2018
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muy044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finding the Golden Mean: Country Size and the Performance of National Bureaucracies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results summarized in Table 3 show that the specification of the model indeed matters. Furthermore, the distinct differences in within-and between-effects illustrate the usefulness of separating these two effects when dealing with sluggish (slow to change) variables (Jugl 2019). We find a positive statistically significant between-panel effect of all good governance indicators on CSP ("_between").…”
Section: Pooled Ols Regression Analysismentioning
confidence: 66%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The results summarized in Table 3 show that the specification of the model indeed matters. Furthermore, the distinct differences in within-and between-effects illustrate the usefulness of separating these two effects when dealing with sluggish (slow to change) variables (Jugl 2019). We find a positive statistically significant between-panel effect of all good governance indicators on CSP ("_between").…”
Section: Pooled Ols Regression Analysismentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Values for the indicators are between -2.5 and 2.5 with a mean of zero. The WGI has been used in the previous studies to investigate, among others, GE in Asia (Brewer et al 2007), civil service structure and corruption (Rubin and Whitford 2008), country size and government performance (Jugl 2019), and aid effectiveness (Ear 2007).…”
Section: Data Set and Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We might assume that, ceteris paribus , highly networked societies where informal coordination and leader dominance is the norm would be advantaged by small size. Instead, echoing Jugl (2019), we find that the predominance of individuals over programmatic service delivery leads more naturally to clientelism and patronage‐based politics. As the literature on clientelism, patronage and other forms of particularistic politics indicates (Keefer 2007; Hicken 2011), these patterns tend to produce governance particularistic outcomes.…”
Section: The Core Executive and Small Statesmentioning
confidence: 44%
“…No specific studies exist of the core executive or cabinet in small states despite the fact that, in light of their densely networked societies (Baldacchino 2002), they are ‘least likely’ cases for arguments about coordination and executive government. The literature on public administration in small states, much of which is based on single country studies or general analysis of public administration (Jugl 2019; Randma‐Liiv and Sarapuu 2019), finds that: human resources are limited and so individuals are often called upon to play multiple overlapping roles (Farrugia 1993; Chittoo 2011; Everest‐Phillips and Henry 2018); this has benefits in terms of informal coordination (Chittoo 2011; Moloney 2019); but small size also blurs the line between politics and administration leading to concerns about bureaucratic performance, conflicts of interest, patron–client linkages, and corruption (Benedict 1967, pp. 47–48; Farrugia 1993; Baldacchino 1997, pp.…”
Section: The Core Executive and State Sizementioning
confidence: 99%