The Quality of Government and Public Administration

In 1999, Evans and Rauch showed a strong association between government effectiveness (quality of government)—particularly the presence of a Weberian-like bureaucracy, selected and promoted on merit alone and largely autonomous from private interests—and economic growth. In 1997 and the aftermath of the Washington Consensus controversial reforms the World Bank promoted this finding in its influential World Development Report 1997 as part of its broader paradigm on “institutional quality.” Twenty years of investment in state capacity followed, by means of foreign assistance supporting the quality of public administration as a prerequisite to development. However, most reviews found the results well under expectations. This is hardly surprising, seeing that Max Weber, credited as the first promoter of the importance of bureaucracy as both the end result and the tool of government rationalization in modern times, never took for granted the autonomy of the state apparatus from private interest. He clearly stated that the power using the apparatus is the one steering the bureaucracy itself. In fact, a review of empirical evidence shows that the quality of public administration is endogenous to the quality of government more broadly and therefore can hardly be a solution in problematic contexts. The autonomy of the state from private interest is one of the most difficult objectives to accomplish in the evolution of a state, and few states have managed in contemporary times to match the achievements of Denmark or Switzerland in the 19th century. Two countries, Estonia and Georgia, are exceptional in this regard, but their success argues for the primacy of politics rather than of administration.

Sweden

Sweden is one of the countries in the world with best control of corruption, on behalf of both reduced opportunities- due to great transparency and an administration low on power discretion- and high constraints, due to high freedom of the press, numerous e-citizens and a judiciary autonomous from private interest. However, in the past decade several vulnerabilities showed, especially related to Swedish companies transacting abroad, sanctioned by American authorities enforcing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The OECD Working Group on Bribery has since 2012 repeatedly urged Sweden to reform its own laws to ensure the investigation and prosecution of companies that bribe foreign public officials to obtain advantages in international business. Transparency of public procurement could also be increased, as it is far below European average, and some sanctions on conflict of interest introduced.