U-score parliaments

U-score by Model 1

U-score by Model 2

To perform a comparative evaluation of the Bulgarian Parliament (National Assembly) and the German Parliament (Bundestag) using the U-Model principles, we will focus on specific principles from each category—Code, Credo, and Rights—that are relevant, important, and measurable, and which impact market capitalization or popularity, and public contribution.

Evaluation of the Bulgarian Parliament

Refusal to Harm (Code)

Transparency and Accountability: The Bulgarian Parliament has made strides in transparency but often faces criticism over accountability in legislative processes. There have been reports of opaque decision-making and limited public engagement in the legislative process. Score: 40% 😠
Continuous Learning and Knowledge Sharing: There is limited evidence of systematic efforts to enhance knowledge sharing or continuous learning among members beyond formal education requirements. Score: 30% 😡
Public Service Commitment: While the Bulgarian Parliament aims to serve the public, inefficiencies and reported corruption undermine its effectiveness in this area. Score: 35% 😡
Respect for Human Dignity: Dignity is formally respected, but occasional derogatory remarks or actions by some members can tarnish this principle's application. Score: 50% 🤔
Protection of Environment and Sustainability: Efforts are ongoing, but there is significant room for improvement in integrating sustainability into legislative actions. Score: 45% 🤔Average Score for Code: 40% 😠

Organizational Benefit (Credo)

Efficiency, Productivity and Citizen Service: The efficiency of the Bulgarian Parliament is often questioned, with slow legislative processes and perceived bureaucratic delays. Score: 35% 😡
Resource Management: Resource distribution is sometimes criticized for lack of transparency and perceived inefficiencies. Score: 30% 😡
Adaptability and Rapid Response: Response to environmental changes is generally slow, reflecting a need for more proactive governance. Score: 40% 😠
Continuous Learning: There is limited institutional support for continuous learning and development. Score: 30% 😡
Transparency and Integrity: Integrity is formally upheld, but transparency issues impact public trust. Score: 40% 😠Average Score for Credo: 35% 😡

Correctness of Expectations (Rights)

Right to Clarity: Legislation is often complex, which can obscure clarity and understanding for the general public. Score: 35% 😡
Right to Necessary Resources: Resources for public inquiries and participation are available, but could be better facilitated. Score: 45% 🤔
Right to Support: Public support mechanisms exist, but their effectiveness varies. Score: 40% 😠
Right to Recognition: There is some recognition of public needs, but it can be overshadowed by political agendas. Score: 50% 🤔
Right to a Healthy and Safe Work Environment: Generally upheld within the parliamentary settings. Score: 70% 😊Average Score for Rights: 48% 🤔

Overall Average Score for Bulgarian Parliament: 41% 🤔

Evaluation of the German Bundestag

Refusal to Harm (Code)

Transparency and Accountability: The Bundestag is known for a high degree of transparency in its operations and robust mechanisms for accountability. Score: 80% 🤩
Continuous Learning and Knowledge Sharing: There are structured programs for continuous education and knowledge sharing among members. Score: 75% 🤩
Public Service Commitment: The Bundestag is generally effective in its commitment to public service, with active engagement in both local and international issues. Score: 80% 🤩
Respect for Human Dignity: Strong adherence to respect and dignity in public discourse and policy-making. Score: 85% 😇
Protection of Environment and Sustainability: Strong legislative focus on environmental protection and sustainable practices. Score: 80% 🤩Average Score for Code: 80% 🤩

Organizational Benefit (Credo)

Efficiency, Productivity and Citizen Service: High efficiency and productivity, with effective citizen services. Score: 75% 🤩
Resource Management: Effective and transparent resource management is a hallmark. Score: 80% 🤩
Adaptability and Rapid Response: Proactive and adaptable to changes, both domestically and internationally. Score: 75% 🤩
Continuous Learning: Strong emphasis on continuous improvement and learning. Score: 80% 🤩
Transparency and Integrity: High levels of integrity and transparency, fostering public trust. Score: 85% 😇Average Score for Credo: 79% 🤩

Correctness of Expectations (Rights)

Right to Clarity: High clarity in legislative processes and public communication. Score: 75% 🤩
Right to Necessary Resources: Effective provision of necessary resources to the public for engagement and understanding. Score: 80% 🤩
Right to Support: Strong support systems for public engagement and feedback. Score: 75% 🤩
Right to Recognition: Effective recognition of public contributions and needs in policy-making. Score: 80% 🤩
Right to a Healthy and Safe Work Environment: Well-maintained and safe working conditions in parliamentary settings. Score: 85% 😇Average Score for Rights: 79% 🤩

Overall Average Score for German Bundestag: 79% 🤩

This comparative evaluation reveals significant differences between the Bulgarian Parliament and the German Bundestag in adherence to U-Model principles. The German Bundestag scores consistently higher in all categories, reflecting more robust governance practices, transparency, and public service commitment.

