Msl 2019 90.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 1037–1046 Contents lists available at GrowingScience Management Science Letters homepage: www.GrowingScience.com/msl Does institutional quality matter in fostering social progress: A cross national examination Nesrin Almatarneha* and Okechukwu Lawerence Emeagwalia aGirne American University, Cyprus C H R O N I C L E A B S T R A C T Article history: The first Social Progress Index (SPI) report was released in 2013; a handful of studies examined Received: March 1, 2019 the determinants of social progress at country level as an instrument in evaluating nation’s prosper- Received in revised format: March ity. This study focuses on determining the relationship between institutional quality measured by 16, 2019 the World Governance Index (WGI) and social progress measured (SPI).The results are based on Accepted: April 2, 2019 Available online: the secondary data from 107 countries over a four year period (2014-2017), after controlling Gross April 2, 2019 Domestic Product per capita, innovativeness and trustworthiness. The result was in favor of the fixed effect model. The findings illustrate that institutional quality was consistently significant in Keywords: GDP fostering social progress. This study is unique in that, it is the first that examined the role of formal Governance institutional quality in promoting social progress at country level by using SPI as a measurement Institutional quality of social progress. Social progress Social development © 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada 1. Introduction Welfare, quality of life, happiness and wellbeing at country level are indicators used to measure a nation’s prosperity as oppose to Gross domestic product (GDP) (Osberg, 2001). Traditionally Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been utilized as an economic indicator in the context of social progress. GDP was considered the most effective method to measure the progress of a nation’s prosperity, and its develop- ment (Herrmann, 2012). Nonetheless, many academics posit the need to move away from economic growth indicators and prioritize equity and wellbeing. The GDP cannot be considered as a tool for as- sessing the performance of nations in the context of serving citizens (Osberg, 2001; Greve, 2017), as it focuses only on monetary aspects and excludes the social and environmental priorities of citizens lives (Fleurbaey, 2009). Furthermore, politicians have also recognized that GDP is no longer a sufficient tool in assessing societal progress as it was not originally developed to capture the social facet of develop- ment. For example in 2008, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy commissioned Joseph E. Stiglitz to chair a commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (Yee & Chang, 2011). The report conclusively determined that for governments to comprehend the performance of the economy and society, comprehensive indicators were needed to accurately assess wellbeing. Social Pro- gress is one of the modern concepts considered as a prosperity indicator that can fill the GDP deficiency, * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Almatarneh) © 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.002 1038 as a wellbeing and environmental indicator. Social progress is defined as “the capacity of society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their potential” (Social Progress Imperative, 2018). Countries have unique conditions, characteristics and features that may play an important role in many aspects of its prosperity. Prosperity can be classified economically and socially. In the context of eco- nomic development, institutions can be classified as formal and informal institutions (North 2006), they are considered crucial if they are defined as good or efficient institutions, which is based on the outcome quality measured by governance in six areas (voice and accountability, control of corruption, government effectiveness, political stability, rule of law and regulatory quality). Institutions proved it’s effective role in the area of foreign direct investment (Bailey, 2018; Bouchoucha & Benammou, 2018), entrepreneur- ship (Aparicio et al., 2016), and economic development (Knack & Keefer, 1995). Furthermore, good institutions can contribute to the social needs of citizens and societal progress. In the context of social development, the relationship between institutional quality and social development on society has been examined in the context of wellbeing (Bjørnskov et al., 2010; Helliwell & Huang, 2008), quality of life (Nikolova, 2016), and national happiness (Ott, 2010; Ott, 2011; Rode, 2013). As it is not enough to improve the monetary side of citizens lives, policymakers in developed countries have a clear under- standing of the importance of institutions in enhancing the output of their policies, which is evident in the findings of the SPI (2013-2018) over a six year period. Since the first edition of (SPI) in 2013, most of the attention has been given to measure this type of development, although little attention or empirical research in the area of the determinants has been conducted. Grounded in transaction cost theory and intuitional theory, we assume that institutions, through adopting good governance, will improve the economic development and act as a motive for policy makers to manage and invest rationally to improve citizens conditions and their progress in both aspects of devel- opment (economic and social). Furthermore institutional theory holds the view that institutions drive and shape the behavior of firms and individuals (Alsaad et al., 2018). The main purpose of this study was to examine the impact of institutional quality in enhancing social progress through examining if a country’s governance has a role in fostering its social progress position. To analyze the relationship between institutional factors and social progress at country level, a panel data method was utilized for 107 countries over four years from 2014 to 2017. This study contributes in dif- ferent ways: firstly, according to our knowledge this study is unique in that it is the first that examined the role of formal institutional quality in promoting social progress at country level by using (SPI) as a measurement of social progress. Secondly, the research was comprised of a large amount of data; con- sisting of 107 nations. Thirdly, the research employed principle component analysis (PCA) to summarize the shared variation of governance indices into one synthesis variable. Finally two types of controlling variables (economic factors consisted of GDP per capita and, social control variables represented by trustworthiness and innovativeness) were used. This paper is structured into four sections. Firstly it introduces the concept of social progress, institutions and institutional quality proxied by the World Governance Index. Secondly the research will describe the data and methodology used. Finally the results and findings are discussed with relevant conclusions made, research limitations and future research recommendations proposed. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Social Progress Social progress as defined by the Social Progress Imperative 2018 is “the capacity of society to meet the basic human needs of citizens, establish the building blocks that allow and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their potential”. In the same vein Este (1984) stated that the adequacy of social pro- vision “refers to the changing capacity of governments to provide for the basic social, material, and other N. Almatarneh and O. L. Emeagwali / Management Science Letters 9 (2019) 1039 needs of the people living within their borders for food, clothing, shelter, and access to at least basic health, education, and social services”. Citizen needs are recognized not only as material needs but as social needs as well (Estes & Morgan 1976). In relation to these needs, previous studies confirmed the deficiency of gross domestic product (GDP) as a tool to measure it (Osberg, 2001; Greve, 2016). The measurement of these needs using GDP is limited in scope and not comprehensive (Bečić et al., 2012) and is not considered a valuable tool in measuring social progress and society’s wellbeing (Greve, 2016; Decancq & Schokkaert, 2016). Although GDP deficiencies are evident it can still play an important role in assisting governments serve their citizens, as GDP is a tool used in assessing citizens quality of life (Sen, 1999; Agarwal & Samanta, 2006). The Social Progress Report (2017) shows that the relation- ship between GDP and social progress is bidirectional which means that the outcomes of social progress works as essential conditions for more productivity and, without good economic performance govern- ments lack the capacity to invest in health, education and technology, thus indicating an interdependent relationship. On the other hand, there is no correlation between economic growth and social progress (Agarwal & Samanta, 2006). To explain this contradiction we use the classifiction of policy makers of Bruno and Faggini (2017) which classified policymakers into two types: selfish policy makers and un- selfish policy makers. This classification reflects the relationship between economic growth and social progress and illustrates that a positive relationship exists in relation to unselfish policy makers only. 2.2 Social progress measurement Some