The first empirical measurement of structural governance fairness as collectively perceived by participants — across five governance domains. This is CARO Fairness Index Version 1.
All five domains below 2.0 — consistent signal across the full cohort.
An OFI of 1.74 places this cohort in the Strong Unfairness Consensus range (1.00–1.80), at the upper boundary of that range. Across all five governance domains, participants consistently judged prevailing practices as falling short of structural fairness standards — no domain scored above 1.89.
The near-alignment of OFI (1.74) with the average institutional trust score (1.88) is consistent with Equitism’s theoretical prediction: populations perceiving high governance unfairness show proportionally low system trust.
Domain Fairness Scores (DFS) computed using equal-weight averaging per Chapter 13 V1 formula: DFS(d) = (QFSq1 + … + QFSq5) / 5. All five scores fall below 2.0.
Radar visualization. Inner boundary = 1.0. Outer boundary = 5.0. All five domains cluster near the unfair pole. Scale bars shown at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
QFS = mean of all valid responses per question. N = 86. σ = standard deviation. Bar represents position within the 1–5 range.
Every number on this page is reproducible from the raw responses. This section shows the full calculation chain — from individual responses to Question Fairness Scores, Domain Fairness Scores, and the Overall Fairness Index — step by step, per Chapter 13 of Fairness as Foundation (SSRN #6632960).
V1 pilot scope: The full Fairness Index scoring system (Chapter 13) also defines a Question Confidence Score (QCS = 1 − σ/2.0), Question Participation Score (QPS), and Adjusted Question Fairness Score (AQFS = QFS × (0.60 + 0.20 × QCS + 0.20 × QPS)). These are not calculated in this pilot. The pilot uses the simplified equal-weight mean method — QFS → DFS → OFI — consistent with the book's explicit statement that equal weights apply in the pilot phase. QCS, QPS, and AQFS will be incorporated in the formal V1 launch once a target sample threshold is defined. V1 (30 questions — current 25 plus 5 BD transition-specific questions drafted by the FI Academic Advisory Panel) launches following panel review and finalization within the NED grant period. V2 follows at full scale: 50 questions, 7 domains, 1,000+ respondents. The σ values published here are the raw inputs from which QCS would be derived.
Is it fair for elected representatives to change political parties after being elected without returning to voters for a new mandate?
Is it fair for governments to make major national decisions without publicly explaining the reasoning and evidence behind them?
Is it fair for political leaders to appoint close family members to government positions?
Is it fair for governments to restrict citizens' right to public protest?
Is it fair for opposition parties to consistently block or reject government policies in order to gain political advantage, rather than on policy grounds?
Is it fair if wealthy individuals can access much better legal defense than ordinary citizens?
Is it fair for governments to influence court decisions during politically sensitive cases?
Is it fair for people accused of crimes to remain detained for long periods without trial?
Is it fair for law enforcement to use physical force against protesters, even when some protesters have caused property damage?
Is it fair for public officials accused of corruption to remain in office during investigation?
Is it fair for very wealthy individuals to pay the same percentage of tax as low-income citizens?
Is it fair for governments to provide financial subsidies to large corporations?
Is it fair for essential goods like food, medicine, and energy to be controlled by a small number of companies?
Is it fair for governments to provide no financial support or retraining programs for workers who lose their jobs due to automation or technological change?
Is it fair for government contracts to be awarded without open competitive bidding?
Is it fair for citizens in rural areas to receive fewer public services than citizens in major cities?
Is it fair for wealthier citizens to receive better healthcare simply because they can pay more?
Is it fair for public education quality to differ significantly between regions?
Is it fair for governments to prioritize large infrastructure projects while leaving basic social welfare programs underfunded?
Is it fair for political connections to influence access to government services?
Is it fair for governments to limit access to information about public spending?
Is it fair for media organizations to support specific political parties openly?
Is it fair for governments to use emergency powers to restrict citizens' freedoms?
Is it fair for powerful corporations to influence government policies through lobbying?
Is it fair for international organizations to attach policy conditions to financial aid provided to a country?
The OFI is the equal-weight average of the five domain scores. Each domain score is the equal-weight average of its five questions. All scores rounded to 2 decimal places at each stage before the next calculation — consistent with the Chapter 13 V1 pilot methodology.
Raw data: playerone.carononprofit.org · Methodology: Fairness as Foundation, Chapter 13 (SSRN #6632960) · GGL empirical paper in peer review, target Q3 2026.
Cohort limitation. This pilot is not nationally representative. It skews young (71% aged 18–25), male (61%), urban (62%), and educated (54% undergraduate or above). The OFI of 1.74 reflects this cohort’s structural fairness perceptions. GGL publications will contextualize findings within the participant demographic profile and track how scores shift as the sample expands and diversifies across age, location, gender, and education cohorts.
The Fairness Index survey is open globally through the PlayerOne platform. 25 questions. 5–8 minutes. Every response expands the empirical foundation of the world’s first governance fairness measurement.
Responses are anonymous · Aggregate data published by Global Governance Lab · Publication: June 2026
You just read Bangladesh's first governance fairness baseline. The next step is scaling it nationally — 1,000+ verified respondents across all 8 divisions. Every contribution funds one more verified voice.