IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/egu/wpaper/1902.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Well-being, political decentralisation and governance quality in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Andrés Rodríguez-Pose
  • Vassilis Tselios

Abstract

The well-being and welfare of their citizens through a fair and efficient distribution of these public goods and services. However, ?who? delivers these goods and services and ?how well? they are delivered are essential in determining outcomes in terms of well-being. Drawing on data from the European Social Survey database, this paper uses Amartya Sen?s social welfare index framework ? accounting for the trade-off between the maximization of public sector resources and an equitable distribution of these resources ? to examine the influence of political decentralisation (?who? delivers the resources) and whether this influence is moderated by governance quality (?how well? they are delivered) on individual subjective well-being. The findings of the econometric analysis reveal that decentralisation does not always lead to higher well-being, as the benefits of political decentralisation are highly mediated by the quality of national governance. In countries with high governance quality, political decentralisation results in a greater satisfaction with health provision, while in lower quality governance countries, a more decentralized government can increase the overall satisfaction with life, the economy, government, democracy and the provision of education, but not necessarily with health-related services.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Vassilis Tselios, 2019. "Well-being, political decentralisation and governance quality in Europe," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1902, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:egu:wpaper:1902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1902.pdf
    File Function: Version January 2019
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andy Pike & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & John Tomaney & Gianpiero Torrisi & Vassilis Tselios, 2012. "In search of the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution: spatial disparities, spatial economic policy, and decentralisation in the UK," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 30(1), pages 10-28, February.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    3. Paul Anand & Graham Hunter & Ian Carter & Keith Dowding & Francesco Guala & Martin Van Hees, 2009. "The Development of Capability Indicators," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 125-152.
    4. Andrés Rodríguez‐Pose & Vassilis Tselios, 2009. "Education And Income Inequality In The Regions Of The European Union," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 411-437, August.
    5. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Enrique Garcilazo, 2015. "Quality of Government and the Returns of Investment: Examining the Impact of Cohesion Expenditure in European Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(8), pages 1274-1290, August.
    6. Vassilis Tselios & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Andy Pike & John Tomaney & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2012. "Income inequality, decentralisation, and regional development in Western Europe," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 44(6), pages 1278-1301, June.
    7. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Marco Di Cataldo, 2015. "Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 673-706.
    8. Brenner, Neil, 2004. "New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270064.
    9. Luis Diaz‐Serrano & Andrés Rodríguez‐Pose, 2012. "Decentralization, Subjective Well‐Being, and the Perception of Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 179-193, May.
    10. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2010. "Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(5), pages 619-644, September.
    11. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Yannis Psycharis & Vassilis Tselios, 2012. "Public investment and regional growth and convergence: Evidence from Greece," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(3), pages 543-568, August.
    12. Hessami, Zohal, 2011. "Globalization's winners and losers--Evidence from life satisfaction data, 1975-2001," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 250-253, September.
    13. Andy Pike & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & John Tomaney, 2017. "Shifting horizons in local and regional development," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 46-57, January.
    14. Anand, Paul & Krishnakumar, Jaya & Tran, Ngoc Bich, 2011. "Measuring welfare: Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3-4), pages 205-215, April.
    15. Alkire, Sabina, 2002. "Dimensions of Human Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 181-205, February.
    16. Andreas P. Kyriacou & Leonel Muinelo-Gallo & Oriol Roca-Sagalés, 2015. "Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: The importance of good governance," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(1), pages 89-107, March.
    17. Luis Diaz-Serrano & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2015. "Decentralization and the Welfare State: What Do Citizens Perceive?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 120(2), pages 411-435, January.
    18. Ingrid Robeyns, 2005. "Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 191-215, October.
    19. Muller, Christophe & Trannoy, Alain, 2011. "A dominance approach to the appraisal of the distribution of well-being across countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 239-246.
    20. Psacharopoulos, George, 1994. "Returns to investment in education: A global update," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(9), pages 1325-1343, September.
    21. Roberto Ezcurra & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2014. "Government Quality and Spatial Inequality: A Cross-Country Analysis," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(7), pages 1732-1753, July.
    22. Miriam Teschl & Flavio Comim, 2005. "Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities: Some Preliminary Conceptual Explorations," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 229-247.
    23. Anand, Paul & van Hees, Martin, 2006. "Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 268-284, April.
    24. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos, 2013. "Trading Up the Happiness Ladder," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 973-990, September.
    25. Mariano Torras, 2008. "The Subjectivity Inherent in Objective Measures of Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 475-487, December.
    26. Barro, Robert J. & Lee, Jong Wha, 2013. "A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 184-198.
    27. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson, 2005. "Unbundling Institutions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(5), pages 949-995, October.
    28. Roberto Ezcurra & Carlos Gil & Pedro Pascual, 2005. "Regional welfare disparities: the case of the European Union," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(12), pages 1423-1437.
    29. Roberto Ezcurra & Andr Rodríguez-Pose, 2014. "Government quality and spatial inequality: a cross-country analysis," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 46(7), pages 1732-1753, July.
    30. Andy Pike & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & John Tomaney & Gianpiero Torrisi & Vassilis Tselios, 2012. "In Search of the ‘Economic Dividend’ of Devolution: Spatial Disparities, Spatial Economic Policy, and Decentralisation in the UK," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 10-28, February.
    31. Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Decentralization of Governance and Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 185-205, Fall.
    32. Bjørnskov, Christian & Drehe, Axel & Fischer, Justina A.V., 2008. "On decentralization and life satisfaction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 147-151, April.
    33. James Foster & Luis Lopez-Calva & Miguel Szekely, 2005. "Measuring the Distribution of Human Development: methodology and an application to Mexico," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 5-25.
    34. England, Richard W., 1998. "Measurement of social well-being: alternatives to gross domestic product," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 89-103, April.
    35. Zohal Hessami, 2010. "The Size and Composition of Government Spending in Europe and Its Impact on Well‐Being," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 346-382, August.
    36. Gasper, Des, 2007. "What is the capability approach?: Its core, rationale, partners and dangers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 335-359, June.
    37. Mark D. Partridge, 2005. "Does Income Distribution Affect U.S. State Economic Growth?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 363-394, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    well-being; political decentralisation; quality of governance; Europe; European Social Survey;

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • H70 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - General
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:egu:wpaper:1902. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: () The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deguunl.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.