Quality of Government and Human Well Being: Some Surprises from Big Data

Transcription

1 Quality of Government and Human Well Being: Some Surprises from Big Data Bo Rothstein Head of Program Stefan Dahlberg Dataset Manager The Quality of Government Institute Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg Sweden

2 The Quality of Government (QoG) Institute at University of Gothenburg Started in 2004 (minor grant to build database) Indepentent academic research institute Mainly political scientists (but lots of interdisciplinary interaction) Major funding for research from 2007 and 2009 (about 8 mil. Euro). About 30 researchers and assistants European Research Council - Advanced Resarch Grant + Swedish Science Council, 4 mil. Euro

3 QoG: Aim and Purpose To carry out and promote research about the importance of trustworthy, reliable, competent, non-corrupt, non-discriminatory government institutions = QoG Central focus is not to explain politics or public policy, but what politics and public policy imply for human well-being

4 ANTICORRP Anticorruption policies revisited: Global trends and European Responses to the Challanges of Corruption Large-scale integrative project funded by the European Union Seventh Framework program Started in 2012 and will last for 60 months Involves 21 research groups in 16 EU countries In all about 70 researchers Total budget about 10 mil. Euro Largest EU-funded research project in the social sciences

5 ANTICORRP: Background and goals The central objective of ANTICORRP is to investigate factors that promote or hinder the development of effective anti-corruption policies Interdisciplinary project includes researchers from anthropology, criminology, economics, gender studies, history, law, political science, public policy and public administration While the detrimental effects of corruption on many central aspects of human well-being are by now well-known, knowledge about how corruption can be successfully fought by political means is much less developed The failure of the international anti-corruption regime

6 The QoG-datasets QoG Standard QoG Basic A smaller version of the QoG Standard dataset, only including the most used indicators QoG Social Policy (OECD) Fewer countries, more variables QoG Expert Survey With a focus on bureacratic structures, quality, proffessionalism and functionality QoG EU Regional Survey

7 Pageviews on the QoG website Data Publications Research January, December,

8 Pageviews on the QoG website QoG Standard QoG Basic QoG Social Policy QoG EU Regional Survey QoG Expert Survey January, December,

9 QoG Standard Dataset Classification of the variables in the QoG Standard Dataset: WII (What It Is) variables, that is, variables pertaining to the core features of QoG (such as corruption, bureaucratic quality and democracy) HTG (How To Get it) variables, that is, variables posited to promote the development of QoG (such as electoral rules, forms of government, federalism, legal & colonial origin, religion and social fractionalization) WYG (What You Get) variables, that is, variables pertaining to some of the posited consequences of QoG (such as economic and human development, international and domestic peace, environmental sustainability, gender equality, and satisfied, trusting & confident citizens).

10 QoG Standard Dataset QoG Standard Dataset Time-Series ( ) 211 countries country-year observations 746 variables QoG Standard Dataset CS (2009 +/- 3 år) 193 countries 760 variables

11 QoG Social Policy Dataset ( ) Time-series 40 countries 1008 variables Cross Section 194 countries 1071 variabler

12 QoG Social Policy Dataset ( ) Classification of the variables in the QoG Social Policy Dataset: Social policy variables, such as welfare spending and replacement rates in the social security system. Tax system variables, such as tax rates and government income from different types of taxes. Indicators on the structural conditions for social policy, a broad category encompassing things like economic inequality, GDP, unemployment, educational levels, health conditions, trade openness and foreign direct investment. Public opinion data, including attitudes to social policy, taxes and the government in general, but also more general orientations such as left-right placement and interpersonal trust. In this category we have aggregated individual-level public opinion data from five crossnational comparative survey projects. Political indicators, including election results and policy positions of governments and parliaments, as well as political institutions such as forms of government and electoral systems. Quality of Government variables, pertaining to the core areas of QoG (such as corruption, bureaucratic quality, and democracy).

13 QoG Expert Survey Dataset (2008-) 135 countries (107 countries with at least three experts)

14 QoG Expert Survey Dataset (2008-) 135 countries (107 countries with at least three experts) The aim of of the QoG Expert Survey is to measure the structure and functionality of the public administration in different countries. The survey covers a range of topics where we lack quantitative indicators in many countries but which are deemed relevant to the public administration in terms of structure and functionality (such as meritocratic recruitment, internal promotion, career stability, wages, impartiality and efficiency).

