assessing the performance of Indian states through a robust, multi-layered evaluation mechanism rooted in both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Unlike traditional index-based rankings that rely heavily on macroeconomic indicators or administrative data, SKOCH’s methodology is refreshingly bottom-up—it begins by evaluating well-performing projects nominated by states themselves, and rigorously scrutinises them through expert review, field validation, and even peer and public assessment.

What truly distinguishes the SKOCH State of Governance index is its holistic focus on the how of governance—not just the what. From the primary evaluation by domain experts to field research validating outcomes on the ground, SKOCH introduces an evidence-based lens to governance discourse. Its democratic elements, such as popular voting and expert polling at exhibitions, ensure that recognition is earned through transparency and real-world endorsement. The final categorisation of states into STARS, PERFORMERS, and CATCHING UP helps foster competitive federalism, while also encouraging lagging states to emulate successful models.

SKOCH State of e-Government Infrastructure Index

Drawing from the literature on digital state capacity and platform governance (Mazzucato, 2018; Meijer & Bolívar, 2016)⁹, this index evaluates the robustness, inclusivity and interoperability of digital systems that enable responsive, transparent, and real-time citizen engagement. As digital governance becomes a cornerstone of state capacity in the 21^st century, the ability of governments to build and maintain reliable digital infrastructure is increasingly viewed as essential for effective public service delivery and participatory governance. Meijer and Bolívar (2016) argue that digital technologies, when well-integrated, can enhance democratic accountability by enabling real-time feedback loops between citizens and the state, facilitating data-driven policymaking, and fostering trust in institutions. Mazzucato (2018) extends this idea by emphasising the role of the state as a dynamic platform builder, capable of shaping markets and driving innovation—not just regulating them¹⁰.

Tracking digital state capacity is thus critical for assessing how well a state can leverage technology to deliver public goods, reduce transaction costs, and enhance administrative efficiency. Inclusivity ensures that digital systems are accessible to all citizens, particularly marginalised groups, thereby promoting equity. Interoperability reflects the extent to which various government departments can seamlessly exchange data, leading to more coherent policy implementation. Robustness, meanwhile, speaks to the resilience and scalability of the digital architecture in the face of rising demand and potential shocks.

Taken together, these dimensions serve as a proxy for broader developmental outcomes: states with high digital capacity are often more agile, citizen-centric, and capable of adaptive governance. The index not only reflects the technical infrastructure in place but also the institutional and strategic intent behind digital transformation—making it a valuable lens through which to evaluate modern state effectiveness and governance quality.

SKOCH State of Financial Prudence Index

Rooted in theories of fiscal federalism and public financial management (Oates, 1972; Rodden, 2006), this index captures a state’s ability to raise revenues, manage expenditures, and ensure fiscal sustainability—core components of state capacity. In the tradition of Oates (1972), the decentralisation of fiscal responsibilities is seen as a mechanism to improve allocative efficiency, presuming that subnational governments are better positioned to assess and address local preferences¹¹. Building on this, Rodden (2006) emphasises the importance of institutional and political arrangements that govern intergovernmental fiscal relations, especially in ensuring hard budget constraints and avoiding subnational moral hazard¹². Therefore, the index not only reflects a state’s technical competence in public financial management but also its institutional resilience in balancing autonomy with accountability. By assessing fiscal health through this triad—revenue generation, expenditure management, and long-term sustainability—the index serves as a proxy for measuring broader governance capabilities at the state level.

SKOCH State of Government Transformation

This composite index synthesises insights from both the State of Governance and State of e-Government Infrastructure Index. It represents a novel analytical framework that transcends traditional siloed approaches to state capacity by integrating the institutional principles of good governance—such as transparency, responsiveness, and accountability—with the infrastructural imperatives of digital transformation, including interoperability, inclusivity, and real-time service delivery. By doing so, the index operationalises the evolving “government-as-a-platform” paradigm (Srivastava & Bhatia, 2022), which reconceptualises the state not merely as a provider of services but as an enabler of ecosystem-wide innovation, coordination, and citizen engagement¹³.

Theoretically, this approach draws on the tradition of neo-institutionalism in public administration, which emphasises how institutional arrangements and norms shape governance outcomes (Peters, 2019), while simultaneously incorporating insights from the platform governance literature, which focuses on the modular, adaptive, and scalable nature of digital systems (Plantin et al., 2018). The government-as-a-platform model, in particular, envisions the state as a facilitator of standardised digital infrastructure upon which diverse actors—citizens, private firms, and other public agencies—can build interoperable solutions, thus fostering co-production and innovation in public service delivery.

