In geographies like Venezuela, Hong Kong, India (especially Muslims), Turkey, and the like, citizens experience daily how their lives change when their democracy falls prey to leaders with a dictatorial or autocratic agenda. They see their (livelihood) certainties evaporate, their security compromised, and their opportunities reversed. Is this a far cry from our lives? Are we so spoiled and gullible that we take our democratic achievements for granted?
There is much criticism of the functioning of democracy; expectations are sometimes unreasonably high, and there are all sorts of things wrong with governance and administrators. Not infrequently, this account is fed by cunning social media strategies and other types of campaigns by autocratic regimes such as Russia and China. Its sole purpose is to undermine faith and trust in this form of government in Western democracies. It gets worse when democracy is eroded from within. This phenomenon has not been more clearly underscored recently than by the blatant attack that the United States president has been able to carry out on the institutions of the country that often touts itself as the "best" democracy in the world. It is almost laughable if it were not so severe. A rebellious mob of white 'patriots,' brainwashed and whipped up by Trump, think they can still claim for themselves the ideals and privileges of racists yearning for independence in 1861. Trump appears to have been president of a modern variant of the Confederate States of America instead of the United States of America. The Confederates broke away in 1861 and were placed under federal authority after the American Civil War (1861-1865). This act by the federal government was never forgotten nor forgiven. It just underscores how misleading the longing for days gone by can be. The world around us is continuously changing; nostalgia as the guiding motive for a new perspective is, however, illusory.
The US is not unique; forces are at work in countless countries to undermine trust in democracy from within with chaos, conspiracy theories, and falsehoods. A democracy is a continuous 'work in progress'; its essence needs to be explained, defended, monitored, adapted to circumstances, and improved every day! Herein lies the power of democracy above all other forms of government.
It helps if it is made clear how democracy affects and can improve people's lives. That is the task I have given myself for this edition of the General Government Performance Index (GGPI). This index, about which more below, shows how government action benefits, relevant to citizens, relate to the costs of that government action. It is a measure of how governments succeed in allowing their citizens to reap the benefits of responsible government action. These fruits can include achieving social and sustainability goals, economic infrastructure, and the rule of law safeguards. These fruits are referred to by me in the GGPI context as societal benefits.
By linking the GGPI to the annually published Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Democracy Index, I can map out how different government forms affect citizens' lives. Based on average outcomes for each of the described forms of government, this provides the following picture:
Aantekeningen in de marge
The differences are vast. The type of governance matters enormously to how citizens can expect support or opposition from their government. Full democracies generally cost citizens more money, although societies with strong social cohesion and a sense of responsibility can also perform well without significant government involvement. What is certain is that government performance in full democracies is significantly higher than in all other forms of government. The United States, identified as a "flawed democracy" in the Democracy Index 2019, still, scores in the top 20% when it comes to government action performance. Yet it is hard to miss what it means, for example, for blacks, Latinos or members of another minority, or as a less educated or uninsurable citizen, to be at the mercy of the American "system. Joining the Democracy Index 2019 with the 2020 GGPI clarifies how the form of government affects citizens in the various countries surveyed. This yields the following picture (where a score of 100 is high, and a score of 0 is low):
Aantekeningen in de marge
The above clarifies the importance of a well-functioning government that operates in the full glare of the public eye and where democratic principles and the rule of law are upheld. Being a full democracy is not necessarily reserved for 'rich countries.' Relatively poor countries like Mauritius and Costa Rica (with a purchasing power adjusted GNP of 30%-35% of the Netherlands) can also operate as full democracies. Limited resources do not necessarily limit the possibility of providing relevant benefits to citizens. Conversely, rich countries do not necessarily produce high societal benefits to citizens. On a per-capita basis and purchasing power adjusted, Qatar's GNP ($161,194) is more than three times richer than the Netherlands ($49,314). Nevertheless, that country's societal benefit score is less than half that of the Netherlands.
Many people express frustration with the way their country is governed, freedoms interpreted and enforced, foreigners admitted, international obligations infringe on their country's sovereignty. They should check the list above and see which country they would like to set as an example for their ideal society.
In the first place, it will become clear that no country is perfect; no matter how well-organized things are, paradise does not exist.
Secondly, it will become clear that everything ultimately has a price. The better the facilities, the more unambiguous and controllable the access to them must be—the more inflexible the rules, the greater the evasion. Freedom does not come without obligation. It comes with a responsibility to which you can be held to account. These are all choices, and choices have consequences.
Third, one will need to be aware that government performance in a country can't be traced to "hard" policy actions alone. Factors that are less likely to be influenced by policy, such as political mores, culture, and religion, come into play as well. All these things come together and define the meaning of the term democracy.
Fourthly, suppose you live in a democracy. In that case, you have to accept that it is not the intensity of your protest or the number of conspiracy theories and tweets that determine who wins the election. It is a process in which the number of valid votes cast and certified by the electoral council decides the outcome. On the latter point, it is an ominous sign that 43% of all registered American voters just after the November election believed that Joe Biden's victory was illegal. After judges, many of them appointed by Trump dismissed more than 50 claims of election fraud, this picture still hasn't tilted.
Can a country still call itself democratic when voters question the basis of the system to this degree? I have grave doubts about this: trust in the democratic system is a prerequisite for its acceptance. This storm in the US is far from subsiding. For the Republicans, stirring up this storm is apparently the only way to maintain their relevance with this very vocal part of their constituency. An additional problem is that the American example is also being emulated outside the country. Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, and misleading information - with Russian and Chinese trolls - will have an increasingly decisive influence on many Western democracies' political debates and elections. Many have now considered the question of how to deal with this. Can ethics be regulated, and if so, who tests it? Ultimately, it's about one's character, not conviction. Who, oh who, will provide me with the litmus test for political sincerity and purity of character?
General Government Performance Index 2020
This year, the format of the GGPI has changed slightly, without undermining its character and expressiveness. The GGPI is a means of gaining insight into the effectiveness of government action relevant to citizens. To attain this insight, I base myself on three indexes that map government performance. These are the Social Progress Index, the Global Competitiveness Index's infrastructure component, and the World Governance Indicators. This performance is measured against the efforts governments make to achieve it. Both the level of government spending and the size of the national debt are taken into account. For a detailed explanation of the background, design, and methodology used, I refer to: 'Background, design, and methodology of the General Government Performance Index.' The highest score in the index indicates that a country has provided the best return for its citizens, given the public resources it has used in relative terms. A score lower than zero suggests that governments in the countries concerned are grossly inadequate in meeting the needs of (all) their citizens. A score higher than 45 indicates that the governments in question deliver outstanding societal benefits to their citizens, given their demands on public resources. Grey areas on the map are countries where data are missing. This either happens if one of the performance fields used to compile the index is unavailable or government spending per capita is below $2,250 (making it very difficult to apply policy).
The chosen set-up leads to surprising insights. Mostly, not prosperity - as is often the case in these kinds of comparisons - is the starting point, but rather what use governments make of their scarce resources to produce relevant societal benefits for their citizens. The more available money, the higher the relevant performance for citizens will naturally have to be. This does not detract from the fact that government policy is - or at least should be - primarily about making responsible choices within realistic financial frameworks. It is about the choices made to achieve the best result for citizens within the (all too) limited options. Some governments are better at this than others. Differences in the decisiveness of existing governments exist. Still, the past and the country's political culture (and often a combination of these) also play an essential role. Insofar as this has a negative impact, it is not an excuse to sit on our hands. Instead, it should be a stimulus, albeit gradual and with the help of international organizations, to bring about improvement. GGPI also shows this: it exposes very clearly that many governments are trapped in a spiral from which they will not escape without radical rethinking, support, and measures.
Rankings and outcomes GGPI 2020
This year, 82 countries (2019: 76) made it through the ranking. This requires that the country in question appear in all databases and spend more than $2,250 per capita on government spending.
Aantekeningen in de marge
From the Index, New Zealand emerges as the winner. It manages to link very high societal performance with a relatively limited drain on public resources. A full understanding of social returns and public burdens can be found here. The GGPI is also an essential tool for assessing how policies evolve over time. Over five years, Qatar has experienced the largest increase in absolute terms in the index. However, this honor is highly questionable. It is not the citizens but those in power who have benefited from this improvement. The already meager social returns have continued to decline; nonetheless, a sharp decline in the government's drain on public resources has significantly increased its index score. On balance, the Emirate 'rising' from the last place in 2016 to second-to-last place in the index today are a meager result. Only when countries with similar socio-economic positions are compared is it possible to better understand relative performance.
A select group of OECD countries
For that reason, each year, I also show how a select group of countries that are members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) perform. From the index's point of view, this has advantages: the more homogeneous the group of countries being compared, the more relevant the insight. The main point is to test the policy choices of countries that are comparable in terms of circumstances. It makes little sense to compare New Zealand with Qatar, but New Zealand can pass the test with other OECD countries just fine. For Qatar, it compares very well with other oil states in the Middle East.
In addition to the results of the GGPI itself, this also provides insight into the two main components that determine the ranking in the index: input (public burdens) and output (societal returns). The progression index measures the difference in outcome between GGPI 2020 compared to the GGPI 2016.
Aantekeningen in de marge
Only three countries in this overview managed, relative to other countries included in this overview, to increase their social returns and simultaneously reduce public burdens: The Netherlands, Portugal, and Austria. Regardless of the many things done well, there is still lots of room for improvement. Since the GGPI is driven by policy-related data, choices made by the three governments mentioned above, given the burden on public finances, have produced the best results for their citizens compared to other countries. The GGPI does not give an absolute judgment but is primarily a relative test.
Citizens in the United States are relatively the worst off. Not only has there been a relative decline in social returns, but public burdens have also risen sharply relative to other countries. This is also true, but to a lesser extent, of Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.
Clusters with similar characteristics can be identified. How the various countries have arranged their public finances appears to be decisive for the societal benefit return relevant for citizens. In my opinion, the graph below provides a good insight into these clusters. The highest government performance is mainly in North-Western Europe. However, New Zealand and Australia, with their much more limited use of public funds, are also doing well thanks to their traditionally robust sense of cohesion and responsibility. Belgium and France have a clearly less favorable hand in organizing their public burdens and lag behind in providing social returns relevant to citizens. Luxembourg is in a class of its own. Subsidized by the EU, it delivers a high level of public performance at a high cost.
Aantekeningen in de marge
The charm of the GGPI is that it provides insight into how countries perform compared to each other. Next year the influence of the pandemic will be reflected in omparedthresults , and it will have to become clear to what extent citizens have suffered from limitations in the sense of the rule of law through restrictions on freedom of movement, individual liberties neand infringements on the integrity of the political decision-making process.
For further insight into the underlying performance fields (for all countries included in the GGPI), I refer to the annex accessible via this link.