Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
SP baner

Vol. 50 No. 2 (2022)

Political attitudes

The Quality of Governance, Mental State and Attitudes Towards the Market and Democracy in the Visegrád Group Countries Compared to Northwest Europe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/STP.2022.50.2.03
Submitted: November 30, 2022
Published: October 28, 2022

Abstract

The goals of the study are to: 1. examine the impact of the quality of public service management on the mental state and attitudes towards the market and democracy in the Visegrád Group countries compared to Northwest Europe; 2. identify different mechanisms connecting the quality of governance with the mental state and attitudes towards the market and
democracy in both groups of countries and their interpretations in terms of the neo-institutional theory. The quality of governance has been assessed based on the respondents’ opinions about the provision of public services. Low evaluation of the quality of public services and the belief in privileges and corruption in their distribution coexist with a poorer mental state, antimarket attitudes, less trust in democratic institutions and dissatisfaction with democracy.
Differences: 1. Institutional exclusivity is relatively greater in the Visegrád Group. Contesting attitudes towards the market and democracy are in a relatively higher degree a consequence of the low quality of services and low incomes. 2. In these countries, public services relatively weakly compensate for income inequalities. 3. In Northwest Europe, contesting attitudes towards democratic and market institutions are the consequence of privileges and corruption in the distribution of services. 4. In the Visegrád Group countries, privileges and corruption are greater, but less frustrating. Institutional exclusiveness is slightly more accepted in the Visegrád Group countries than in Northwest Europe. This state of affairs is the consequence of equipping public administration with resources and cultural patterns. If the administrative resources were the same in all the compared countries, the level of exclusivity would be relatively higher in the Visegrád countries for cultural reasons.