15 QoG Expert Survey Dataset (2008-) no. exp. 0 (102) no. exp. 3 (16) no. exp. 4-7 (35) no. exp. 8-max (56)

16 QoG EU Regional Survey

17 Why study regions instead of countries? The differences between regions inside countries are (sometimes) larger than the differences between countries. E.g. The difference between Bolzano och Campania in Italy is larger than the difference between Danmark and Hungary

18 QoG Data Visualization Tool The QoG Data Visualization is an opportunity for non-tech users to play around with data. Makes it possible to visualize variables on a world map or in a scatterplot that can be used for presentations Basically, everyone that can use a computer can become their own Hans Rosling type but with QoG data With new special funding the QoG Institute have just employed an information officer on a two year contract with the task to bring this to Swedish high schools and directly into the class rooms

19 QoG Big data and the five percieved wisdoms Democratization increases human well-being Democracy aid should be the main purpose in development Democracy will serve as a cure against corruption Democratic right is the source of political legitimacy Democracy promotes peace

20 Healthy Life Years High Healthy Life Years vs. Level of Democracy Japan Israel Nor Swe Singapore South Korea Cuba USA Kuwait Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Argentina S. Arabia China Bahrain Brunei Syria Malaysia Georgia Macedonia Belarus Armenia Egypt Lebanon Azerbaijan Maldives Iran Russia Honduras Mongolia Turkmenistan Tajikistan Pakistan Bangladesh Papua New Guinea Tuval Iraq Gambia Laos Cambodia Senegal Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Haiti Kenya South Africa Cameroon Chad Ethiopia Nigeria Tanzania Rwanda Afghanistan Mozambique Mali Swaziland Zimbabwe Liberia Burundi Botswana Angola Lesotho Sierra Leone Level of Democracy High R²=0.01 Sources: WHO (-), Freedom House/Polity ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

21

22 Human Development Index High Myanmar Qatar Saudi Arabia Vietnam Eritrea Bahrain Kazakhstan Maldives Egypt Morocco SwazilandCameroon Rwanda Gabon Dem. Rep. Congo Singapore Iran Gambia Malaysia Cambodia Lebanon Russia Burundi Burkina Faso Solomon Islands Nigeria Seychelles Bangladesh Argentina Albania Ghana Mozambique Mali Sierra Leone Bolivia Japan Israel Estonia Lesotho Norway Swe USA Cape Verde Sao Tome Vanuatu Human Development Index vs. Level of Democracy Level of Democracy High R²=0.22 Sources: UNDP (2002), Freedom House/Polity ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

23 Human Development Index Human Development Index High High Norway Japan Swe Japan Belgium Norway Singapore France Israel USA Bahrain Italy Argentina USA South Korea Finland Seychelles SwedenEstonia Qatar Malaysia Kazakhstan Argentina Israel Albania Singapore Maldives Russia Saudi Arabia Russia Mexico Chile Bahamas Venezuela Iran Lebanon Oman Eq. Guinea Azerbaijan Cape Verde Vietnam Egypt Morocco Gabon Grenada Solomon Islands Bolivia Sao Tome Solomon Myanmar Islands Cambodia Ghana Vanuatu India Namibia Cameroon Botswana Bangladesh Swaziland Ghana Bhutan Lesotho Eritrea Gambia Nigeria Haiti Rwanda Djibouti Lesotho Nigeria Eritrea Dem. Rep. Congo Burundi Mozambique Mali Burkina Faso Dem. Rep. Congo Mali Sierra Leone Niger Burkina Faso Sierra Leone High Corruption R²=0.22 R²=0.47 Sources: UNDP (2002), Freedom House/Polity ( ) Sources: UNDP (2002), World Bank ( ) Human Development Index Human Development Index vs. Level of Democracy vs. Control of Corruption Level of Democracy Control of Corruption High Corruption Data runs by: Richard Svensson Data runs by: Richard Svensson

24 Life Satisfaction vs. Level of Democracy Life Satisfaction Saudi Arabia China Egypt Iraq Zimbabwe Colombia Nigeria Iran Bangladesh Ethiopia Georgia Russia Tanzania Denmark Mexico Brazil Sweden USA Romania Bulgaria India Level of Democracy R²=0.28 Sources: World Values Survey ( ), Freedom House/Polity ( )

25 Life Satisfaction High Nigeria Iraq Bangladesh Georgia Zimbabwe Colombia Venezuela Argentina Indonesia Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan Russia Tanzania China Iran Egypt India Mexico Malta Ireland Denmark Austria Finland Brazil USA Sweden Uruguay United Kingdom S. Arabia Singapore Chile Romania Japan Korea, South Estonia Lithuania High Corruption Life Satisfaction vs. Control of Corruption Control of Corruption Corruption R²=0.46 Sources: World Values Survey ( ), World Bank ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

26 Life Expectancy at Birth (Years) High United Arab Emirates Kuwait Cuba Bahrain Saudi A. China Myanmar Uzbekistan Afghanistan Eritrea Azerbaijan Tajikistan Pakistan Haiti Cameroon Gabon Ethiopia Swaziland Rwanda Angola Zimbabwe Singapore Bosnia and Herzegovina Iran Cambodia Burundi Lebanon Russia Comoros Djibouti Nigeria Ukraine Malawi Bangladesh San Marino Japan Israel Antigua and Barbuda Madagascar Kenya Sierra Leone Zambia Brazil Benin Mozambique Mali Estonia Thailand Mongolia India Senegal Botswana Swe Ger USA Kiribati South Africa Life Expectancy at Birth vs. Level of Democracy Level of Democracy High R²=0.19 Sources: World Bank ( ), Freedom House/Polity ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

27 Life Expectancy at Birth (Years) High Solomon Islands Equatorial Guinea Afghanistan Venezuela Haiti Iraq Liberia Zimbabwe Albania Argentina China Ukraine Russia Malawi India Sierra Leone Zambia Ghana Japan Australia Greece Italy Liechtenstein Sweden Singapore Cuba Finland USA Denmark Barbados Estonia Bahamas Cape Verde Mongolia Eritrea Bhutan South Africa Ethiopia Burkina Faso Botswana Swaziland High Corruption Life Expectancy at Birth vs. Control of Corruption Control of Corruption Corruption R²=0.41 Source: World Bank ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

28 Foreign Credit Rating High Saudi Arabia China Belarus Tunisia Vietnam Cameroon Qatar Oman Russia Egypt Cambodia Fiji Singapore Thailand Kuwait Malaysia Venezuela Georgia Uganda Kenya Colombia Zambia Turkey Albania India Brazil Ukraine Argentina Jamaica Japan Israel Greece Nor USA Swe Uruguay Cape Verde Foreign Credit Rating vs. Level of Democracy Level of Democracy High R²=0.13 Sources: Standard & Poor's (2011), Freedom House/Polity (2009) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

29 Foreign Credit Rating High Russia Papua New Guinea China Peru Kazakhstan Uganda Egypt Albania Saudi Arabia Malaysia Italy Macedonia Lithuania Jordan Greece Poland Grenada Taiwan Israel France USA Japan Chile Uruguay Switzerland Sweden Norway New Zealand Ireland High Corruption Foreign Credit Rating vs. Control of Corruption Control of Corruption Iceland Corruption R²=0.62 Sources: Standard & Poor's (2011), World Bank ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

30 GDP / Capita High Qatar Saudi Arabia Turkmenistan Vietnam North Korea United Arab Emirates Bahrain Belarus Kazakhstan Cameroon Brunei Gabon Gambia Singapore Malaysia Cambodia Russia Armenia Bosnia Antigua and Barbuda Bangladesh Seychelles Venezuela Taiwan Luxembourg Monaco Japan Israel Mongolia Norway USA Swe Fin Uruguay GDP / Capita vs. Level of Democracy Level of Democracy Tuvalu High R²=0.16 Sources: Gleditsch (2002), Freedom House/Polity ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

31 High GDP / Capita vs. Control of Corruption GDP / Capita Equatorial Guinea Belarus Russia Turkmenistan Ukraine Afghanistan Niger Chad Trinidad Sao Tome United Arab Emirates Qatar Ireland Brunei Japan Italy Belgium Israel S. Arabia Uruguay Cape Verde Mauritania Bhutan Estonia Barbados Chile Luxembourg USA Norway Singapore Sweden Germany Finland New Zealand High Corruption Control of Corruption Corruption R²=0.71 Sources: Gleditsch (2002), World Bank ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

32 Number of Police officers (per 100,000 population) High Kazakhstan Paraguay Myanmar Zimbabwe Macedonia Venezuela Lebanon Syria Latvia Jordan Brunei Estonia Bahrain Kuwait Mauritius Italy Cyprus Barbados Belgium USA Japan France Chile Canada Singapore Sweden Finland High Corruption Number of police officers vs. Control of Corruption Control of Corruption Corruption R²=0.01 Sources: UN Data (2010), World Bank ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

33 Corruption Control of Corruption vs. Level of Democracy Control of Corruption Finland Singapore Swe Belgium USA Chile United Arab Emirates Bahrain Antigua and Barbuda Israel Qatar Kuwait Oman Cyp Bhutan Botswana Saudi Arabia Tunisia Malaysia Seychelles Korea, South Mauritania Tuvalu Jordan Burkina Faso Fiji Namibia Cuba Morocco Iran Sri Lanka Syria Egypt Nepal Mexico Kiribati Djibouti Colombia LibyaVietnam Ethiopia Armenia Panama Bolivia Vanuatu Russia Ecuador Turkmenistan Angola Georgia Myanmar Nigeria Marshall Isl Zimbabwe Paraguay Iraq Afghanistan Congo, Democratic Republic Haiti High Corruption Level of Democracy High R²=0.27 Sources: World Bank ( ), Freedom House/Polity ( ) Data runs by: Richard Svensson

34 Political legitimacy? Quality of Government has a very strong and independent effect on all levels of regime support It is Quality of Government and the impartial treatment on the output side of the political system, and not electoral democracy, that creates regime legitimacy (Torbjörn Gjefsen 2012)

35 And the final verdict Overall, the 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 Democracy and Bureaucracy: How their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction, STEFAN DAHLBERG and SÖREN HOLMBERG, West European Politics 2013

36 What has our big data shown: A short summary An all standard measures of human well-being, QoG measures clearly outperforms measures of democracy This is not a problem that is related only to developing countries or former communist countries An overwhelming part of human misery in today s world is caused by low QoG This should have implications for research policy

37 Thank you! Comments Critique Questions