Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 122, Issue 2, pp 315–346 | Cite as

Mapping the Regional Divide in Europe: A Measure for Assessing Quality of Government in 206 European Regions

  • Nicholas Charron
  • Lewis Dijkstra
  • Victor Lapuente
Article

Abstract

Do aspects of quality of government, broadly defined, such as corruption, impartiality, and quality of public services, vary below the country level? The concept of quality of government (QoG) and various measures to assess it have become more ubiquitous in several social science disciplines. QoG is related with economic and social development, better environmental conditions, and better quality of life. Yet while governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, their focus remains almost universally on analysis at the country level. Moreover, the majority of indices rely on expert assessments, as opposed to the assessments of citizens, who are the on-the-ground consumers of public services. Building on a preliminary round of data collected in 2010, this study, for which data were collected in 2013, presents a novel and comprehensive index that captures the quality of governance for 206 regions in 24 European countries. The ‘European Quality of Government Index’, which will be published free for scholarly use, is built on the largest survey to date focusing on governance at the regional level; over 85,000 citizens were surveyed. The instrument proposed here builds on both perceptions and experiences of citizens in public service areas such as health care, education, and law enforcement. The paper presents final results of the survey, as well as a sensitivity analysis and checks for external and internal validity.

Keywords

Governance Corruption Regions Europe Composite index 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project comes from the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development of the European Union. This research project is part of ANTICORP (http://anticorrp.eu/).

References

  1. Abramo, C. (2008). How much do perceptions of corruption really tell us? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 2, 3.Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, S., & Heywood, P. M. (2009). The politics of perception: Use and abuse of transparency international’s approach to measuring corruption. Political Studies, 57(4), 746–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annoni, P., & Dijkstra, L. (2013). EU Regional Competitiveness Index. Luxembourg, Europe.Google Scholar
  5. Charron, N. (2010) Assessing the quality of the quality of government data: A sensitivity test of the world bank government indicators, QoG Working Paper. (http://www.qog.pol.gu.se/digitalAssets/1357/1357980_paper-on-sensititivty-tests-of-world-bank-data.pdf).
  6. Charron, N. (2013). European perceptions of quality of government: A survey of 24 countries. In A. Mungiu-Pippidi & B. Rothenstein (Eds.) Controlling corruption in Europe—The ANTICORP Report no 1. Verlag Barbara Budrich publishers. Google Scholar
  7. Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2014). Regional governance matters: Quality of government within European Union Member States. Regional Studies, 48(1), 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charron, N., & Lapuente, V. (2013). Why do some regions in Europe have higher quality of government? Journal of Politics, 75(3), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Rothstein, B. (2013). Quality of government and corruption form a European perspective: A comparative study of good government in EU regions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (1998). Corruption and government size: A disaggregated analysis. Public Choice, 97(1–2), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Golden, M. A., & Picci, L. (2005). Proposal for a new measure of corruption, illustrated with Italian data. Economics and Politics, 17(1), 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Economics of Governance, 3(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. (2008). How’s your government? International evidence linking good government and well-being. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 595–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (Eds.). (2012). Good government: The relevance of political science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B., & Nasiritousi, N. (2009). Quality of government: What you get. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5430.Google Scholar
  17. Kurtz, M. J., & Schrank, A. (2007). Growth and governance: Models, measures, and mechanisms. Journal of Politics, 69(2), 538–554.Google Scholar
  18. León, C.J., Araña, J.E., & de León, J. (2013). Correcting for scale perception bias in measuring corruption: an application to Chile and Spain. Social Indicators Research, 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Mauro, P. (2004). The persistence of corruption and slow economic growth. IMF staff papers, 1–18.Google Scholar
  20. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide OECD, European Commission, Joint Research Centre. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Norris, P. (2012). Making democratic governance work: How regimes shape prosperity, welfare, and peace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Garcilazo, E. (2013), Quality of government and the returns of investment: Examining the impact of cohesion expenditure in european regions, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2013/12, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Rothstein, B. (2003). Social capital, economic growth and quality of government: The causal mechanism. New Political Economy, 8(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(01), 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Samanni, M., & Holmberg, S. (2010). Quality of government makes people happy. QoG Working Paper Series 2010:1, The Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  28. Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Guiso, L. 2006. Does culture affect economic outcomes? (No. w11999). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  29. Shankar, R., & Shah, A. (2003). Bridging the economic divide within countries: A scorecard on the performance of regional policies in reducing regional income disparities. World Development, 31(8), 1421–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sundström, A., & Wängnerud, L. (2013). Women’s local political representation within 30 European countries: A comparative dataset on regional figures. QoG Institute Working Paper Series 2013: 18. The Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  32. Tabellini, G. (2008). Presidential address institutions and culture. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(2–3), 255–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tabellini, G. (2010). Culture and institutions: Economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 677–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58(1–3), 33–46.Google Scholar
  35. Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 605–629.Google Scholar
  36. Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: A cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9(5), 663–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Charron
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lewis Dijkstra
    • 3
  • Victor Lapuente
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Business and PoliticsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Quality of Government InstituteUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Directorate-General for Regional Policy (REGIO)European CommissionBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations