Two Approaches to Comparative Analysis: Political Economy and Statistics
On pages 32-35 of “The Great Danes: Successes and Subtleties of Corruption Control” (available on upload extra files) the author (who-ever he is) discusses the influence of global connectedness upon the quality of government, and specifically upon scores on the Gothenburg Impartiality Index. He concludes that while ethnic fractionalization and inequality (Gini index values) had appeared to be strong negative predictors of impartial government, greater global connectedness as a positive predictor is even more powerful. Based on the regression results presented on page 34, how did the author reach that conclusion? Do you agree? Why, or why not? Do the results on page 34 tend to support, or undermine, the standard version of good governance outlined (and criticized) by Andrews in “The Good Governance Agenda”? Why, or why not?
(while Ethnic Fractionalization and Inequality (Gini index) had been significant predictors, International Engagement emerges as a stronger predictor and, as it enters the equation in the table mentioned, leaves those two other independent variables as statistically insignificant predictors. Essentially, the question reduces to the regression result shown and discussed in the pages mentioned, and to the matter of specifically how those results suggest that International Engagement is the more powerful predictor of impartiality)