U-score.info

To perform a comparative evaluation of the French Parliament and the Romanian Parliament using the U-Model principles, we will focus on specific principles from each category—Code, Credo, and Rights—that are relevant, important, and measurable, and which impact market capitalization or popularity, and public contribution.

Evaluation of the French Parliament

Refusal to Harm (Code)

Transparency and Accountability: The French Parliament exhibits a moderate level of transparency and accountability, with procedural mechanisms in place, but occasional criticisms regarding clarity in legislative processes. Score: 65% 😊
Continuous Learning and Knowledge Sharing: There are structured opportunities for professional development and inter-parliamentary exchanges that facilitate knowledge sharing among members. Score: 70% 😊
Public Service Commitment: Strong commitment to public service is evident through active legislation and engagement with EU and international bodies. Score: 75% 🤩
Respect for Human Dignity: Generally, the French Parliament upholds dignity in its conduct, though isolated incidents may detract from this perception. Score: 70% 😊
Protection of Environment and Sustainability: France is proactive in integrating environmental sustainability into its legislative agenda, reflecting a strong commitment to ecological issues. Score: 80% 🤩Average Score for Code: 72% 🤩

Organizational Benefit (Credo)

Efficiency, Productivity and Citizen Service: The Parliament is relatively efficient with mechanisms to address citizen concerns promptly, though sometimes bureaucratic delays are noted. Score: 65% 😊
Resource Management: Effective use of resources is generally observed, but there are occasional reports of mismanagement. Score: 60% 😐
Adaptability and Rapid Response: Shows adaptability in responding to social and economic changes, particularly in crisis situations. Score: 70% 😊
Continuous Learning: Continuous learning is encouraged through regular training sessions and workshops. Score: 75% 🤩
Transparency and Integrity: Maintains a relatively high level of integrity, with ongoing efforts to improve transparency. Score: 70% 😊Average Score for Credo: 68% 😊

Correctness of Expectations (Rights)

Right to Clarity: Legislation and parliamentary proceedings are accessible, but complex language can sometimes hinder clarity. Score: 65% 😊
Right to Necessary Resources: Adequate resources are available for public engagement and parliamentary research. Score: 75% 🤩
Right to Support: Public and legislative support systems are well-established. Score: 70% 😊
Right to Recognition: Efforts to recognize public needs and contributions are evident, though improvements could be made. Score: 65% 😊
Right to a Healthy and Safe Work Environment: Maintains high standards for workplace safety and health. Score: 80% 🤩Average Score for Rights: 71% 🤩

Overall Average Score for French Parliament: 70% 😊

Evaluation of the Romanian Parliament

Refusal to Harm (Code)

Transparency and Accountability: Faces significant challenges with transparency and accountability, with frequent public criticism and concerns about corruption. Score: 35% 😡
Continuous Learning and Knowledge Sharing: Limited formal programs for continuous learning or sharing of best practices within the Parliament. Score: 30% 😡
Public Service Commitment: Commitment is formally stated, but practical implementation often falls short due to political instability and inefficiencies. Score: 40% 😠
Respect for Human Dignity: There are reports of inappropriate behavior and speech that undermine dignity within parliamentary settings. Score: 45% 🤔
Protection of Environment and Sustainability: Environmental issues are increasingly addressed, but legislative action is often reactive rather than proactive. Score: 50% 🤔Average Score for Code: 40% 😠

Organizational Benefit (Credo)

Efficiency, Productivity and Citizen Service: Efficiency is hampered by bureaucratic processes and slow legislative responsiveness. Score: 35% 😡
Resource Management: Resource management is often criticized for inefficiency and perceived corruption. Score: 30% 😡
Adaptability and Rapid Response: Struggles with rapid response to social and economic changes, often reacting slowly to crises. Score: 40% 😠
Continuous Learning: Minimal emphasis on structured continuous learning or professional development. Score: 35% 😡
Transparency and Integrity: Integrity issues and a lack of transparency significantly affect public trust and parliamentary effectiveness. Score: 30% 😡Average Score for Credo: 34% 😡

Correctness of Expectations (Rights)

Right to Clarity: Legislative processes often lack clarity and accessibility, complicating public understanding and engagement. Score: 40% 😠
Right to Necessary Resources: Resources for public engagement are available but not always effectively utilized or promoted. Score: 45% 🤔
Right to Support: Support systems exist but are not always effective or well-coordinated. Score: 50% 🤔
Right to Recognition: Efforts to recognize public needs are inconsistent and often influenced by political agendas. Score: 40% 😠
Right to a Healthy and Safe Work Environment: Generally maintains a safe work environment, though improvements could be made. Score: 60% 😐Average Score for Rights: 47% 🤔

Overall Average Score for Romanian Parliament: 40% 😠

This comparative evaluation reveals significant differences between the French Parliament and the Romanian Parliament in adherence to U-Model principles. The French Parliament scores consistently higher, reflecting more robust governance practices, transparency, and public service commitment.

U-score.info

To perform a comparative evaluation of the Hungarian Parliament and the Austrian Parliament using the U-Model principles, we will focus on specific principles from each category—Code, Credo, and Rights—that are relevant, important, and measurable, and which impact market capitalization or popularity, and public contribution.

Evaluation of the Hungarian Parliament

Refusal to Harm (Code)

Transparency and Accountability: The Hungarian Parliament has faced criticism for issues related to transparency, especially concerning the passage of legislation without extensive public debate. Score: 30% 😡
Continuous Learning and Knowledge Sharing: There is limited evidence of structured programs for continuous learning or inter-parliamentary knowledge sharing. Score: 35% 😡
Public Service Commitment: There are concerns about the effectiveness of the Hungarian Parliament in serving the broader public interest, with some policies perceived as serving narrow political aims. Score: 40% 😠
Respect for Human Dignity: This principle is formally upheld, but divisive political rhetoric sometimes undermines it. Score: 45% 🤔
Protection of Environment and Sustainability: Environmental legislation is in place, but its enforcement and the commitment to sustainable policies are often questioned. Score: 50% 🤔Average Score for Code: 40% 😠

Organizational Benefit (Credo)

Efficiency, Productivity and Citizen Service: The Hungarian Parliament operates efficiently in procedural terms but faces criticism for the effectiveness and inclusiveness of its service to citizens. Score: 45% 🤔
Resource Management: Resource allocation is often seen as politicized, which impacts the perceived fairness and efficiency of resource management. Score: 40% 😠
Adaptability and Rapid Response: The parliament has shown the ability to respond rapidly to certain situations, though not always with broad consensus or in a manner that aligns with public expectations. Score: 50% 🤔
Continuous Learning: There is a need for more structured opportunities for ongoing professional development. Score: 40% 😠
Transparency and Integrity: Integrity and transparency are areas of significant public concern, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest and openness in legislative processes. Score: 35% 😡Average Score for Credo: 42% 😠

Correctness of Expectations (Rights)

Right to Clarity: Legislative processes can be complex and not always clear to the general public, affecting transparency and trust. Score: 40% 😠
Right to Necessary Resources: There are resources available for public engagement, but accessibility is an issue. Score: 45% 🤔
Right to Support: Support mechanisms exist but are not consistently applied or universally accessible. Score: 50% 🤔
Right to Recognition: Efforts to recognize and integrate public feedback into the legislative process are not consistently evident. Score: 40% 😠
Right to a Healthy and Safe Work Environment: Generally maintains a good standard in the physical environment of the parliamentary settings. Score: 60% 😐Average Score for Rights: 47% 🤔

Overall Average Score for Hungarian Parliament: 43% 🤔

Evaluation of the Austrian Parliament

Refusal to Harm (Code)

Transparency and Accountability: The Austrian Parliament generally upholds a high standard of transparency and accountability, with clear processes and public accessibility to sessions and documents. Score: 80% 🤩
Continuous Learning and Knowledge Sharing: Structured programs and international exchanges are part of the parliament's continuous learning environment. Score: 75% 🤩
Public Service Commitment: The parliament actively engages with public issues and maintains a strong commitment to serving the public good effectively. Score: 80% 🤩
Respect for Human Dignity: Maintains a high standard of conduct that respects human dignity, with few exceptions. Score: 85% 😇
Protection of Environment and Sustainability: Strong legislative focus and commitment to environmental sustainability and progressive policies. Score: 85% 😇Average Score for Code: 81% 😇

Organizational Benefit (Credo)

Efficiency, Productivity and Citizen Service: The Austrian Parliament is noted for its efficiency and the effectiveness of its services to citizens. Score: 80% 🤩
Resource Management: Resource management is generally efficient and well-regulated, contributing to a high level of organizational efficiency. Score: 75% 🤩
Adaptability and Rapid Response: Demonstrates adaptability and a proactive approach to both domestic and international changes. Score: 80% 🤩
Continuous Learning: Strong emphasis on continuous professional development and adaptation to new legislative challenges. Score: 80% 🤩
Transparency and Integrity: High levels of integrity and transparency are hallmarks of the Austrian parliamentary system. Score: 85% 😇Average Score for Credo: 80% 🤩

Correctness of Expectations (Rights)

Right to Clarity: Efforts are made to ensure legislative processes are clear and understandable to the public. Score: 75% 🤩
Right to Necessary Resources: Provides comprehensive resources for public interaction and legislative transparency. Score: 80% 🤩
Right to Support: Strong systems are in place to support public engagement and address citizen concerns. Score: 80% 🤩
Right to Recognition: There is a structured approach to recognizing and integrating public input into the legislative process. Score: 75% 🤩
Right to a Healthy and Safe Work Environment: High standards are maintained in parliamentary work environments. Score: 85% 😇Average Score for Rights: 79% 🤩

Overall Average Score for Austrian Parliament: 80% 🤩

This comparative evaluation reveals significant differences between the Hungarian Parliament and the Austrian Parliament in adherence to U-Model principles. The Austrian Parliament scores consistently higher, reflecting robust governance practices, transparency, and public service commitment.