Skip to main content

How a Good Governance of Institutions Can Reduce Poverty and Inequality in Society?

Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

The main aim of this chapter is to explain how institutional change, measured with a set of governance indicators, can support the reduction of poverty and inequality in society that is an essential prerequisite for supporting economic growth of nations. This chapter shows a study that investigates 191 countries to clarify the relationships between institutional variables and socioeconomic factors of nations with different levels of development. Central findings suggest that a good governance of institutions supports a reduction of poverty and income inequality in society. In particular, results of this study show that the critical role of good governance for reducing inequality and poverty has a effect in countries with stable economies higher than emerging and fragile economies. Overall, then, the study described in this chapter reveals that countries should focus on institutional change directed to improve governance effectiveness and rule of law that can reduce poverty and inequality, and as a consequence support the long-run (sustainable) socioeconomic development of nations.

Keywords

  • Institutional change
  • Governance indicators
  • Economic governance
  • Government effectiveness
  • Rule of law
  • Income inequality
  • Equality
  • Poverty
  • Developing countries
  • Institutional framework
  • Governance approach
  • Institutions
  • Society and institutions
  • Institutional theory
  • Institutional development

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-60978-8_4
  • Chapter length: 30 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-60978-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2005). Unbundling institutions. The Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 949–995.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2005). Chapter 6: Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J. A., & Yard, P. (2008). Income and democracy. American Economic Review, 98(3), 808–842.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aidt, T. S., & Jensen, P. S. (2013). Democratization and the size of government: evidence from the long 19th century. Public Choice, 157(3/4). Special Issue: Essays in Honor of Martin Paldam (December), 511–542.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40, 1203–1228.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, M. (2001). Towards a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Azariadis, C., & Stachurski, J. (2005). Poverty traps. Handbook of Economic Growth, 1(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, R., & Rausser, G. (1995). Governance structures and the durability of economic reforms: Evidence from inflation stabilizations. World Development, 23(6), 897–912.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, D. L. (1996). Democracy, institutional change, and stabilisation policy in Hungary. Europe-Asia Studies, 48(1), 47–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/152908.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2014). Institutional change in economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513507823.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, A., Ostry, J. D., Tsangarides, C. G., & Yakhshilikov, Y. (2018). Redistribution, inequality, and growth: new evidence. Journal of Economic Growth, 23, 259–305.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., Durlauf, S., & Hoff, K. (2006). Poverty traps. Princeton: Russell Sage Foundation. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breunig, R., & Majeed, O. (2019). Inequality, poverty and economic growth. International Economics. ISSN:2110-7017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2019.11.005.

  • Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Campos, N. F. (2000). Context is everything: Measuring institutional change in transition economies (Policy Research Working Papers, Series 2269). The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2269.

  • Campos, N. F., & Nugent, J. (1999). Development performance and the institutions of governance: Evidence from East Asia and Latin America. World Development, 27, 439–452.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Castelló-Climent, A. (2008). On the distribution of education and democracy. Journal of Development Economics, 87(2), 179–190.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Checchi, D., Ichino, A., & Rustichini, A. (1999). More equal but less mobile? Education financing and intergenerational mobility in Italy and in the US. Journal of Public Economics, 74, 351–393.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., & Pan, J. (2019). The effect of the health poverty alleviation project on financial risk protection for rural residents: evidence from Chishui City, China. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18, 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-0982-6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., & Calderon, C. (2000). Institutional quality and income distribution. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4), 761–786.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., & Gradstein, M. (2007a). Inequality and informality. Journal of Public Economics, 91(1–2), 159–179.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., & Gradstein, M. (2007b). Inequality and institutions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 454–465.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cingano, F. (2014). Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 163). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxrjncwxv6j-en.

  • Coccia, M. (2005a). Metrics to measure the technology transfer absorption: Analysis of the relationship between institutes and adopters in northern Italy. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 4(4), 462–486. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2005.006699.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2005b). Countrymetrics: valutazione della performance economica e tecnologica dei paesi e posizionamento dell’Italia. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, CXIII(3), 377–412. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41624216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2005c). A taxonomy of public research bodies: A systemic approach. Prometheus, 23(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0810902042000331322

  • Coccia, M. (2006a). Classifications of innovations: Survey and future directions (Working Paper Ceris del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Ceris-Cnr Working Paper, vol. 8, n. 2). ISSN (Print): 1591–0709, Available at arXiv Open access e-prints: http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08955

