6. Quality of Governance Flashcards
input factors governance
such as electoral systems and ideological congruence between voters and their representatives
output factors governane
such as government effectiveness, impartiality, professionalism, and adherence to the rule of law (measures for quality of government)
democracy-promotion perspective
focuses on representative democracy as crucial for accountability and responsiveness. This is because people can get rid of incompetent rulers.
state-building perspective
emphasizes the functioning and efficiency of government institutions, following principles like impartiality and effectiveness.
more of an emphasis on how governments work, instead of how they are elected
output impartiality
when implementing laws / policies, government officials shall not take into consideration anything about the citizen / case that is not beforehand stipulated in the policy or the law
output - professionalism
the extent to which the public administration is professional rather than politicised
output - effectiveness
capacity of a state to implement sound policies by measuring 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
sound policies
output - rule of law
the extent to which law prevails in civil and criminal matters, the existence of direct civil control over the police, protection from political terror, unjustified imprisonment and the extent to which laws, policies and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population
everybody is equal for the law
results on output and input
results indicate that factors such as government effectiveness are of greater importance for citizens’ satisfaction with the way democracy functions, compared to factors like ideological congruence on the input side.
impartial and effective bureaucracies matter more than representational devices
four types of government blunders
hyper-excited politics
constitutional / systemic dysfunction
instrument choice
low administrative capacity
hyper-excited politics
failures driven by political or symbolic decisions made hastily or emotionally, often due to external pressures, media campaigns, or the desire for a political legacy
= associated with media pressure, moral panics or some over-enthousiastic commitment towards a policy or project
decisions made hastily / emotionally. due to pressure / media / panic
constitutional / systemic dysfunction
failures attributed to inherent flaws in a political system, such as inadequate checks and balances or over-centralization
instrument choice
the selection of unsuitable policy tools or mechanisms, like ineffective contracts, inappropriate regulatory standards, or risky financial arrangements
unsuitable policy tools or mechanisms
low administrative capacity
failures stemming from insufficient bureaucratic skills, coordination, or resources to implement / manage policies effectively
= associated with a willingness to challenge and scrutinize proposals
bad bureaucracy
blunders due to particular choices
hyper-exited politics / instrument choices
blunders due to underlying structures / systemic features
consitutional / systmic dysfunction and low administrative capacity
limited resource dependence blunders
hyper-exited politics / constitutional system
resource depenent blunders
instrument choice / administrative capacity
conclusion on government blundering
not a system-specific feature, but it occurs across different political systems
hyper-exited politics influence decisions that often ignore practical / technical concerns, leading to underestimation of costs and risks
choice of policy instruments (partnerships, regulations) and the administrative capacity to handle complex projects are critical factors in determining the severity of the blunder
blunders often arise from a combination of hyper-excited politics and low administrative capacity. his combination leads to risky projects that exceed costs or encounter delays due to optimistic projections and weak bureaucratic oversight.
three different paths that lead to blunders
- hyper-excited politics and administrative weaknesses: Projects that are politically motivated but lack proper oversight tend to fail severely.
- adverse instrument choices: Poorly chosen policy tools frequently exacerbate failures, especially when combined with political over-enthusiasm.
- non-severe blunders: High administrative capacity often mitigates the worst impacts of policy mistakes, preventing them from escalating into major failures.
political systems and hyper exicted politics
majoritarian system has more room for hyper excited politicians
