Democracy and Bureaucracy: How their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction

References

• Aarts, Kees, and Jacques Thomassen (2008). ‘Satisfaction with Democracy: Do Institutions Matter?’, Electoral Studies, 27, 5–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez, Michael R., and Jonathan Nagler (2004). ‘Party System Compactness: Measurement and Consequences’, Political Analysis, 12:1, 46–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, Christopher J., and Christine A. Guillory (1997). ‘Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems’, American Political Science Review, 91:1, 66–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, Ian, Hans Keman, and Michael McDonald (2012). Organizing Democratic Choice: Party Representation Over Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona Nadenichek Golder (2009). Principles of Comparative Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, Harold D., Nitish Dutt, and Allan Kornberg (1993). ‘The Political Economy of Attitudes toward Polity and Society in Western European Democracies’, Journal of Politics, 55:4, 998–1021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlström, Carl, and Victor Lapuente (2012). ‘Weberian Bureaucracy and Corruption Prevention’, in Sören Holmberg and Bo Rothstein (eds.), Good Government The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 150–173.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, Carl, Victor Lapuente, and Jan Teorell (2012a). ‘The Merit of Meritocratization: Politics, Bureaucracy, and the Institutional Deterrents of Corruption’, Political Research Quarterly, 65:3, 658–670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlström, Carl, Victor Lapuente, and Jan Teorell (2012b). ‘Public Administration Around the World’, in S. Holmberg and B. Rothstein (eds.), Good Government. The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 40–67.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, Russel J. (2008). ‘The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems – Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences’, Comparative Political Studies, 41, 899–920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Easton, David (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Easton, David (1975). ‘A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support’, British Journal of Political Science, 5:4, 435–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezrow, Lawrence, and Georgios Xezonakis (2011). ‘Citizen Satisfaction With Democracy and Parties’ Policy Offerings’, Comparative Political Studies, 44:9, 1152–1178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, Dieter, Giovanna Guidorossi, and Palle Svensson (1995). ‘Support for the Democratic System’, in H.-D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds.), Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 323–353.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Michael (1991). ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’, Electoral Studies, 10:1, 33–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J., S.C. Thacker, and C. Moreno (2005). ‘Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry’, American Political Science Review, 99:4, 567–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilley, Bruce (2006a). ‘The Determinants of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries’, European Journal of Political Research, 45, 499–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilley, Bruce (2006b). ‘The Meaning and Measure of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries’, International Political Science Review, 27:1, 47–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilley, Bruce (2009). The Right to Rule – How States Win and Lose Legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gjefsen, Torbjørn (2012). Sources of Regime Legitimacy. Quality of Government and Electoral Democracy. Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Golder, M. (2005). ‘Democratic Electoral Systems around the World’, Electoral Studies, 24, 103–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golder, Matt, and Jacek Stramski (2010). ‘Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions’, American Journal of Political Science, 54:1, 90–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Amanda L. (2005). ‘Political Parties, Electoral Systems and Democracy: A Cross-national Analysis’, European Journal of Political Research, 44:2, 231–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmberg, Sören (1999a). ‘Collective Policy Congruence Compared’, in Warren Miller, et al. (eds.), Policy Representation in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press, 87–109.
   Google Scholar
• Holmberg, Sören (1999b). ‘Down and Down We Go: Political Trust in Sweden’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens – Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 103–122.
   Google Scholar
• Holmberg, Sören (2003). ‘Are Political Parties Necessary?’, Electoral Studies, 22:2, 287–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmberg, Sören, and Bo Rothstein (2012). Good Government. The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hox, Joop (2002). Multilevel Analysis – Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, John, and Bingham G. Powell (1994). ‘Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy’, World Politics, 46:3, 291–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karp, Jeffrey A., and Shaun Bowler (2001). ‘Coalition Government and Satisfaction with Democracy: An Analysis of New Zealand’s Reaction to Proportional Representation’, European Journal of Political Research, 40, 57–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi (2009). ‘Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate & Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2008’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978, 29 June, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1424591
   Google Scholar
• Keefer, P. (2009). ‘Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions’. Technical Report, World Bank Development Research Group.
   Google Scholar
• Klingemann, Hans Dieter (1999). ‘Mapping Political Support in the 1990s A Global Analysis’, in Pippa Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klingemann, Hans Dieter (2009). The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Soo-Young, and Andrew B. Withford (2009). ‘Government Effectiveness in Comparative Perspective’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11:2, 49–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lijphart, Arend (2008). Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Linde, Jonas, and Joakim Ekman (2003). ‘Satisfaction with Democracy: A Note on a Frequently Used Indicator in Comparative Politics’, European Journal of Political Research, 42, 391–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, Pippa (1999). Critical Citizens – Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, Pippa (2004). Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, Pippa (2011). Democratic Deficit – Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, Pippa (2012). Making Democratic Governance Work – How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, G.Bingham, and Jr. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rauch, James E., and Peter B. Evans (2000). ‘Bureaucratic Structure and Bureaucratic Performance in Less Developed Countries’, Journal of Public Economics, 75, 49–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, Bo (2009). ‘Creating Political Legitimacy – Electoral Democracy Versus Quality of Government’, American Behavioral Scientist, 53:3, 311–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, Bo (2011) The Quality of Government. Corruption, Social Trust and Inequality in International Perspective. London: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, Bo, and Jan Teorell (2008). ‘What is Quality of Government?, A Theory of Impartial Governmental Institutions’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 21:2, 165–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snijders, Tom, and Roel Bosker (1999). Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Teorell, Jan, Carl Dahlström, and Stefan Dahlberg (2011). The QoG Expert Survey Dataset. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, The Quality of Government Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Teorell, Jan, Nicholas Charron, Stefan Dahlberg, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Petrus Sundin, and Richard Svensson (2013). The Quality of Government Dataset, version 15 May 13. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, available at: http://www.qog.pol.gu.se
   Google Scholar
• World Bank (2002--2008). World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group, published online 24 January 2013.
   Google Scholar