In development policy, international organizations have shifted their focus to the importance of good governance and sound institutions. The theory behind this is that only with a high quality of government (QoG) can a country reap the benefits of economic growth and social development. We review the research behind this policy shift and offer a first benchmark statistical analysis. The first section contains a review of the conceptual discussion of what QoG means. Second, we present four salient approaches pertaining to the outcomes of QoG: the debates concerning QoG and democracy, economic growth, corruption, and the rule of law. The third section uses insights gained from these debates to focus on the policy outcomes of QoG—its effects on social well-being, public health, and environmental sustainability. We conclude by discussing possible pitfalls in future research on QoG and development.

No abstract

No abstract

Although the phenomenon of dissatisfied democrats has been frequently discussed in the literature, it has not often been empirically investigated. This article sets out to analyse the discrepancy between the strong support for democratic principles and the widespread discontent with the way democracy works. Drawing on earlier research on the sources of political support, using data from a wide range of democracies, the relevance of two contrasting explanatory perspectives are investigated. The first perspective argues that the sources of democratic discontent are found on the input‐side of the political system in terms of representation. The contrasting view argues that the output‐side of the political system is most important, where the quality of government plays the pivotal role. The results of the empirical analysis suggest that, in general, both types of factor are important, but also that these processes to a large extent are conditioned by the level of institutional consolidation.

In Scandinavia, as demonstrated by the analysis of the World Values Survey in Ch. 2, people remain highly positive towards the political community and democratic principles; nevertheless, support for the remaining three levels of measure—regime performance, political institutions, and politicians—is more problematic. This chapter therefore focuses on how trust in politicians has evolved over the last twenty to thirty years in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland all established, parliamentary, multi‐party, unitary, welfare state democracies. The analysis starts at the bottom level—trust in politicians—since that is where the greatest change over time might be expected, and where there is access to some of the longest measured time‐series in the Scandinavian countries. Subsequent sections of the chapter analyse support for Swedish political institutions (parties, elections, the Rikstag, and the Cabinet), and democratic processes too. Considers explanations for trends in trust in politicians and regime institutions over time.