The Civilization of the State: Institutional Quality as a First Political Question

 Introduction

The conventional left–right debate asks whether the state should spend more or less, regulate more or less, and redistribute more or less. Those are real questions, but they are not the most basic ones. A state that is large but incompetent, arbitrary, or humiliating may betray social-democratic purposes; a state that is small but opaque, punitive, or clientelistic may betray liberal or conservative purposes. The more fundamental issue is therefore not simply the size of government but the quality of public institutions: whether they exercise coercive and administrative power competently, impartially, lawfully, accountably, and without domination or humiliation. In this essay I want to argue that the political-philosophical neglect of institutional quality arises from a historically persistent separation between “politics” as the choice of collective ends and “administration” as the supposedly neutral execution of those ends. Against that separation, institutional quality should be treated as a primary object of political philosophy.

Keywords: quality of government, state capacity, public administration, non-domination, procedural justice, administrative burden, institutional trust, humane bureaucracy.

1. The question wrongly framed as “more state” versus “less state”

The debate about government is often reduced to fiscality: one side speaks of cutting expenditure, taxation, and bureaucracy; the other speaks of expanding public provision, social rights, and collective investment. Yet fiscal size is an input, not a sufficient account of political legitimacy. A poorly designed welfare agency can humiliate citizens while spending generously; an underfunded court, tax authority, or inspection service can produce domination through delay, opacity, and arbitrary discretion. Conversely, a competent and capable administration can sometimes reduce both cost and suffering by preventing errors, simplifying procedures, and resolving cases early.

The central claim is therefore this: the quality of the state is not a secondary managerial question but a primary constitutional and moral question. Government is not only a mechanism for allocating money or implementing policy. It is also the organized form in which citizens encounter public power. A citizen does not meet “the state” abstractly; the individual citizen meets a tax letter, a police officer, a benefits form, an immigration interview, a school inspector, a court clerk, a municipal counter, a digital portal, or an algorithmic decision. If those encounters are confusing, contemptuous, arbitrary, or uncorrectable, the state becomes alienating even when its declared policy goals are defensible.

This is why “quality of government” cannot be reduced to efficiency in the narrow sense of spending less. Bo Rothstein and Jan Teorell’s influential formulation defines quality of government as the impartial exercise of government authority, thereby shifting attention from ideological size to the manner in which public authority is exercised (Rothstein & Teorell, 2008). Fukuyama similarly distinguishes governance from democratic choice alone and emphasizes state capacity and bureaucratic autonomy as core dimensions of executive quality (Fukuyama, 2013). The OECD’s trust framework likewise treats reliability, responsiveness, integrity, openness, and fairness as drivers of institutional trust rather than treating trust as a mere function of spending levels (OECD, 2024).

The issue is thus not whether government is “big” or “small” in the abstract. The issue is whether public power is civilized: capable enough to act, restrained enough not to dominate, intelligible enough to be challenged, and humane enough not to humiliate.

2. Why political philosophy has underexposed institutional quality

The political-philosophical reason for this neglect is partly historical. Modern political theory was largely organized around three great questions: sovereignty, rights, and distribution. The sovereignty question asks who may rule. The rights question asks what limits may be imposed on rule. The distribution question asks how goods, burdens, opportunities, and risks should be allocated. These are indispensable questions. But they often leave underdeveloped a fourth question: what kind of institutions are required to exercise public power well?

