Epistemic democracy and the quality of government

References

• Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ascherson, N. (2016, January 17). The assault on democracy in Poland is dangerous for the poles and all Europe. The Guardian. Retrieved from URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/poland-rightwing-government-eu-russia-democracy-under-threat
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, M., & Nelen, J. M. (2010). Corruption & human rights: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Portland, Oregon: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Bohara, A. K., Mitchell, N. J., Nepal, M., & Raheem, N. (2008). Human rights violations, corruption, and the policy of repression. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00250.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boräng, F., Cornell, A., Grimes, M., & Schuster, C. (2017). Cooking the books. Bureaucratic politization and policy knowledge. Governance, 30(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1111/gove.12250
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, E. C. C., & Golden, M. A. (2007). Electoral systems, district magnitude and corruption. British Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 115–137. doi: 10.1017/S0007123407000063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, E. C. C., Golden, M. A., & Hill, S. J. (2010). Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Politics, 62(2), 177–220. doi: 10.1017/S0043887110000031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charron, N., & Lapuente, V. (2011). Which dictators produce quality of government? Studies in Comparative International Development, 46(4), 397–423. doi: 10.1007/s12116-011-9093-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Rothstein, B. (2013). Quality of government and corruption from a European perspective: A comparative study of good government in EU regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Rothstein, B. (2018). Mapping the quality of government in Europe. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Charron, N., & Rothstein, B. (2016, April). Obstructing opportunity. Corruption and intergenerational social mobility. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Chigwedere, P., & Seage, G. R. (2008). Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 49(4), 410–415. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26–38. doi: 10.1086/292815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornell, A. (2014). Why bureaucratic stability matters for the implementation of democratic governance programs. Governance, 27(2), 191–214. doi: 10.1111/gove.12037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2014). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2013.830468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., & Lapuente, V. (2017). Organizing the leviathan: How the relationship between politicians and bureaucrats shapes good government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, T. (2012). The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 656–668. doi: 10.1177/1065912911408109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Beco, G. (2011). Monitoring corruption from a human rights perspective. The International Journal of Human Rights, 15(7), 1107–1124. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2010.497336
   Google Scholar
• de Kadt, D., & Lieberman, E. S. (2016, April). Do citizens reward good service? Voter responses to basic service provision in South Africa. Paper presented at the GWU Conference on the Economics and Political Economy of Africa, Georg Washington University, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• de Sousa, L., & Moriconi, M. (2013). Why voters do not throw the rascals out? — A conceptual framework for analysing electoral punishment of corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change, 60(5), 471–502. doi: 10.1007/s10611-013-9483-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esaiasson, P. (2010). Will citizens take no for an answer? What government officials can do to enhance decision acceptance. European Political Science Review, 2(3), 351–371. doi: 10.1017/S1755773910000238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2014a). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2014b). States and democracy. Democratization, 21(7), 1326–1340. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2014.960208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garsten, C., Rothstein, B., & Svallfors, S. (2015). Makt utan mandat: de policyprofessionella i svensk politik [ Power without mandate: The policy professionals in Swedish politics]. Stockholm: Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, J., Knutsen, C.-H., Skaaning, S.-E., Teorell, J., Maguire, M., Coppedge, M., & Lindberg, S. I. (2015). Electoral democracy and human development. Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gilley, B. (2006). The determinants of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. International Political Science Review, 27(1), 47–71. doi: 10.1177/0192512106058634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gjefsen, T. (2012). Sources of legitimacy: Quality of government and electoral democracy (Master’s thesis). UiO DUO vitenarkiv.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2004). Democracy, justice and impartiality. In K. Dowding, R. E. Goodin, & C. Pateman (Eds.), Justice and democracy (pp. 97–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halleröd, B., Rothstein, B., Daoud, A., & Nandy, S. (2013). Bad governance and poor children: A comparative analysis of government efficiency and severe child deprivation in 68 low- and middle-income countries. World Development, 48(1), 19–31. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.03.007
   Google Scholar
• Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (2015). Good societies need good leaders on a leash. In C. Dahlstrom & L. Wängnerud (Eds.), Elites, institutions and the quality of government (pp. 101–124). New York: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2005). Governance matters IV: Governance indicators for 1996–2004. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pubs/govmatters4.html
   Google Scholar
• Kornai, J. (2015). Hungary’s U-turn: Retreating from democracy. Journal of Democracy, 26, 34–48. doi: 10.1353/jod.2015.0046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies dies: What history tells us about our future. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• List, C., & Goodin, R. E. (2001). Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the condorcet jury theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(3), 277–306. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, G. (2003). Democracy defended. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mackie, G. (2014). The reception of social choice theory by democratic theory. In S. Novak, & J. Elster (Eds.), Majority decisions: Principles and practice (pp. 77–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manin, B., Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. (1999). Elections and democracy. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Maning (Eds.), Democracy, accountability and representation (pp. 29–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nattras, N. (2008). AIDS and the scientific governance of medicine in post-apartheid South Africa. African Affairs, 107(427), 157–176. doi: 10.1093/afraf/adm087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neier, A. (2002). Taking liberities: Four decades in the struggle for rights. New York: Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Ober, J. (2013). Democracy’s wisdom: An Aristotelian middle way for collective judgment. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 104–122. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, Z. (2013). An internation human rights approach to corruption. In P. Larmour & N. Wolanin (Eds.), Corruption and anti-corruption (pp. 30–62). Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.
   Google Scholar
• Regenwetter, M. (2006). Behavioral social choice: Probabilistic models, statistical inference, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. (2011). The capability approach. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrived from https://plato.stanford.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Holmberg, S. (2014). Correlates of quality of government. Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Tannenberg, M. (2015). Making development work: The quality of government approach. Stockholm: Swedish government expert group for aid studies ( report 2015:17). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2015). Getting to Sweden, part II: Breaking with corruption in the nineteenth century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 38(3), 238–254. doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.12048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Varraich, A. (2017). Making sense of corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saetren, H. (2005). Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: Out-of-fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4), 559–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00133.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, M. (2015). Epistemic democracy and its challenges. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 187–203. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-110113-121908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2011). Quality of life: India vs. China. New York Review of Books, LVIII(2011:25), 44–47.
   Google Scholar
• Sung, H.-E. (2004). Democracy and political corruption: A cross-national comparison. Crime, Law & Social Change, 41, 179–193. doi: 10.1023/B:CRIS.0000016225.75792.02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teachout, Z. (2014). Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s snuff box to citizens united. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turam, B. (2012). Turkey under the AKP: Are civil liberties safe? Journal of Democracy, 23(1), 109–118. doi: 10.1353/jod.2012.0007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedel, J. R. (2014). Unaccountable. How anit-corruption watchdogs and lobbyists sabotaged America’s finance, freedom and security. New York: Pegasus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, T. R. (2012). Sen’s capability approach. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrived from http://www.iep.utm.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, J. (2011). Ethics and public policy: A philosophical inquiry. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zingales, L. (2012). A capitalism for the people: Recapturing the lost genius of American prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar