Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:08:44.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Citizens' Satisfaction with Government Performance in Six Asian-Pacific Giants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2010

ZHENGXU WANG
ZHENGXU WANG*
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow and Research Coordinator, China Policy Institute, School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, University of Nottingham, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assessment of the quality of governance has so far relied on socioeconomic statistics and expert opinions, while largely neglecting citizens’ perceptions. Using AsiaBarometer 2008 data, this paper examines the factors affecting citizens’ satisfaction with their government in six Asian-Pacific countries: America, Australia, China, India, Japan, and Russia. I found citizen satisfaction with the public services they receive, such as education, healthcare, and public safety, matters most in their assessment of government performance. Individual satisfaction with income, job, and housing also matters. The respondent will disapprove government performance if he or she thinks corruption is serious in government, or elected officials stop caring about citizens once voting is finished. In terms of macro variables, economic condition of a country seems to matters significantly. Especially, if a country's economy is growing fast, citizens are much more likely to be satisfied with government performance. Large within-country variations exist in countries such as China and India, where citizens of different cities or regions may give rather different assessments of government, suggesting many contextual variables not captured by this study. Lastly, citizens’ satisfaction with government performance seems to be highly divergent from international organizations’ evaluation of governance quality, such as the World Bank Governance Index. This raises both methodological and normative issues regarding the proper approaches to measuring good governance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 2010 , pp. 51 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blunt, P. (1995), ‘Cultural Relativism, “Good” Governance and Sustainable Human Development’, Public Administration and Development, 15 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, G. and van de Walle, S. (2003), ‘Comparing Measures of Citizen Trust and User Satisfaction as Indicators of “Good Governance”: Difficulties in Linking Trust and Satisfaction Indicators’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69 (3): 329–343.Google Scholar
Bratton, M. and Chang, E. C. C. (2006), ‘State Building and Democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Forward, Backward, or Together?’, Comparative Political Studies, 39 (9): 1059–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helliwell, J. F. and Huang, H. (2006), ‘How's Your Government? International Evidence Linking Good Government and Well-Being’, NBER Working Papers (11988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005), Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., and Zoido, P. (1999), ‘Governance Matters’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2196.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., and Mastruzzi, M. (2008), ‘Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2007’, World Bank Institute Policy Research Working Paper (4654).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, W. and Rose, R. (2001), What are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies’, Comparative Political Studies, 34 (1): 30–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naím, Moisés (2007), ‘Rogue Development Aid’, New York Times, 15 February.Google Scholar
Nanda, V. P. (2006), ‘The “Good Governance” Concept Revisited’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (603): 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2002), ‘Is Good Governance Rewarded? A Cross-National Analysis of Debt Forgiveness’, World Development, 30 (6): 913–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2002), Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P., and King, D. C. (1997), Why People Don't Trust Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, R. and Shin, D. C. (2001), ‘Democratization Backwards: The Problem of Third-Wave Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 31: 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiso, C. (2001), ‘Good Governance and Aid Effectiveness: The World Bank and Conditionality’, The Georgetown Public Policy Review, 7 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2006), What is Good Governance? New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2005), ‘Before the Emergence of Critical Citizens: Economic Development and Political Trust in China’, International Review of Sociology, 15 (1): 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z. (2007), ‘Postmodern Values in Seven Confucian Societies: Political Consequences of Changing World Views’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 8 (3): 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar