Well‐being in European regions: Does government quality matter?

Abstract

This paper constructs a composite indicator of well-being for 168 European regions with data from 10 well-being domains. Regions are then ranked according to their respective levels of well-being. The ranking reveals notable differences across European regions, which follow a marked spatial pattern. As a second contribution, the paper analyses the impact of the quality of government on well-being. Results show a positive association robust to several specifications and scenarios. Moreover, the effects of quality of government on individual well-being dimensions are identified, finding positive links with education, jobs, income, safety civic engagement, access to services, housing and community support. KEYWORDS composite well-being indicators, European regions, government quality JEL CLASSIFICATION C14; C61; I31; H41; R50

WITHDRAWN: Psychological Distress in Urbanizing China: How Does Local Government Effectiveness Matter?

“…Most studies of government effectiveness have been conducted at the national level: countries are viewed as consistent entities [16]. In recent years, scholars have attempted within-country comparisons, which demonstrate that cross-country analysis does not tell the whole story.…”

“…In recent years, scholars have attempted within-country comparisons, which demonstrate that cross-country analysis does not tell the whole story. There are many within-country variations that are, in part, the result of the effectiveness of lower levels of government [16,17]. Liu et al, for instance, examine performance in public service delivery as one of the three key indicators of government quality in China and nd that it has the strongest positive impacts on urban respondents' life satisfaction [15].…”

Psychological Distress in Urbanizing China: How Does Local Government Effectiveness Matter?

“…The quality of service delivery is generally considered more important than the degree of democracy in determining well-being, although in developed countries where service delivery has reached sufficient levels, the degree of democracy also shows positive links to subjective well-being [ 14 , 15 ]. Most studies of government effectiveness have been conducted at the national level: countries are viewed as consistent entities [ 16 ]. In recent years, scholars have attempted within-country comparisons, which demonstrate that cross-country analysis does not tell the whole story.…”

“…In recent years, scholars have attempted within-country comparisons, which demonstrate that cross-country analysis does not tell the whole story. There are many within-country variations that are, in part, the result of the effectiveness of lower levels of government [ 16 , 17 ]. Liu and colleagues, for instance, examine performance in public service delivery as one of the three key indicators of local government quality in China and find that it has the strongest positive impacts on urban respondents’ life satisfaction [ 15 ].…”

Merging macroeconomic and territorial determinants of regional growth: the MASST4 model

“…MASST overcomes this debate and embraces the idea that the role of cities in the stimulating national economies lies in their ability to adjust to the new challenges. Therefore, the structural change of cities, in terms of functions hosted, in governance of local problems, in institutional quality (Peirò-Palomino et al 2020), in cooperating with other cities, explains agglomeration economies, and their role in aggregate growth. MASST4 endogenizes agglomeration economies, which in the model depend on structural changes of local economies.…”