Contemporary Public Policy - Essay Example

Contemporary Public Policy a) How is quality of government understood by Rothstein and his colleagues? According to Rothstein and his colleagues, quality of government is a measure through which a system of government can be able to deliver on its functions to its citizens. In such a scenario, the quality of a good government is one, which is reliable, trustworthy, and impartial when providing services to its people (Rothstein & Teorell, 2008, p.166). In most of the cases all over the world where democracy is practiced, this is what the people aspire for when they elect their leaders but this normally turns out not to be what they expected. According to Rothstein, the fact that democracy exists within a society does not automatically guarantee that there will be good governance. This is mainly because of the fact that because it has the mandate of the majority of its people, the elected government can do anything that it wishes not only to ensure that it is able to retain its power, but also to influence the policy decisions according to the way it wants it. In this way, even though some of the decisions that it makes will be wrong and at times not in line with good governance, the government, because of the mandate handed to it by a majority of the population, might end up implementing them anyway. Thus, while democracy can be considered to be a good thing, it does not necessarily mean that it will determine good governance and that it might instead create a situation where popular policies which are detrimental to the society as a whole are put in place. According to Rothstein, one of the factors, which undermine the quality of government, is corruption and this is an aspect which not only thrives in autocracies, but in democracies as well (Rothstein & Teorell, 2008, p.167). It is a common feature in poor countries where individuals tend to be highly demoralised due to low wages which make it difficult for them to make ends meet. The result is that despite some countries being democracies, the fact that they are poor and that most of their people live in poverty creates fertile ground for the development of corruption. Indeed, there are many opportunities in these countries which can enable individuals to lift themselves out of poverty but while this may be the case, the fact remains that most of these opportunities tend to be too expensive and therefore beyond the reach of those who would benefit from them. In such situations, the quality of good governance tends to be affected by the lack of an impartial legal system which can ensure that poor people are able to secure property rights over places of business which they have occupied for many years. Instead, the legal system in poor countries tends to be aligned in favour of the well off in society and this creates a situation where it is difficult for good governance which is fair, impartial, and devoid of corruption from taking root. In such situations, it becomes difficult for there to be any significant economic development in these countries since micro-businesses are often stifled before they get the opportunity to take off and improve the lives of their owners. Thus, a high quality of government has to be one which is not only democratically elected but also one which is able to deliver services to its entire people in a manner which is impartial and without corruption. To do otherwise would mean that there is a failure in the system of government and this has to be remedied swiftly before it becomes totally dysfunctional. With this in mind, Rothstein and his colleagues argue that it is not the lack of resources and human capital which is responsible for the development and ever increasing levels of poverty (Rothstein & Teorell 2008, p.170). The blame should instead be put on the government because the low quality of the services provided by its institutions is responsible for the stifling of entrepreneurship among the poorer sections in the society. They further state that recent research on good governance has focused more on developing an understanding of matters concerning the support of citizens for their government as well as societal factors such as civil wars that might arise because of citizen dissatisfaction. This has ignored some of the most important aspects of good governance, namely physical resources, human capital and natural resources, which are considered to be factors that can help in the creation of good governance. In addition, Rothstein and colleagues argue that the idea of quality of government has been overshadowed by the lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between access to power and exercise of power and this has created a situation where it has become difficult to determine the quality of government. b) What is significant of the quality of government argument for public policy reform in modern societies?  One of the most significant aspects of the quality of government argument is that it advocates for the development of a forum through which the failures of public policy can be addressed and remedied. The need for reform of public policy has arisen mainly because of the fact that a large number of people have not been able to reap the rewards of a high quality of government despite its swift spread all over the world. The emphasis on the need for good governance through democratic means has been overshadowed by the lack of any equality within the society and this has created a situation where whenever policies are developed, they tend to benefit some individuals while the majority remains disadvantaged. Most systems of governance in the world today are designed to ensure that small elite continues to dominate both the political and economic life within the state. The result has been that despite democratic systems being in place, there have been instances where it has been difficult for individuals to determine their own futures because most government policy is controlled by the elite who only develop those policies that protect their own interests. Thus, while quality of government is based on the established traditions through which authority over a state is exercised, it has been suggested that these traditions might not necessarily be in the interests of the entire population, and might, in fact be detrimental for the latter. It is for this reason that there is an urgent need for public reforms to be put in place to ensure that all policies made are impartial. Holmberg, Rothstein, and Nasiritousi (2009, p.137) state that despite there being the concept of good governance, there are still a lot of definition concerning it and it often depends of what theory concerning it is being emphasised. In this way, it is argued that if a theory is dominated by economics, for example, a scholar would state that there is a link between good governance and economic growth and that the latter cannot be achieved without the former. However, while this may be the case in some circumstances, it is not applicable in all situations. This is mainly because of the fact that such a state as China, which is not considered to be a democracy, still has good governance because it is through the latter that it has been able to achieve the kind of economic growth that it has experienced over the past three decades. This goes against the standard definition of good governance whose core principle is democracy and works towards showing that despite the ideas concerning it that are being propagated all over the world, the fact remains that good governance does not have a solid definition. It is further argued that because the idea of good governance lacks a firm definition, it is almost impossible to develop a link between civil liberties and quality of government and this creates a situation where civil liberty does not necessarily mean good governance (Holmberg, Rothstein, and Nasiritousi, 2009, p.138). According to Rothstein (2010, p.2), the welfare state is one of the ideals of good governance and it ensures that the level of happiness within the population being governed increases. The welfare state is one where the services, which are normally denied to people in other systems of government, are provided and this is done in a manner aimed at ensuring that there is some level of equality within the society. However, just because a country has the right kind of climate, the ideal political system, and individuals who have strong family ties, does not mean that they have higher levels of happiness (Rothstein 2010, p.3). This is mainly because of the fact that despite the major differences between rich and poor countries in the world, it has been found that the wealth of a nation is not related with the level of happiness of its population. Therefore, the wealth of country does not account for the increase in happiness since people from all over the world tend to face the same basic problems which have an effect on the way that they perceive their lives. Happiness only comes about because of individual efforts and achievements and despite the existence of good governance; it is quite difficult for a government to bring about happiness within its population. References Holmberg, S., Rothstein, B. & Nasiritousi, N. ‘Quality of Government: What You Get’, Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 2009, pp. 135–61.  Rothstein, B., ‘Happiness and the Welfare State’, Social Research, Vol. 77, No. 2, 2010, pp. 1-28. Rothstein, B. & Teorell, J. ‘What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions’, Governance, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2008, pp. 165–190. Read More