Does bureaucratic performance vary across authoritarian regimes?

2022

Full text Open access: Green Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1080/23276665.2022.2026794
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article considers the performance of bureaucracies in two authoritarian states located in Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The former has been a consolidated authoritarian regime since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The latter has oscillated between a form of parliamentary democracy and authoritarianism. We examine how the countries’ bureaucracies perform under different systems of governance and find that Kazakhstan is more effective given its relatively stable political context, higher level of professionalism, and greater policy capacity amongst its officials, notwithstanding its consistent authoritarian leadership. When politicians interfere in the work of officials, it results in lower impartiality and constitutional uncertainty. This finding reaffirms previous research (using Quality of Government survey data) which calls for the separation of political and bureaucratic roles as a way of improving government effectiveness and reducing corruption.