  • Coccia, M. (2006b). Analysis and classification of public research institutes. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRSTSD.2006.008759.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2008). Spatial mobility of knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity: Analysis and measurement of the impact within the geoeconomic space. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9032-4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2009). Research performance and bureaucracy within public research labs. Scientometrics, 79(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0406-2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2010). Democratization is the driving force for technological and economic change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.007.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2015). Technological paradigms and trajectories as determinants of the R&D corporate change in drug discovery industry. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 10(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2015.071052.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2016, November). The relation between price setting in markets and asymmetries of systems of measurement of goods. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 14(part B), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2016.06.001.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2017a, November–December). A Theory of general causes of violent crime: Homicides. Income inequality and deficiencies of the heat hypothesis and of the model of CLASH. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.005.

  • Coccia, M. (2017b, June). Asymmetric paths of public debts and of general government deficits across countries within and outside the European monetary unification and economic policy of debt dissolution. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 15, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.02.003.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2017c). The source and nature of general purpose technologies for supporting next K-waves: Global leadership and the case study of the U.S. Navy’s Mobile User Objective System. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 116(March), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.019.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2017d). The Fishbone diagram to identify, systematize and analyze the sources of general purpose technologies. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 4(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1453/jsas.v4i4.1518.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2017e). Varieties of capitalism’s theory of innovation and a conceptual integration with leadership-oriented executives: The relation between typologies of executive, technological and socioeconomic performances. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 3(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPSPM.2017.084672.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2017f). Sources of disruptive technologies for industrial change. L’industria –rivista di economia e politica industriale, 38(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1430/87140

  • Coccia, M. (2018a). An introduction to the theories of institutional change. Journal of Economics Library, 5(4), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1453/jel.v5i4.1788. ISSN:2149-2379.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2018b). An introduction to the theories of national and regional economic development. Turkish Economic Review, 5(4), 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1453/ter.v5i4.1794.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2018c). Economic inequality can generate unhappiness that leads to violent crime in society. International Journal of Happiness and Development, 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHD.2018.10011589.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2018d). World-system theory: A sociopolitical approach to explain world economic development in a capitalistic economy. Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 5(4), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1453/jepe.v5i4.1787.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2018e). Theorem of not independence of any technological innovation. Journal of Economics Bibliography, 5(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v5i1.1578.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2018f). The origins of the economics of innovation. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 5(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1453/jest.v5i1.1574

  • Coccia, M. (2019a). Comparative institutional changes. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1277-1.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2019b). Theories of development. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Cham., ISBN:978-3-319-20927-2: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_939-1.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2019c). The theory of technological parasitism for the measurement of the evolution of technology and technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.012.

  • Coccia, M. (2019d). A Theory of classification and evolution of technologies within a Generalized Darwinism. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(5), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1523385

  • Coccia, M. (2019e). Why do nations produce science advances and new technology? Technology in society, 59, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.03.007

  • Coccia, M. (2019f). Revolutions and evolutions. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3708-1

  • Coccia, M. (2020a). Effects of the institutional change based on democratization on origin and diffusion of technological innovation. In Working Paper CocciaLab n. 44/2020, CNR – National Research Council of Italy, ArXiv.org e-Print archive, Cornell University, USA. Permanent arXiv available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08432

  • Coccia, M. (2020b). Deep learning technology for improving cancer care in society: New directions in cancer imaging driven by artificial intelligence. Technology in Society, 60(February), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101198.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2020c). The evolution of scientific disciplines in applied sciences: Dynamics and empirical properties of experimental physics. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03464-y.

  • Coccia, M., & Bellitto, M. (2018). Human progress and its socioeconomic effects in society. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 5(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1453/jest.v5i2.1649.

  • Coccia, M., & Benati, I. (2018). Rewards in public administration: A proposed classification. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 5(2), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1453/jsas.v5i2.1648.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2015). Path-breaking directions of nanotechnology-based chemotherapy and molecular cancer therapy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.007.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Watts, J. (2020). A theory of the evolution of technology: Technological parasitism and the implications for innovation management. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 55(2020), 101552, S0923-4748(18)30421-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.11.003.

  • Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–57.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • De Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America. Paris: Gosselin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethier, J. -J. (1999). Governance and economic performance: A survey. Center for Development Research (ZEF), Discussion Paper on Development Policy No 5, April 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In P. J. Di Maggio & W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism and organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. (2009). Governance institutions and economic activity. American Economic Review, 99(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de, S. F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 1–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., & Ramalho, R. M. (2006). Regulation and growth. Economics Letters, 92, 395–401.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Applied regression analysis. Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faghih, N. (2018). An introduction to: Globalization and development – entrepreneurship, innovation, business and policy insights from Asia and Africa. In N. Faghih (Ed.), Globalization and development- entrepreneurship, innovation, business and policy insights from Asia and Africa (pp. 1–10). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faghih N., Zali M. R. (Eds.) 2018. Entrepreneurship ecosystem in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farazmand, A. (2019). Handbook of comparative and development public administration. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farazmand, A., & Pinkowski, J. (2006). Handbook of globalization, governance, and public administration. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foellmi, R., & Zweimüller, J. (2006). Income distribution and demand-induced innovations. The Review of Economic Studies, 73, 941–960.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, K. J. (2000). A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 869–887.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Galor, O., & Moav, O. (2004). From physical to human capital accumulation: Inequality and the process of development. The Review of Economic Studies, 71, 1001–1026.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Galor, O., & Zeira, J. (1993). Income distribution and macroeconomics. The Review of Economic Studies, 60, 35–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gründler, K., & Scheuermeyer, P. (2018). Growth effects of inequality and redistribution: What are the transmission channels? Journal of Macroeconomics, 55, 293–313.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, A., Mehrotra, V., Morck, R., & Trujillo, M.-A. (2019). How institutional development news moves an emerging market. Journal of Business Research, 2019. ISSN:0148-2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.009.

  • Halter, D., Oechslin, M., & Zweimüller, J. (2014). Inequality and growth: The neglected time dimension. Journal of Economic Growth, 19(1), 81–1044.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund. (1997). Good governance: The IMF’s role. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalilian, H., Kirkpatrick, C., & Parker, D. (2007). The impact of regulation on economic growth in developing countries: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 35, 87–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido, L. P. (1999). Governance matters (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 2196). Washington, DC: World Bank. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wbkwbrwps/2196.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2008). Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2007. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1148386.

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues (September) (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1682130

  • Kennedy, P. A. (2008). Guide to econometrics. San Francisco: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, C., & Caballero, G. (2009). Comparing theories of institutional change. Journal of Institutional Economics, 5(2), 151–180.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kotschy, R., & Sunde, U. (2017). Democracy, inequality, and institutional quality. European Economic Review, 91(C), 209–228.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriazis, N. K., & Karayiannis, A. D. (2011). Democracy, institutional changes and economic development: The case of ancient Athens. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 8(1), 61–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2011.01.003.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1979). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841–864.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lindseth, P. L. (2017). Technology, democracy, and institutional change. In C. Cuijpers, C. Prins, P. Lindseth, & M. Rosina (Eds.), Digital democracy in a globalised world. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Long, N. E. (1970). Indicators of change in political institutions. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388, 35–45. Political Intelligence for America’s Future (Mar., 1970). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1038314.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • López, H. (2006). Chapter 6: Does poverty matter for growth. In G. E. Perry, O. S. Arias, J. H. López, W. F. Maloney, & L. Servén (Eds.), Poverty reduction and growth: Virtuous and vicious circles (pp. 103–128). Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, H., & Servén, L. (2009). Too poor to grow (Policy Research Working Paper; No. WPS 5012). World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/4204.

  • Mookherjee, D. (2006). Chapter 15: Poverty persistence and design of antipoverty policies. In A. V. Banerjee, R. Bénabou, & D. Mookherjee (Eds.), Understanding poverty (pp. 231–242). New York: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2008). Democracy time series dataset. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Government at a glance 2013. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-en.

  • Okun, A. M. (2015). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagnation and social rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perotti, R. (1996). Growth, income distribution, and democracy: What the data say. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(2), 149–187.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, G. (2006). Poverty reduction and growth: Virtuous and vicious circles. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, L., Isham, J., & Kaufmann, D. (1997). Civil liberties, democracy, and the performance of government projects. World Bank Economic Review, 11(2), 219–242.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pullar, J., Allen, L., Townsend, N., Williams, J., Foster, C., Roberts, N., Rayner, M., Mikkelsen, B., Branca, F., & Wickramasinghe, K. (2018, February 23). The impact of poverty reduction and development interventions on non-communicable diseases and their behavioural risk factors in low and lower-middle income countries: A systematic review. PLoS One, 13(2), e0193378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193378.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Raiser, M., Di Tommaso, M. L., & Weeks, M. (2000). The measurement and determinants of institutional change. Evidence from transition economies. European Bank for reconstruction and development (Working Paper n. 60).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion, M. (2001). Growth, inequality and poverty: Looking beyond averages. World Development, 29(11), 1803–1815.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion, M. (2002). Why don’t we see poverty convergence? The American Economic Review, 102(1), 504–523.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ravallion, M. (2016). The economics of poverty: History, measurement, and policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rocco, P., & Thurston, C. (2014). From metaphors to measures: Observable indicators of gradual institutional change. Journal of Public Policy, 34(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X13000305.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: How we can make it happen in our lifetime. London: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “old” and “new”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 270–277.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2013). The price of inequality. New York: W. W. Norton.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Streeten, P. (1996). Governance. In M. Quibria & J. Dowling (Eds.), Current issues in economic development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarverdi, Y., Shrabani, S., & Campbell, N. (2019). Governance, democracy and development. Economic Analysis and Policy (Elsevier), 63(C), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2019.06.005.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. A. (2010). What do the worldwide governance indicators measure? The European Journal of Development Research, 22(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2009.32.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. (1995). United nations development program, human development report 1995. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. (2019). United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2018-MPI

  • Voigt, S. (2013). How (Not) to measure institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(1), 1–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1992). Governance and development. Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/604951468739447676/Governance-and-development.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1994). Governance: The world bank’s experience. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1995). World development report: The state in a changing world. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1996). World development report: From plan to market. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2008). World development indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

  • World Bank. (2009). World development indicators on CD-ROM. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2013). World development indicators 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org. Accessed Oct 2013.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Worldwide Governance Indicators. (2019). https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/. Accessed December

  • Zou, Q., He, X., Li, Z., et al. (2019). The effects of poverty reduction policy on health services utilization among the rural poor: A quasi-experimental study in central and western rural China. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18, 186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1099-7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Coccia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix A

Description of Good Governance Indicators

Kaufmann Voice and Accountability index in 2000 captures perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media. Range [−2; +2] from min to max level.

Kaufmann Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism 2000 measures perceptions of the likelihood of political instability and/or politically motivated violence, including terrorism. Range [−3; +2] from min to max level.

Kaufmann government effectiveness 2000 captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies. Range [−2; +2] from min to max level.

Kaufmann government regulatory quality 2000 detects perceptions of the ability of government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. Range [−2; +2] from min to max level.

Kaufmann Rule of Law 2000 captures perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular quality of contract enforcement, property rights, police, and courts that also reduce the likelihood of crime and violence. Range [−2; +2] from min to max level.

Kaufmann Control of Corruption 2000 measures perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by elites and private interests. Range [−1; +3] from min to max level.

Description of Socioeconomic Indicators

Income inequality is measured with Gini coefficient 2004 (World Bank 2013). Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus, a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.

Poverty with Human poverty index value (%) 2004 (UNDP 2019). This index measures how people experience poverty in multiple and simultaneous ways. It identifies how people are being left behind across three key dimensions: health, education, and standard of living, comprising ten indicators. Data of this index is for N = 97 countries having a range from 2 (low poverty) to 65.5 (high poverty, e.g., many African countries: Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, etc.).

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP) 2007. GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the US dollar has in the United States.

Annual population growth rate for year t is the exponential rate of growth of midyear population from year t−1 to t, expressed as a percentage (average 1975–2002). Population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship.

The Human Development Index (HDI) 2004 is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: having a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable, and having a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

  1. Source: Author’s own table based on study design of this contribution here

1.2 Appendix B

Classification of Fragile States in the Year 2006

Fragile Countries

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep., Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe

Intermediate Countries

Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Croatia, Cubism Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Korea Dem. Rep., Korea Rep., Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia

Stable Countries

Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Palau, Portugal, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sweden, Switzerland, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Taiwan, Tuvalu

  1. Source: Author’s elaboration based on dataset by Norris (2008)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Coccia, M. (2021). How a Good Governance of Institutions Can Reduce Poverty and Inequality in Society?. In: Faghih, N., Samadi, A.H. (eds) Legal-Economic Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Management . Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60978-8_4

Download citation