1. Classical liberalism, socialism, conservatism, republicanism, Christian democracy, and social democracy all contain theories of institutional order, but modern party politics tends to translate them into fiscal or policy positions. Liberals and conservatives often worry that the state will overreach; socialists, Christian democrats,  and social democrats often worry that markets and private power will abandon the vulnerable. Both anxieties are justified. Yet both can miss the fact that citizens may be harmed not only by too much or too little state activity, but by badly organized state activity.
2. A second cause is the politics–administration distinction. Woodrow Wilson’s “The Study of Administration” made administration a distinct object of inquiry, famously describing administration as “government in action” (Wilson, 1887). Frank J. Goodnow later distinguished politics as the expression of the state’s will and administration as its execution (Goodnow, 1900). This distinction helped create public administration as a field, but it also encouraged a dangerous philosophical habit: treating administration as a technical afterthought once the “real” political choices have been made.That habit is misleading. The execution of law is not morally neutral. To administer is to classify, prioritize, delay, inspect, grant, deny, sanction, explain, simplify, complicate, forgive, or punish. Michael Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy showed that frontline public workers often function as practical policy-makers because they must interpret rules under scarcity and uncertainty (Lipsky, 1980). Evelyn Z. Brodkin later challenged the assumption that the manner of policy work is irrelevant so long as performance targets are met, arguing that managerial systems shape discretion and the lived meaning of policy (Brodkin, 2011).
3. A third cause is the partial success and partial distortion of Weberian bureaucracy. Max Weber identified the modern bureaucracy as an instrument of rational-legal authority: hierarchical, rule-bound, specialized, and formally impersonal (Weber, 2013). That model was a civilizational achievement when compared with patrimonialism, corruption, and personal rule. But formal rationality can become inhumane when it treats persons only as cases, files, risks, or compliance problems. The very features that protect against favoritism - rules, files, hierarchy, impersonality - can, if uncorrected, produce indifference, opacity, and humiliation.
4. A fourth cause is the rise of “new public management” as a reform idiom. Christopher Hood’s classic account described new public management (NPM) as a cluster of doctrines emphasizing performance measurement, managerial discretion, disaggregation, competition, and cost control (Hood, 1991). Such reforms sometimes corrected genuine bureaucratic rigidity. But when efficiency is translated into narrow output metrics, the moral texture of administration disappears: whether citizens understood the process, had voice, received reasons, could appeal, or were treated with dignity.

The underlying philosophical error is therefore the instrumentalization of institutions. Politics is treated as the realm of values; administration as the realm of means. But institutions are not morally inert means. They are the place where public values become real or false.

Note: Patrimonialism is a form of governance where all political power flows directly from a single leader, and the state's resources are treated as the leader's personal property. In this system, the boundaries between the public interest and the private interests of the ruler blur or disappear entirely.

Note: Theories of institutional order explain how societies establish, maintain, and transform the shared rules, norms, and structures that govern human behavior and prevent social chaos. The left and right theories of institutional order differ fundamentally on how social institutions - such as governments, markets, legal systems, and traditions - should be structured to manage human society. The core division centers on whether institutions should actively promote egalitarianism and progressive reform (the Left) or preserve social hierarchies, stability, and historical traditions (the Right).

3. Institutional quality as a condition of freedom

The quality of government matters because state power is coercive even when benevolent. It taxes, licenses, inspects, educates, imprisons, regulates, certifies, subsidizes, excludes, and recognizes. A citizen cannot simply “exit” the state in the way one might leave a private association. This makes institutional quality a condition of freedom.

Republican political theory is especially useful here. Philip Pettit defines freedom not merely as non-interference but as non-domination: being protected from arbitrary power (Pettit, 1999). A government may dominate citizens not only by directly interfering with them, but by holding unchecked discretionary power over them. The citizen who depends on an opaque agency, an unexplained decision, an unreachable official, or an unappealable algorithm is not fully free even if the eventual outcome is favorable. A citizen lives under power he or she cannot contest (e.g. "Der Prozeß" from Franz Kafka).

This republican insight complements Rawlsian and Habermasian legitimacy. John Rawls’s political liberalism holds that coercive political power must be justifiable to citizens regarded as free and equal (Rawls, 2005). Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory similarly connects legitimacy with law-making and administration that can be publicly justified through reasons rather than mere force or bureaucratic command (Habermas, 1998). The quality of institutions therefore concerns not only whether government achieves desired outputs, but whether citizens can understand, contest, and recognize the authority exercised over them.

Avishai Margalit’s concept of a “decent society” sharpens the point. For Margalit, a decent society is one whose institutions do not humiliate the people subject to them (Margalit, 1996). This is crucial: humiliation is not merely a psychological inconvenience. It is a political injury. It tells citizens that they stand before power as inferiors, supplicants, suspects, or burdens. A state may formally recognize rights while administratively degrading the persons who try to claim them.

The moral minimum of public institutions is therefore not only legality but dignified legality. A lawful but contemptuous institution is not yet a just institution. A formally equal but practically inaccessible procedure is not yet a fair procedure. A benefits system that grants entitlements only after months of confusion, repeated proof demands, and suspicion may comply with statute while violating the deeper civic meaning of equal citizenship.

4. Institutional quality as a condition of effectiveness

Institutional quality is also an effectiveness condition. Even the best policy design fails if institutions cannot implement it. Douglass North’s institutional economics defined institutions as the “rules of the game” that structure incentives and expectations (North, 1990). Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson argued that institutional differences are fundamental causes of long-run development because they shape incentives, security, and participation (Acemoglu et al., 2005). Timothy Besley and Torsten Persson similarly emphasize state capacities - fiscal, legal, and administrative - as pillars of prosperity (Besley & Persson, 2011).

Empirical public administration research supports this. Peter Evans and James E. Rauch found that Weberian bureaucratic features such as meritocratic recruitment and predictable careers in core economic agencies were associated with stronger growth in their cross-national analysis (Evans & Rauch, 1999). The World Bank’s World Development Report 2017 emphasizes that policy effectiveness depends not only on formal policy choice but on institutions that secure commitment, coordination, and cooperation, while power asymmetries can produce exclusion, capture, and clientelism (World Bank, 2017).

This has an important implication: competence is not technocratic decoration; it is a justice condition. Rights without administrative capacity are paper promises. Equality before the law without competent and capable courts, interpreters, legal aid, and timely procedures is symbolic. Social rights without accessible agencies are fictive. Market freedom without competent regulators may become domination by private power. Tax justice without reliable fiscal administration becomes evasion by the strong and resentment by the compliant.

Still, effectiveness must be carefully defined. Francis Fukuyama warns against measuring governance only by outputs because outputs depend partly on policy goals and external conditions, not simply bureaucratic quality (Fukuyama, 2013). A government can achieve a chosen output through oppressive means; another can fail despite competent administration because the task is intrinsically hard. Institutional quality therefore combines capacity with normative constraints: the ability to act, but also the discipline to act lawfully, impartially, and humanely.

5. What makes public power just rather than alienating?

Public institutions exercise power justly when they satisfy at least nine institutional conditions:

1. First, they must be law-governed. Officials should act under high quality public rules, not personal preference, party loyalty, corruption, or informal pressure. Legal predictability protects citizens against arbitrary treatment.
2. Second, they must be impartial. Bo Rothstein and Jan Teorell’s account is persuasive because impartiality captures a core requirement of public authority: when implementing law and policy, officials should not favor or burden persons on grounds irrelevant to the public purpose (Quality of Government (QoG) (Rothstein & Teorell, 2008). Impartiality does not mean blindness to vulnerability; reasonable accommodation may be required for substantive fairness. But it does rule out clientelism, corruption, prejudice, and partisan administration. 
3. Third, institutions must be competent. Competence includes expertise, adequate staffing, reliable information systems, institutional memory, training, coordination, and realistic workloads. A state that demands humane treatment while starving agencies of capacity often produces the opposite: rushed decisions, defensive routines, backlogs, errors, and burnout.
4. Fourth, they must be procedurally just. Tom R. Tyler’s work on legal authority shows that people’s willingness to accept authority depends strongly on perceived fairness, voice, neutrality, respectful treatment, and trustworthy motives (Tyler, 2006). Margaret Levi, Audrey Sacks, and Tom R. Tyler similarly connect legitimacy with citizens’ willingness to comply, grounded in perceptions of trustworthy and procedurally fair government (Levi et al., 2009).
5. Fifth, they must be explainable. Citizens should know what rule applies, what evidence mattered, why a decision was made, what alternatives exist, and how to appeal. Unexplained power is experienced as fate. Reason-giving transforms command into accountable authority.
6. Sixth, they must be contestable. Non-domination requires remedies: internal review, ombuds institutions, courts, auditors, parliamentary oversight, freedom of information, and independent inspection. A right without a practical route of challenge is not institutionally secure.
7. Seventh, they must be low-burden by design. Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd, and Hope Harvey conceptualize administrative burden as learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs in citizen–state interactions (Moynihan et al., 2015). These burdens are not neutral frictions; they shape who receives rights and services. Herd and Moynihan later argue that administrative burdens often disproportionately harm those with fewer resources (Herd & Moynihan, 2018).
8. Eighth, they must be learning institutions. A just state must be able to detect error, revise procedures, compare outcomes, learn from frontline experience, and correct systemic failure. Charle F. Sabel and William F. Simon’s work on experimentalist public law and Sabel and Jonathan Zeitlin’s work on experimentalist governance emphasize iterative problem-solving, benchmarking, and revision under conditions of complexity (Sabel & Simon, 2004; Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008). Elinor Ostrom’s polycentric approach similarly values experimentation, local knowledge, and multiple centers of initiative rather than assuming that one centralized design can solve all collective problems (Ostrom, 2010).
9. Ninth, they must be respectful. Respect is not ornamental courtesy. It is a public law virtue. It requires communication that is intelligible, non-stigmatizing, and proportionate; physical and digital spaces that do not degrade users; and frontline cultures that treat citizens neither as customers to be managed nor as suspects to be disciplined, but as co-members of a political community.

6. How to create competent, humane, reliable, learning, and responsible institutions

The construction of such institutions requires more than slogans about “efficiency.” It requires institutional architecture:

1. A first reform principle is professionalized public service with democratic accountability. Merit recruitment, career stability, training, and professional norms protect administration from patronage and short-term political manipulation. But professional autonomy must not become bureaucratic insulation. The proper balance is autonomy from partisan capture combined with accountability to law, evidence, democratic authorization, and citizen review.
2. A second principle is administrative burden auditing. Every major public program should be assessed not only for fiscal cost and policy output, but for the burdens it imposes on citizens: How hard is it to learn about the service? How many documents are required? How many contacts are needed? How long are delays? Are vulnerable citizens disproportionately deterred? Are forms written for lawyers or for ordinary people? This turns dignity into an operational criterion.
3. A third principle is procedural justice as a design standard. Public bodies should institutionalize voice, neutrality, respectful treatment, and reason-giving. That means clear notices, accessible hearings, multilingual communication where necessary, trained frontline discretion, and appeal routes that are not merely theoretical.
4. A fourth principle is feedback from the frontline and from citizens. Street-level workers often know where rules fail, where digital systems produce absurdity, and where policy assumptions collide with lived reality. Citizens know where institutions confuse, delay, or humiliate. Learning institutions must therefore create protected channels for error reporting, citizen complaints, participatory redesign, and policy revision.
5. A fifth principle is public value management. Mark Moore argues that public managers should focus on creating public value from assets entrusted to them by the public, including money and legal authority (Moore, 1995). This is superior to both narrow rule-following and narrow cost-cutting. Public value asks whether institutional action is substantively valuable, democratically authorized, and operationally feasible.
6. A sixth principle is collaborative and polycentric governance where appropriate. Chris Ansell and Alison Gash define collaborative governance as arrangements in which public agencies engage non-state stakeholders in consensus-oriented decision-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008). This is not a universal substitute for hierarchy; courts, taxation, policing, and rights enforcement require authoritative decision. But for complex problems - poverty, climate adaptation, public health, urban planning, youth services - institutions often need structured collaboration with affected communities and professional networks.
7. A seventh principle is integrity infrastructure. Anti-corruption bodies, transparent procurement, conflict-of-interest rules, audit institutions, whistleblower protection, and open data are not bureaucratic luxuries. They protect the public from capture and protect honest officials from corrupt systems.
8. An eighth principle is constitutional humility. Institutions should assume that they will err. The question is not whether errors occur, but whether they are detectable, correctable, and acknowledged. A humane state apologizes, repairs, compensates, and learns.

