Quality of governance and regime support
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891116675769 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Research article
Quality of governance
and regime support:
Evidence from East Asia
Chong-Min Park
Korea University, Republic of Korea
Abstract
In this article I examine public evaluations of quality of governance in East Asia and analyze the
effects of perceived governance quality on regime support. I distinguish between two modes of
governance, democratic and law-based, and examine which mode of governance matters. It was
found that East Asian democracies suffered various governance deficits in the eyes of their publics.
It was also revealed that a weak rule of law remained the most notable governance malaise across
much of the region. The micro-level analysis shows that perceived quality of governance shaped
regime allegiance and institutional confidence but not all aspects of governance mattered. It was
shown that law-based governance served as the major source of regime support regardless of
regime types. On the whole, public support for the prevailing system of government across much
of the region depended on quality of law-based governance as well as national economic perfor-
mance. Yet, evidence indicates that democratic governance encourages citizen skepticism of the
ongoing political order, supporting the thesis of assertive citizenship. Overall, the findings suggest
that establishing a strong rule of law constitutes one of the major challenges to regime con-
solidation across much of East Asia.
Keywords
quality of governance, regime allegiance, institutional confidence, democratic govern ance, law-
based governance
Public disaffection with institutions of democracy is seen as one of the causes of the recent protest
movement around the world (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013).
1
Indeed, a growing number of
critical or assertive citizens now constitute a prominent feature of the political landscape across
much of the democratic part of the globe (Dalton and Welzel, 2014; Norris, 1999). A wealth of
public opinion data shows that citizens’ confidence in political institutions declines in trilateral
Corresponding author:
Chong-Min Park, Korea University, Anam-Ro 145, Sungbuk-Ku, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea.
Email: cmpark@korea.ac.kr
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2017, Vol. 2(2) 154–175
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2057891116675769
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
democracies, although their support for democracy remains high (Dalton, 2004; Nye et al., 1997;
Pharr and Putnam, 2000). Such a phenomenon is hardly exclusive to established democracies in the
West (Diamond and Plattner, 2008). Recent cross-national survey data reveal that new democra-
cies in East Asia are no exceptions (Chang et al., 2013; Chu et al., 2008; Park, forthcoming; Park
and Chang, 2013). The gap between public expectations and governance performance seems to
widen across much of the region.
Dissatisfaction with governance performance is likely to undermine support for the prevailing
system of government. Low levels of system support in turn are expected to diminish institutional
capacity and effectiveness, which is likely to further worsen governance performance, producing
more disaffection with the ongoing political order. Hence, reducing the gap between public
expectations and governance performance constitutes one of the key challenges, especially to
democracies, old and new, based on citizen consent. In this regard, I examine public evaluations
of governance performance and their effects on regime support in the context of East Asia.
In their contribution to this special issue, Welzel and Dalton (forthcoming) argue that norms
associated with assertive citizenship spread as countries experience social modernization and that
assertive culture rather than allegiant culture produces better governance, suggesting that critical
attitudes toward political institutions would improve governance performance. In this study, how-
ever, I assume that perceived governance performance reflecting actual performance shapes sup-
port for the prevailing system of government. Yet, I am aware that public expectations informing
standards of evaluation are likely to change or diverge as a result of social modernization and
political development.
The article is organized into five sections. The first section discusses two modes of
governance largely associated with liberal democracy and links perceived quality of govern-
ance to regime support. The second section deals with data and measurement. The third
section examines public perceptions of quality of governance, democratic and law-based. The
fourth section analyzes the effects of perceived quality of governance on regime support at the
individual level. The final section highlights the key findings and explores their implications
for regime consolidation.
Analytical framework
Modes of governance
Bevir (2011) observes that the word ‘‘governance’’ is ubiquitous. He defines it as the patterns of rule
that are ‘‘hybrid and multijurisdictional with plural stakeholders who come together in networks’’
(p. 2). He highlights four distinctive features of governance. The first is a hybrid feature, combining
administrative systems with marke t mechanisms and non-profit organizat ions. The second is a
multijurisdictional and often transnational nature. The third is an increasing range and plurality of
stakeholders. The last is the complex networks of stakeholders and government agencies. However,
the specific meaning of the term varies widely from one discipline or theory to another (Pierre,
2000). In development theory and practice from which this study draws its meaning, the concept of
governance largely refers to political institutions including older forms of the state (bureaucratic or
hierarchical institutions), reflecting the state-centric perspective (Pomerantz, 2011).
In the same vein, the World Bank (1992) considers governance ‘‘the manner in which power is
exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development’’
(p. 1). More specifically, the World Bank’s ‘‘good governance’’ project defines it as:
Park 155
To continue reading
Request your trial