Mapping the Regional Divide in Europe: A Measure for Assessing Quality of Government in 206 European Regions
- 1.7k Downloads
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.
KeywordsGovernance Corruption Regions Europe Composite index
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/).
- Abramo, C. (2008). How much do perceptions of corruption really tell us? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 2, 3.Google Scholar
- Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
- Annoni, P., & Dijkstra, L. (2013). EU Regional Competitiveness Index. Luxembourg, Europe.Google Scholar
- 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).
- 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
- 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
- Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (Eds.). (2012). Good government: The relevance of political science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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
- Kurtz, M. J., & Schrank, A. (2007). Growth and governance: Models, measures, and mechanisms. Journal of Politics, 69(2), 538–554.Google Scholar
- 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
- Mauro, P. (2004). The persistence of corruption and slow economic growth. IMF staff papers, 1–18.Google Scholar
- 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
- Norris, P. (2012). Making democratic governance work: How regimes shape prosperity, welfare, and peace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Guiso, L. 2006. Does culture affect economic outcomes? (No. w11999). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- 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
- Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58(1–3), 33–46.Google Scholar
- Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater happiness for a greater number. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 605–629.Google Scholar