Draft:Corruption and Purity

Quality of Government (QoG)
The Quality of Government (QoG) is a school of thought born in the University of Gothenburg, which includes thinkers such as Bo Rothstein, Soren Holmberg, Andreas Bagenholm, and Marcia Grimes, among others, was greatly influenced by the political thought of John Rawls, and the “Institutional Turn” of Social Sciences, which focus on the understanding, analysis, and study of institutions that conform the government through which we ought to exercise power in an impartial way to promote the well-being of citizens—opening important avenues of study of institutions, corruption, redistribution, and power.

Based on the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, this school of thought, is intrinsically linked with the Quality of Government Institute, founded in 2004  by Bo Rothstein and Soren Holmberg. It is still actively promoting dialogue, research, and publishing. It’s latest and essential work, collaborating to create “The Oxford Handbook on the Quality of Government” published in 2021. Dr. Rothstein defines the QoG as “The Quality of Government as the extent to which government power is exercised in a manner consistent with the norm of impartiality.”

Influences
Many political scientists of the 20th century influenced this project, mainly the works on Justice and Institutions. Firstly, as many social scientists at the core of this movement, we can find traces of the “Theory of Justice” of John Rawls and the “Justice as Impartiality” of Brian Barry. Both books shaped how impartiality, institutions, and justice became fundamental for this school of thought. Another significant influence was the “Institutional Turn” of social sciences in the 1990s, which pursued the idea of bringing back the focus on institutions and the way they influence society, with publications such as James B. March and Johan P. Olsen’s "Rediscovering Institutions", Douglass C. North "Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance" , and Elinor Ostrom’s "Governing the Commons". One of the main characteristics of their work is the focus set on the “rules of the game,” or how the ethos, composition, and framework of institutions change the rules by which all actors in society act.

Framework
The QoG sees the institutional framework as essential to understanding the foundation of social evils such as poverty, corruption, inequality, and redistribution. As explored by Holmberg and Rothstein, “Without a reasonably high level of institutional quality, representative democracy is not likely to deliver increased human well-being.” In other words, even though a state can have free and fair elections and access to a representation of citizens through different democratic tools, it does not necessarily translate into fulfilling well-being and good life for citizens. The strength or weaknesses and “set-up” of institutions can significantly impact the provision of well-being.

Social trust and people's satisfaction with their lives are some of the most apparent ways of recognizing how institutions provide well-being to citizens. Firstly, social trust is closely linked with the idea of impartiality, a fundamental part of the QoG, in which when the exercise of public power is used in a way that does not discriminate, gives preference, and is maintained based on the rules set by institutions, this influence the level of in which citizens trust and engage in the system. Secondly, satisfaction can be seen in the way QoG increases democratic quality and performance in the defense of citizens' rights, safety, and economic performance.

So, by turning to “normative standards on the exercise of government power...” the QoG has opened the door to new avenues for studying institutions, corruption, and power. Focusing on the institutions that exercise power and resources and try to understand key mechanisms and considerations that are fundamental for providing social good and well-being to the citizens. The approach brings to the surface synergies and conflicts between “democracy and the qualities of the state apparatuses that are responsible for the implementation of public policies.”