References

  1. Acemoglu D., J.A. Robinson, Dlaczego narody przegrywają. Źródła władzy, pomyślności i ubóstwa, tłum. Jerzy Łoziński, Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka, Warszawa 2014.
  2. Bachtler J., C. Mendez, H. Oraže, From Conditionality to Europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe: Administrative Performance and Capacity in Cohesion Policy, „European Planning Studies” 2014, t. 22, nr 4: Spatial Planning in the Baltic States: Impacts of European Policies, s. 735–757.
  3. Baun M., D. Marek, EU Cohesion Policy and Sub-National Authorities in the New Member States, „Contemporary European Studies” 2008, nr 2, s. 5–20.
  4. Borowiec A., Rozmowa z prof. dr hab. Jerzym Mączyńskim o sposobie sprawowania funkcji przywódczych w różnych krajach, „Gazeta Praca”, dodatek do „Gazety Wyborczej”, 24 marca 2003.
  5. Böhnke P., First European Quality, of Life Survey: Life Satisfaction, Happiness, and Sense of Belonging, Luxembourg: Official publication of European Communities, 2005, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2005/91/en/1/ef0591en.pdf [dostęp 2.01.2017].
  6. Celińska-Janowicz D.et al., Ocena wpływu polityki spójności na rozwój miast polskich (w ramach ewaluacji ex post NPR 2004–2006), EUROREG i Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa 2010.
  7. Charron N., Assessing The Quality of the Quality of Government Data: A Sensitivity Test of the World Bank Government Indicators, The Quality of Government Institute Department of Political Science, The University of Gothenburg, Sweden 2008.
  8. Charron N., V. Lapuente, Quality Of Government in EU Regions: Spatial and Temporal Patterns, Working Paper Series 2018, nr 1.
  9. Charron N., V. Lapuente, Why Do Some Regions in Europe Have a Higher Quality of Government?, „The Journal of Politics” 2013, t. 75, nr 3, s. 567–582.
  10. Charron N., L. Dijkstra, V. Lapuente, Mapping the Regional Divide in Europe: A Measure for Assessing Quality of Government in 206 European Regions, 2014, https://nicholascharron.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sir_qog-1 [dostęp 17.03.2017].
  11. Charron N. et al., The Quality of Government EU Regional Dataset, version Nov. 20, University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute, 2020, https://www.gu.se/en/quality-governmen [dostęp 23.11.2021].
  12. Charron N., V. Lapuente, M. Bauhr, Sub-national Quality of Government in EU Member States: Presenting the 2021 European Quality of Government Index and Its Relationship with Covid-19 Indicators, QoG Working Paper Series, April 2021, ISSN 1653-8919, https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/2021-05/2021_4_%20Charron_Lapuente_Bauhr.pdf [dostęp 27.01.2022].
  13. Cole A., R. Pasquier, The Impact of European Integration on Centre/Periphery Relations, „Politique européenne” 2012, t. 1, nr 36, s. 160–182.
  14. Cullen J.B., S.M. Novick, The Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification: A Further Examination and Extension, „American Journal of Sociology” 1979, t. 84, nr 6, s. 1424–1437.
  15. Dahlberg S. et al., The Quality of Government Basic Dataset. version Jan18, University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute 2018, http://www.qog.pol.gu.se doi:10.18157/QoGBasJan18.
  16. Davis L., Individual Responsibility and Economic Development: Evidence from Rainfall Data, „Kyklos”, 2016, nr 69, s. 426–470.
  17. Davis K., W. Moore, Some Principles of Stratification, „American Sociological Review” 1945, t. 10, s. 242–249.
  18. Hegel G.F., Zasady filozofii prawa, tłum. A. Landman, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1969.
  19. Hryniewicz J.T., Polska na tle historycznych podziałów przestrzeni europejskiej oraz współczesnych przemian gospodarczych, społecznych i politycznych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2015.
  20. Hryniewicz J.T., The Sociocultural and Economic Premises of Quality of Governance and Bureaucratic Efficiency in Central East European Regions in the Context of the EU, „Polish Sociological Review” 2021, t. 2, nr 214, s. 183–198, ISSN 1231 – 1413, DOI: 10.26412/psr214.03.
  21. Huntington S., Zderzenie cywilizacji i nowy kształt ładu światowego, tłum. H. Jankowska, Muza, Warszawa 1997.
  22. Inglehart R.F., Cultural Revolution. People’s Motivation are Changing and Reshaping the World, University Printing House, Cambridge UK 2018.
  23. Jung C.G., Psychologia przeniesienia, tłum. R. Reszke, Wydawnictwo Wrota, Warszawa 1997.
  24. Konrad G., I. Szelenyi, The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power, Harvester Press, Brighton 1979.
  25. Kaufmann D., A. Kraay, M. Mastruzzi, Draft Policy Research Working Paper. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issue, World Bank, September 2010.
  26. Major I., Trust. Cooperation and Time Horizons in Central and East European Countries, w: Adaptability and Change: The Regional Dimensions in Central and Eastern Europe, red. G. Gorzelak, Chor Ching Goh, K. Fazekas, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2012.
  27. March J., G. Olse, P. Johan, Nowy instytucjonalizm – organizacyjne podstawy polityki, w: J. Jasińska-Kania et al., Współczesne teorie socjologiczne, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2006.
  28. March J.G., H.A. Simon, Teoria organizacji, tłum. S. Łypacewicz, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1964.
  29. McLaughlin K., Stephen P. Osborne, E. Ferlie, New Public Management. Current Trends and Future Prospects, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London – New York 2002.
  30. Morawski W., Konfiguracje globalne struktury, agencje, instytucje, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2010.
  31. Nowak M., Instytucjonalizm w socjologii i ekonomii, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny” 2004, r. LXVI, z. 1, s. 189–204, ISSN 2543-9170 ISSN 0035-9629, DOI: 10.14746/rpeis.
  32. Pawlak M., Sadowski I., Nowy instytucjonalizm w analizach polskiego społeczeństwa – tradycje, stan badań i perspektywy, „Studia Polityczne” 2017, t. 45, nr 2, s. 27–52, ISSN 1230-3135.
  33. Rust R., A.J. Zahoric, T. Kenningham, Return on Quality: Measuring the Financial Impact of Your Company’s Quest for Quality, Irvin Publishing, Chicago Ill 1993.
  34. Scherpereel J.A., EU Cohesion Policy and Europeanization of Central and East European Regions, „Regional and Federal Studies” 2010, s. 45–62.
  35. Smeriglio A. et al., Evaluating Delivery of Cohesion Policy: Proposal for an Analytical Framework, European Policies Research Centre School of Government and Public Policy University of Strathclyde 40 George Street Glasgow G1 1QE United Kingdom, January 2015.
  36. Swianiewicz P., Współczesne badania nad samorządem i polityką lokalną, w: Polska Gmina 2015, red. G. Gorzelak, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2015, s. 15–32.
  37. Tarkowska E., J. Tarkowski, „Amoralny familizm”, czyli o dezintegracji społecznej w Polsce lat osiemdziesiątych, „Kultura i Społeczeństwo” 2016, t. 60, nr 4, s. 7–28, https://doi.org/10.35757/KiS.2016.60.4.1.
  38. Teorell J. et al., The Quality of Government Standard Dataset. Version Jan18, University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute, 2018, http://www.qog.pol.gu.se, DOI:10.18157/QoGStdJan18.
  39. Thomas M.A., What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure & Quest, „The European Journal of Development Research” 2010, t. 22, nr 1, s. 31–54.
  40. Wilkinson P., The Spirit Level. Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Penguin Books LTD, London 2009.
  41. Wojtowicz D., K. Paciorek, Systemy i narzędzia zarządzania jakością w urzędach gmin a efektywne korzystanie z funduszy unijnych, „Studia Regionalne i Lokalne” 2012, nr 2 (48), s. 5–19.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

<< < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.