Culture and the Quality of Government

• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Author: Simon Porcher
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13106

Culture and the Quality of Government 333

Simon Porcher

IAE Paris - Sorbonne Business School

Culture and the Quality of Government

Abstract: This article uses a cross-country data set to empirically investigate the relationship between national

culture and the quality of government. Culture has a strong impact on the quality of government that remains stable

even after controlling for differences in institutions and economic development. This effect remains significant when

the continents are considered separately, with the exception of Asia. The results reveal the importance of culture in

understanding the quality of government and open new avenues for research in comparative public administration in

a globalized world.

Evidence for Practice

• The impact of national culture on the quality of government is significant and statistically more important

than the impact of formal and political institutions.

• Cross-country analysis shows that culture has a significant impact on the quality of government, except in

Asia.

• Culture should be taken into account by governments and international financial institutions in efforts to

improve the quality of government.

A

central question in public administration

research is why disparities in good

government practices are large and

persistent (Rothstein 2011). The identification of

external factors, such as institutions (Acemoglu

and Robinson 2012) or economic development

(Lipset 1959), has been important to understanding

the differences of what I call the “quality of

government.”1 An intriguing unsolved debate is

whether culture has an impact on the quality of

government.

The idea that culture can be a driver of the quality

of government dates back at least to Montesquieu

(1748), who explained that geography and climate

interact with different cultures to produce “spirits”

that shape alternative political institutions, including

the separation of powers. Max Weber, in his 1905

book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,

understood culture as the central ingredient of

economic change. More recent works by Putnam

(1994) and Landes (1998) have also advanced the

argument that culture shapes collective action and

government.

I define culture as people’s beliefs and values,

resulting in attitudes and behaviors, about how the

world works. Therefore, the focus is on national

culture rather than administrative culture (Painter

and Peters 2010; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004) or

styles of public management organizations (Hood

1998). Culture is slow moving; thus, it may affect

faster-moving variables, such as political and legal

institutions (Roland 2004; Tabellini 2008). Political

and legal institutions delineate and constrain how

social choices are implemented and might be changed

depending on the weights of different social groups. A

good government cares about its citizens and strictly

applies the law as it is written (Rothstein 2011):

independence from political pressures, the absence

of corruption, impartiality, and the quality of public

services are measures of the quality of government.

Using a cross-country data set, I empirically investigate

the impact of culture and institutions on the quality

of government. I focus on one aspect of culture—the

difference between individualism and collectivism—

because psychologists recognize it as the main

dimension of cultural variation (Fincher etal. 2008;

Heine 2007). Alternatively, I make sense of the five

other dimensions of culture articulated by Hofstede

(2001)—power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

masculinity, long-term orientation, and indulgence—

by creating country clusters of national cultures. The

results show that culture has a significant impact on

the quality of government despite controlling for

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 2, pp. 333–343. © 2019 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13106.

Simon Porcher is associate professor of

public management and scientific director

of the Chair on Public-Private Partnerships

at the Sorbonne Business School (IAE Paris),

Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne,

France. Prior joining the Sorbonne, he

held positions at the London School of

Economics and the European University

Institute. His research has been published

in the

Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory

and the

Journal of

Business Ethics

, among other reviews.

Email: porcher.iae@univ-paris1.fr

Research Article:

Global PA

Symposium