New York/DNA (OTE) – A newly released study of US state government
performance found
strong partisan and regional patterns within three pillars of
governance: democratic accountability, state capacity and public
goods provision. Yet, the US states’ outcomes differ in important
ways from international comparisons, as the three governance
dimensions show limited correlation, the researchers found.
The report, “ The Governance Performance of the Fifty States: The
U.S. Berggruen Governance Index” , applies the research team’s
“governance triangle” from past global country rankings to the 50 US
states. The report has now been presented to the public at Columbia
University in New York.
“Unlike in the Berggruen Governance Index’s cross-national
comparisons, where the three dimensions are broadly correlated, in
the 50 U.S. states they often run counter to each other,” the authors
conclude. “This may seem counterintuitive, as one might expect a well
-governed state to finish high on all three and a poorly governed one
to place low across all three.”
The report concluded that state capacity and public goods
provision are “essentially uncorrelated.” Massachusetts, which has
among the highest per capita incomes, was third in public goods but
49th in state capacity. Mining and agriculture-dependent Wyoming was
36th in public goods provision but No. 1 in state capacity.
– Public goods provision , which combines quality-of-life metrics
such as health and educational outcomes with infrastructure and quasi
-public goods that are often delivered by the private sector, saw
four of the top five from the Northeast, while the bottom seven were
in the South. All but one of the top 16 states were won by Democratic
nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 US presidential election. Nineteen
of the bottom 20 went to Donald Trump.
– Democratic accountability measures election procedures, which vary
widely among states, along with scores for civil society activity and
government openness. These include among others lobbying disclosures
and state auditor independence. The top 12 states were a geographical
mix of the West, Northeast and Midwest. Nine of that dozen voted for
Harris, though the state with the highest score was reliably
Republican Montana. The 10 lowest-ranked states were all Southern,
and the bottom 20 were all won by Trump in 2024.
– State capacity foremost indicates debt levels, along with budget
processes and effective welfare-state delivery such as unemployment
insurance. The top-ranked states were geographically diversified, but
no Northeastern state was among the top 12. All major regions were
represented in the bottom 10, including notoriously debt-laden Rhode
Island, Illinois, Connecticut and New Jersey.
The three components produce four state groupings identified by
the authors:
– 14 fiscally sound and delivering states , which are half Republican
and half Democratic and swing states, based on the 2024 presidential
race.
– 16 strained but delivering states , which are mostly Democratic.
– Nine fiscally strong but poorly served states , almost entirely
Republican.
– 11 low performing states , including only one Democratic state.
The report was written by principal investigator Helmut K.
Anheier with co-authors Joseph C. Saraceno and Edward L. Knudsen, all
of the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, and produced as a
collaboration of the Luskin School with the Berlin-based Hertie
School, supported by the Berggruen Institute, a Los Angeles think
tank.
During a panel discussion held with the release of the report at
Columbia University, economic historian Adam Tooze focused on the
states with poor scores for provision of public goods. He pointed out
that for many public goods that in Europe are assumed to be state-
led, such as health care, education and utilities, in the US the
private sector has a greater role.
“If you look at all of the states which are underperforming, it’s
the South, and the variable that’s operating here is race,” said
Tooze, a Columbia professor. “The reason why these states don’t have
large-scale public services is that white people who are richer don’t
want to pay taxes to redistribute income to black people. And it’s
not a secret; it’s the logic of American politics.”
Among the 11 low performing states, the very worst performers are
in the South: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Kentucky.
Joseph C. Saraceno said that the 14 states classified in the
report as fiscally sound and delivering “provide a moderate level of
public goods while also having state capacity, or this measure of
fiscal room that they find to be comfortable, or have a rainy day
fund as needed.”
The group of fiscally strong, poorly served states have strong
balance sheets but little to show for it in quality of life.
Arkansas, for example, ranks seventh in state capacity but 46th in
public goods provision. Tooze said those states have better fiscal
resilience and “rank high on their capacity score because basically
they’ve never done anything. So unsurprisingly, when push comes to
shove, they could do something if one supposed they had politics that
would allow them to.”
Edward Knudsen, another researcher who worked on the previous
global versions of the Berggruen Governance Index, pointed out that
the strained but delivering states are heavily traditionally
Democratic Party states that also score higher for democratic
accountability. “In a lot of the Democratic leaning states, you have
more ability for the population to demand public goods. They in turn
are able to receive them. That places this fiscal stress,” Knudsen
said.
The full report “ The Governance Performance of the Fifty States:
The U.S. Berggruen Governance Index” can be downloaded here:
https://ucla.app.box.com/s/hcruhr43fyhfw0uondid2e6fviqopmww
Frank Fuhrig, DNA
————————-
This text and the accompanying material (photos and graphics) are
an offer from the Democracy News Alliance, a close co-operation
between Agence France-Presse (AFP, France), Agenzia Nazionale Stampa
Associata (ANSA, Italy), The Canadian Press (CP, Canada), Deutsche
Presse-Agentur (dpa, Germany) and Press Association (PA, United
Kingdom). All recipients can use this material without the need for a
separate subscription agreement with one or more of the participating
agencies. This includes the recipient’s right to publish the material
in own products.
The DNA content is an independent journalistic service that
operates separately from the other services of the participating
agencies. It is produced by editorial units that are not involved in
the production of the agencies‘ main news services. Nevertheless, the
editorial standards of the agencies and their assurance of completely
independent, impartial and unbiased reporting also apply here.
