GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Do Governance Indicators Explain Development Performance? A Cross-Country Analysis

Do Governance Indicators Explain Development Performance? A Cross-Country Analysis

Library
Xuehui Han, Haider Khan,, Juzhong Zhuang
2014

Summary

This study uses the World Bank’s worldwide governance indicators to examine whether a country with governance ‘surplus’ in a given base year (1998) grew faster on average in a subsequent period (1998-2011) than a country with governance ‘deficit’. Governance is defined in several dimensions, including government effectiveness, political stability, control of corruption and regulatory quality, voice and accountability, and rule of law. The study finds that government effectiveness, political stability, control of corruption and regulatory quality all have a more significant positive impact on country growth performance than voice and accountability and rule of law.

When pooling all the countries in the world together, there is no difference in growth performance between governance surplus countries and deficit countries. But when the analysis is broken down by region, governance quality does have a significant impact on growth performance, especially in developing Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. Regional specificities of both governance and growth are therefore important to consider.

In developing Asia, countries with governance surplus in government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and control of corruption grew close to 2 percentage points faster annually than those with a deficit in those indicators during 1998-2011.

In the Middle East and North Africa, countries with a governance surplus in political stability, governance effectiveness, and control of corruption grew 1.5-2.5 percentage points faster annually than those with a deficit in those indicators during the same period.

The results indicate that while better governance correlates with faster growth and higher income levels, its relationship with development may vary across dimensions of governance and a country’s stage of development. The authors suggest that low-income countries should perhaps strive for more effective government, better regulatory quality and rule of law, and tighter control of corruption, while graduating to higher income entails improving citizen participation and government accountability. Middle- and high-income countries are likely to reap considerable rewards from their citizens’ greater voice, political stability, and word-class institutions. By focusing on the biggest hurdles to growth and development, countries are more likely to see their governance reform efforts succeed.

Source

Han, X., Khan, H. & Zhuang, J. (2014). Do Governance Indicators Explain Development Performance? A Cross-Country Analysis. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".