By examining both governance quality and the digital backbone together, this index provides a more holistic measure of state modernisation. It captures not only whether states are capable of delivering services effectively (governance) but also whether they are doing so through architectures that are future-ready, inclusive, and adaptive (digital infrastructure). This dual lens offers a forward-looking view of state capacity that reflects the demands of a data-driven, hyperconnected society, and moves the discourse beyond legacy models that treat administrative efficiency and technological advancement as separate domains. In doing so, it enables policymakers, researchers, and citizens to better evaluate the alignment between institutional intent and digital implementation—two critical and often disconnected aspects of governance in the digital age.

SKOCH State of Government Efficiency Index

Grounded in the foundational theories of allocative and technical efficiency (Farrell, 1957; Koopmans, 1951), this index evaluates how well states convert their available administrative and financial resources into tangible public policy outputs and developmental outcomes. Technical efficiency, as conceptualised by Koopmans (1951), pertains to a state’s ability to maximise outputs given a set of inputs—i.e., whether a state apparatus can “do more with less.”¹⁴ Allocative efficiency, building on Farrell’s (1957) work, examines whether the mix of inputs is optimal for the outputs being pursued—whether the allocation of public resources aligns with the state’s development priorities and public needs¹⁵.

This analytical lens is crucial because it shifts the focus away from simplistic expenditure tracking or policy intentions toward a more nuanced understanding of governance productivity—how effectively the machinery of the state translates inputs into impact. In a federal polity like India, where states vary widely in institutional capacity, fiscal space, and demographic pressures, such an index serves as a powerful tool to benchmark performance, identify best practices, and highlight inefficiencies that are not always apparent through budgetary or outcome metrics alone.

Moreover, this efficiency-based approach resonates with the broader literature on government performance and public sector productivity (Afonso, Schuknecht, & Tanzi, 2005), which argues that increasing state capacity is not solely about increasing inputs but optimising the way those inputs are used. It also aligns with the theory of capability-enhancing governance, which focuses on how institutions and administrative structures empower the state to deliver on its developmental mandates (Andrews, Pritchett & Woolcock, 2017)¹⁷.

SKOCH State of Development

This comprehensive index, which synthesises governance, finance, and digital infrastructure, offers a novel and integrative lens through which to assess development. Unlike traditional approaches that rely solely on economic output indicators such as GDP per capita or income levels, this framework foregrounds the enabling structures that shape individual and collective capabilities. In doing so, it aligns with the capability approach to development proposed by Amartya Sen (1999), which emphasises the real freedoms and opportunities people have to pursue lives they value¹⁸.

By focusing on the institutional and infrastructural enablers of human development—specifically, the quality of governance, fiscal capacity, and digital connectivity—the index captures dimensions of state capacity that are often underrepresented in conventional development metrics. Governance reflects the effectiveness and responsiveness of public institutions (Kaufmann, Kraay, & Zoido-Lobatón, 1999)¹⁹; public finance represents the state’s ability to mobilise and allocate resources efficiently (Besley & Persson, 2011)²⁰; and digital infrastructure, increasingly recognised as a foundational capability, reflects access to information, markets, and services in the digital age (UNDP, 2022)²¹.

Moreover, the empirical foundation of the index—rooted in measurable indicators of institutional performance—responds to long-standing calls for more operationalisable frameworks of governance and development. By integrating these domains, the index moves beyond siloed sectoral assessments and provides a systemic view of state functionality and citizen empowerment.

In this sense, the index offers both a normative and analytical contribution to development thinking. It operationalises the idea that development is not just about achieving outcomes, but also about building institutional capacities and infrastructural foundations that sustain inclusive growth, democratic accountability, and long-term resilience.

Why These Indices Matter

In a country as diverse and decentralised as India, standardised metrics are essential for meaningful inter-state comparisons. Without uniform benchmarks, assessments of state performance risk devolving into anecdotal or politicised narratives. These indices provide a rigorous, replicable methodology grounded in the principles of comparative public administration (Peters, 2001)²³. By offering consistent, cross-jurisdictional metrics for governance, public finance, and digital infrastructure, they establish a common evaluative language, enabling policymakers, researchers, and citizens to make informed assessments of institutional effectiveness.

Beyond measurement, these indices activate the logic of competitive federalism—a concept rooted in the idea that states compete for capital, talent, and innovation by improving their institutional performance (Tiebout, 1956; Weingast, 1995)^24&25. Clear, transparent performance signals not only inform citizens and investors but also incentivise state governments to reform. By transforming abstract principles into actionable insights, the indices promote a race to the top—not through central coercion, but via decentralised, evidence-based competition. In doing so, they strengthen the incentives for good governance and encourage states to be more citizen-responsive and reform-oriented.

Crucially, the indices also support policy learning and diffusion by identifying and disseminating best practices. Theories of policy diffusion argue that when institutional innovations are benchmarked and made visible, they are more likely to be adopted across jurisdictions (Shipan & Volden, 2008)²⁶. These indices serve as dynamic repositories of successful models in governance and statecraft, facilitating mutual learning among states. As India marches toward the ambition of Viksit Bharat @2047, the aggregation of sub-national successes will be critical. Development must be polycentric, and these indices provide a transparent framework to evaluate, compare, and accelerate that journey—ensuring that India rises by enabling its states to race to the top.

Table 1: Top 10 States/UTs Performing Well Across All Indices

Rank	State/UT	Highlights of Performance (Selected Ranks)
1	Maharashtra	Ranked 1st in Governance, Efficiency, Transformation, and Development
2	Gujarat	Consistently top 3 in Finance, Efficiency, Transformation, and Development
3	Odisha	Ranked 1st in Finance, 3rd in Efficiency, top 6 across most indices
4	Uttarakhand	Consistently top 10 in all indices
5	Andhra Pradesh	Strong performance in Governance (3), Efficiency (5), Transformation (3)
6	Uttar Pradesh	Top 4 in Governance, Efficiency, Transformation, and Development
7	Tamil Nadu	Strong across Finance (4), Efficiency (6), Development (7)
8	West Bengal	Top 5 in Governance, Efficiency, Transformation, and Development
9	Telangana	Top 10 in Finance, Efficiency, and Development
10	Chhattisgarh	Top 15 in all indices; very balanced performer

---

1. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322
2. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press.
3. Amir, A., & Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2020). Analysing the role of government efficiency on financial development for OECD countries. EconStor.
4. Heylen, F., Hoebeeck, A., & Schoonackers, R. (2013). Government efficiency, institutions, and the effects of fiscal consolidation. Public Choice, 156(3–4), 403–426.
5. Cooray, A. (2011). The role of the government in financial sector development. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.11.007
6. NITI Aayog. (2025). Competitive Federalism. Retrieved from https://www.niti.gov.in/competitive-federalism
7. OECD. (2018). Improving the Performance of Sub-national Governments through Benchmarking and Performance Reporting. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/02/improving-the-performance-of-sub-national-governments-through-benchmarking-and-performance-reporting_9a91dc8f/ffff92c6-en.pdf
8. World Economic Forum. (2019). Why cooperative and competitive federalism is the secret to India’s success. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/10/what-is-cooperative-and-competitive-federalism-india
9. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the Smart City: A Review of the Literature on Smart Urban Governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.
10. Mazzucato, M. (2018). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Penguin.
11. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12. Rodden, J. (2006). Hamilton’s Paradox: The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism. Cambridge University Press.
13. Srivastava, A., & Bhatia, R. (2022). Government as Platform in India: Reimagining Governance through Digital Public Infrastructure. Journal of Digital Government Research, 3(1), 45–62.
14. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253–281.
15. Koopmans, T. C. (1951). An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In T. C. Koopmans (Ed.), Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (pp. 33–97). Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, Monograph No. 13.
16. Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L., & Tanzi, V. (2005). Public sector efficiency: An international comparison. Public Choice, 123(3-4), 321-347.
17. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press.
18. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
19. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999). Governance matters. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2196.
20. Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2011). Pillars of prosperity: The political economics of development clusters. Princeton University Press.
21. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Human Development Report 2021/22: Uncertain times, unsettled lives—Shaping our future in a transforming world. UNDP.
22. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press.
23. Peters, B. G. (2001). The future of governing (2^nd ed.). University Press of Kansas.
24. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
25. Weingast, B. R. (1995). The economic role of political institutions: Market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organisation, 11(1), 1–31.
26. Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 840–857.