7. Counterarguments

1. A first counterargument says that size still matters because a larger state necessarily creates more opportunities for domination. This is partly true. More public functions can mean more points of coercive contact. But the inference is incomplete. A weak or minimal state can also dominate through neglect, delay, under-enforcement, privatized coercion, or inability to protect citizens from powerful private actors. The problem is not only quantity of state action but arbitrariness, opacity, and incapacity.
2. A second counterargument says that “efficiency” is often a euphemism for austerity. This is also often true. But it shows why efficiency must be normatively reconstructed. Humane efficiency does not mean fewer officials doing more work under pressure. It means fewer errors, fewer pointless forms, fewer delays, fewer degrading interactions, fewer contradictory databases, fewer unnecessary appeals, and fewer costs shifted onto citizens. Efficiency properly understood is not the enemy of dignity; it is one of dignity’s administrative conditions.
3. A third counterargument says that institutional quality is technocratic and distracts from democratic struggle over values. That objection is serious but not decisive. Institutional quality cannot replace politics; citizens must still debate taxation, welfare, migration, climate, security, property, and redistribution. But democratic decisions are betrayed if the institutions that implement them are incompetent or cruel. Institutional quality is therefore not anti-political. It is the condition under which democratic politics becomes practically real.
4. A fourth counterargument says that humane administration may undermine impartiality by giving officials too much discretion. The answer is not to abolish discretion, which is impossible, but to discipline it. Discretion should be bounded by reasons, review, training, equality norms, documentation, and appeal. Mechanical rule application can be as unjust as arbitrary discretion when it ignores context, disability, language, trauma, or vulnerability.

Conclusion: the state as a moral instrument

The quality of government is the most underdeveloped central question of modern politics because it sits between categories that political ideology usually separates: morality and management, rights and paperwork, legitimacy and service delivery, freedom and administration. But this separation is false. Public institutions are not merely instruments that execute justice after political theory has defined it. They are part of justice itself.

A civilized state is not simply a small state or a large state. It is a state whose institutions are capable, impartial, intelligible, corrigible, and respectful. It exercises power without turning citizens into supplicants. It administers rules without forgetting persons. It learns from failure without hiding behind procedure. It protects equality without flattening human circumstance. It is strong enough to govern and restrained enough not to dominate.

Thus the fundamental political question is not only “How much government should there be?” nor even “What should government do?” It is also: What must government be like in order to exercise public power justly? A society that cannot answer that question may win elections, pass laws, and balance budgets, yet still fail at the deeper task of governing human beings as free and equal citizens.

References

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 1A, pp. 385–472). Elsevier.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2011). Pillars of prosperity: The political economics of development clusters. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691152684

Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl. 2), i253–i277.

Evans, P., & Rauch, J. E. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–765. 

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.

Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. Macmillan.

Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press. Original work published 1992. ISBN: 9780262581622

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354–375.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.

Margalit, A. (1996). The decent society. Harvard University Press.

Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.

Moynihan, D. P., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2024). OECD survey on drivers of trust in public institutions-2024 results: Building trust in a complex policy environment. OECD Publishing.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.

Pettit, P. (1999). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780198296423

Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). Columbia University Press. Original work published 1993. ISBN: 9780231130899

Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.

Sabel, C. F., & Simon, W. H. (2004). Destabilization rights: How public law litigation succeeds. Harvard Law Review, 117(4), 1015–1101.

Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14(3), 271–327.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, University Press. ISBN: 9780691126739

Weber, M. (2013). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. ISBN: 9780520280021

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.

World Bank. (2017). World development report 2017: Governance and the law. World Bank.

Peter Van Osta. A Philosophical Journey.