Politics versus bureaucracy
1 / 31

Power-point - Politics versus bureaucracy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

Politics versus Bureaucracy Analyze further this tentative chain of causality: (Pol+Adm) Institutions QoG (Corruption)  Eco Growth 1) Pioneering cross-country study of What Produces QoG La Porta et al. 1999: few institutions…(culture, traditions, geography) 2) Politics is what matters

Related searches for Power-point - Politics versus bureaucracy

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Power-point - Politics versus bureaucracy' - adamdaniel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Politics versus bureaucracy l.jpg
Politics versus Bureaucracy

  • Analyze further this tentative chain of causality:

    • (Pol+Adm) Institutions QoG (Corruption)  Eco Growth

  • 1) Pioneering cross-country study of What Produces QoG

    • La Porta et al. 1999: few institutions…(culture, traditions, geography)

  • 2) Politics is what matters

    • Tsebelis 1995: a new comparative political theory (veto players)

    • Andrews and Montinola 2004: apply veto players theory  corruption

  • 3) What happens in the apartment upstairs does not matter: how the Bureaucracy is organized/recruited is what matters:

    • Evans and Rauch 1999

Good press for political institutions l.jpg
Good press for ”political institutions”…

  • Quality of Government =

    • Democracy

    • Separation of powers

    • Veto players

    • Checks and balances

  • For both scholars and policy-makers

Bad press for bureaucracy l.jpg
Bad press for “bureaucracy”…

  • Quality of Government # bureaucracy:

    • Obsolescent, undesirable, and non-viable form of administration

    • Market > Bureaucracy

    • Niskanen: bureaucrats = budget-maximizers

    • New Public Management > Bureaucracy

    • States = ”steering” > Private actors = ”rowing”

  • Although the Effects of New Public Management are not so clear:

    • in OECD countries, probably positive

    • in developing countries, probably negative

Now time to rediscover bureaucracy johan olsen 2006 l.jpg
Now, Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy (Johan Olsen 2006)

  • Is ‘‘bureaucracy’’ an organizational dinosaur helplessly involved in its death struggle?

  • No!! Chronology of a come back:

    • 1980s: case studies on the importance of the State  Development in East Asia (Evans 1995)

    • 1990s: international institutions (World Bank 1997)

    • 2000s: expansion of theoretical + empirical studies

  • Bureaucracy seem to matter, specially for developing countries

La porta et al 1999 l.jpg
La Porta et al. (1999)

  • Pioneering: first encompassing empirical test of what produces “good government” or QoG

  • Necessity to look at Exogenous factors  QoG

    • No Economic Growth

    • What could be an exogenous factor?

Factors qog l.jpg
Factors  QoG

  • 1) Ethnic heterogeneity: mechanisms?

    • Governments become more interventionist  less efficient  less quality of public goods

    • Alternative?

  • 2) Legal Origin: Mechanisms?

    • Why Common Law > Civil Law?

    • Civil Law = instrument of the state for expanding its power

    • Socialist Law? It is an “extreme” civil law

    • So, the French, German and Scandinavian Law (as part of Civil Law) should be bad, but, wait a minute, they say German and Scandinavian are good…Why?

    • Is there a problem of “endogeneity” in legal explanations of QoG/Type of State?

Factors qog7 l.jpg
Factors  QoG

  • 3) Religion: mechanisms?

    • Max Weber: Protestant > Catholic

    • La Porta et al. 1997: ”hierarchical religions” worse QoG. Why?

    • Are they more ”interventionist” religions (”they like to tell people what to do”) than Protestant?

    • Iannacone and the ”positive” effects of fundamentalism www.religionomics.com

    • In Catholic & Muslim countries religions had excessive power and bureaucracies have developed from religious ranks (”clerk come from cleric”)

    • Is not counter-balancing power good? Aren’t religious good civil servants?

Slide8 l.jpg

  • Good description of government indicators

  • Interesting approach:

    • Correlations between dependent variables (T.2). Why?

    • Correlations between in dependent variables (T.3) Why?

Results t 4 6 l.jpg
Results (T.4-6)

  • Convincing results for you?

  • Some omitted variables? They don’t include “colonial status” and “continent”. Right, wrong?

  • Other omitted variables?

    • Not much of political institutions (democracy vs. dictatorship, veto players..)

    • Not many interactions: always ethnolinguistic heterogenity is bad?

    • Generally speaking, very few control variables

    • Maybe, better to focus on 1 dep var (instead of 15?)

Coming back to political institutions l.jpg
Coming back to political institutions…

  • New typology of political systems: Tsebelis’ Veto Player Theory (1995, 2002)

  • Traditional typologies in comparative politics:

    • Democracy/ Dictatorship

    • Presidential/ Parliamentary

    • Electoral systems: Majoritarian/ Proportional

    • E.g. Persson and Tabellini…

Sartori 1984 definition of political systems l.jpg
Sartori 1984: definition of political systems

  • Presidentialism:

    • Head of State directly elected for a fixed time span

    • Government not appointed by the Parliament, but by the President

  • Parliamentarism:

    • Government is appointed by the Parliament

    • One-party or multiple-party coalition governments

  • Which one is separation-of-powers system and which one power-sharing systems?

Tsebelis veto players theory i l.jpg
Tsebelis’ Veto Players Theory I

  • “Veto players”= individual or collective actors whose agreement is necessary for a change of the status quo of policies

  • Prediction: the More Veto Players a country has, the More Policy Stability

Tsebelis veto players theory ii l.jpg
Tsebelis’ Veto Players Theory II

  • Instead of comparing political systems according to their “formal” classification as Presidential or Parliamentary, we should look at their number of veto players:

    • Italy (where two or three parties must agree for legislation to pass) = the US, where the agreement between several institutions is needed to pass a law

    • UK (all power in hands of one party) = a presidential regime where the President and the Legislature are in hands of the same party

Andrews and montinola 2004 l.jpg
Andrews and Montinola 2004

  • Prediction: More Veto Players  More Rule of Law

  • Theoretical inspiration:Madison (The Federalist Papers)

    • Institutions must be divided and arranged so that each may be a check on the other

  • The more checks (e.g. veto players)  the less incumbents may misuse their power

A m s game theory model l.jpg
A&M’s game-theory model

  • Canonical Prisoners’ Dilemma payoff structure:

Empirical test l.jpg
Empirical test

  • How would you test this theory?

  • What should be shown in an empirical test of this theoretical model?

Interesting empirical test l.jpg
Interesting empirical test

  • Faithful codification of the number of veto players in every country following Tsebelis’ theory

  • Very good control variables: among others, Economic Development! (distrust those who don’t…)

  • Each vp +  0.16 increase in the 1-6 index of rule of law

  • They test which classification of political systems works better: the traditional Presidential/Parliamentary regimes or the new Veto Players one

    • Presidential regimes < Parliamentary. Why?

Problems with the test l.jpg
Problems with the test?

  • 35 “emerging” democracies in around 20 years = 354 observations?

  • Other variables?

  • Legal origin? E.g. veto players only necessary in civil law countries…

  • Time of democracy?

More veto players better qog l.jpg





Low revenues

High revenues

Expected outcome under VP model

Actual outcome

More Veto Players  Better QoG?

More veto players better qog20 l.jpg







More reform

Expected outcome under VP model

Actual outcome

More Veto Players  Better QoG?

Evans and rauch 1999 l.jpg
Evans and Rauch 1999 democracies.

  • What makes QoG are not the characteristics of the political system (Pres, Parl, VPs), but features of the Public Administration

  • Move the focus from the Executive and Legislature to the State Administration

The bringing the state back in school l.jpg
The ”Bringing the State Back In” School democracies.

  • 1980s: case studies on the importance of the State  Development in East Asia

  • 1990s: also international institutions (World Bank 1997)

  • Lack of coherent theory and of broad empirical analysis (e.g. Evans 1995: “Embedded Autonomy)

Evans rauch 1999 a double advance l.jpg
Evans & Rauch 1999: a double advance democracies.

  • Theoretically: show the mechanisms that connect the State Administration with Economic Growth

  • Empirically: an original dataset on bureaucracies

    • 35 developing countries

    • Methodology: experts survey

Weberian administration economic growth l.jpg
+ “Weberian” Administration democracies. + Economic Growth

  • “Weberian” Bureaucracy:

    • Max Weber: Patrimonial Administrations vs. Bureaucratic (Weberian) ones

    • Bureaucracy = meritocratic recruitment + predictable long-term career rewards

  • Why is it good?

Mechanisms through which wb affect economic growth l.jpg
Mechanisms through which WB affect economic growth democracies.

  • More Efficient (“better types”, more competent)

    • OK, but why Microsoft does not use them?

  • Longer time horizons (Rauch 1995: US cities)

  • ”Signal” to the private sector (=impartiality)

Empirical analysis l.jpg
Empirical analysis democracies.

  • 35 “semi-industrialized” countries

  • High correlation between Weberianess Scale and GDP/cap: 0.67 !!

  • Regression: WS trumps out or reduces the effect of traditional variables explaining economic growth (human capital, domestic investment)

Need for more data on bureaucracies l.jpg
Need for more data on bureaucracies… democracies.

  • More within country and cross-country variations

  • Problems: neglect of comparative datasets on bureaucracies by political scientists, public administration scholars and international organizations

Rothstein teorell 2005 l.jpg
Rothstein & Teorell 2005 democracies.

  • “Quality of Government” matters, but we lack a definition

  • Economists use “good governance” = “good-for-economic-development”

  • Definition of QoG: Results of Government  the Procedures of government

Qog impartial government institutions l.jpg
QoG = impartial government institutions democracies.

  • Impartiality in policy implementation

  • Focus: not on how decisions are taken in a country (dem, dict..), but on if policies are provided in an impartial way

  • Does policy implementation favour some people over others? Or is impartial?

Comments l.jpg
Comments democracies.

  • Which are the differences between (the new) Impartiality and (the traditional) Rule of Law?

  • Are “professional norms” impartial?

  • A faithful implementation of a discriminatory law is “impartiality”?

  • Do you prefer Evans & Rauch 1999 or Rothstein & Teorell 2005 approach to “good administration”?