Final Report Summary - PERDEM (The Peformance of Democracies)
The intellectual background for the Performance of Democracies (PERDEM) project was what is known as the “third wave of democratization”. The decades following after the fall of the “iron curtain” and the end of the “cold war” saw a massive increase in the number of democracies in the world. In addition to the dissolution of the Soviet empire, many autocracies in Latin America, Asia and Sub-saharan Africa turned to democracy. From a normative perspective there was certainly much to celebrate from the process, but during the end of the first decade in the new century, some disappointing results were pointed at. If electoral-representative democracy is to be the execution of “the will of the people”, one would have expected that this huge wave of democracy should have increased the standard measures of human well-being in these countries. In many cases, this did not happen. One the contrary, some autocratic countries such as communist China and Singapore, outperformed comparable democratic countries. From available global measures of human well-being, this was also the case in many large-n studies. In addition to the disappointing results for measures of human well-being, democratization turned out not to be a safe cure against corruption and many democracies seemed unable to handle their public finances in a sustainable manner. For sure, most old and established democracies continued to perform well as did a few new democracies, but far too many did not. The main idea of the project was to try to find out what hindered so many democracies to perform well in the three areas mentioned above. Inspired by the “institutional turn” in the social sciences launched by scholars such as the two Nobel Laureates Elinor Ostrom and Douglass C. North, the project focused in what could be lacking in the institutional quality in many democracies. Democracy is a broad concept and in reality, actually existing democracies can be institutionalized in very different ways. Examples are party systems, the role of the judicial branch, the way the civil service is organized, various systems for “checks and balances” and so on. The main research strategy following what had been produced earlier by the research group was to focus on the importance of the quality of the institutions that are responsible for implementing laws and public policies. This “Quality of Government” approach differs from most of the political science, sociology and economics about these issue that have focused on the “input” side of the political system, for example electoral system and mobilization of voters.
The main result from the project is that such “output” factors are of the outmost importance for the ability of democracies for producing human well-being and a function system of taxation. Also known as “state capacity”, these are factors relating to the competence, impartiality and honesty of the civil service and the various professions working in the public sector. A central problem for many democracies, mostly but not limited to the newer ones, is that democratization or increased local participation in public decisions does not automatically lead to higher quality for the institutions that are responsible for implementing laws and public policies for the establishment of “public goods”. On the contrary, there are features of democratization that often hinder increased quality in the public administration and that may even increase corruption. In many cases, voters do not “punish” politicians or political parties that have a record for being engaged in corruption. One central part of the project has been to analyze under what circumstances electoral-representative democracy will lead to increased control of corruption. In this, the role of gender equality in the political system has turned out to be a central factor.
The main result from the project is that such “output” factors are of the outmost importance for the ability of democracies for producing human well-being and a function system of taxation. Also known as “state capacity”, these are factors relating to the competence, impartiality and honesty of the civil service and the various professions working in the public sector. A central problem for many democracies, mostly but not limited to the newer ones, is that democratization or increased local participation in public decisions does not automatically lead to higher quality for the institutions that are responsible for implementing laws and public policies for the establishment of “public goods”. On the contrary, there are features of democratization that often hinder increased quality in the public administration and that may even increase corruption. In many cases, voters do not “punish” politicians or political parties that have a record for being engaged in corruption. One central part of the project has been to analyze under what circumstances electoral-representative democracy will lead to increased control of corruption. In this, the role of gender equality in the political system has turned out to be a central factor.