Актуальные проблемы Европы №2 / 2014. Коллектив авторов
the European Commission formulated a new «European Neighbourhood Policy» (ENP) that «aims to create a «ring of friends» around the EU by actively promoting democratic political and legal reform and economic liberalization in sixteen European and Mediterranean countries» (2). Although the ENP’s sixteen «ring of friends» included the non-Mediterranean nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Jordan, Moldova, Palestinian Territories (Gaza on the Mediterranean but a special case), and Ukraine, they are not included in this study, which is limited to the diverse twenty-two Mediterranean countries. According to a «2008 GO-EuroMed report», «The region remains differentiated in terms of political governance, mainly in terms of differing ideologies and the establishment of autocratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian regimes. Obstacles to building confidence are more political than cultural, as conflicts are aggravated by a lack of trust among Arab leaders rather than the general population in the “Arab street”» (6, p. 38).
Various GO-EuroMed documents stress the importance of «governance» in Mediterranean countries, especially those not in the EU, usually without defining what «governance» means. Russian scholar Mikhail Ilyin finds that it is not a clear and coherent concept, saying that «A host of fuzzy meanings have resulted in an undifferentiated semantical overlap. <…> The term, nowadays, may be seen to encapsulate a variety of modes of coordinating individual action, or basic forms of social order (7, p. 4). For example, a report of the «Institut de la Méditerranée» (Mediterranean Institute) said: «Governance can be defined as coordination between government, local and regional authorities, multilateral organizations but also private actors, companies and NGOs, coordination that results in public policies, decisions and projects» (10, p. 11).
Unfortunately, this definition is not very useful. By equating governance with «coordination», one is led to think, «the better the coordination, the better the governance». By definition, that would be true, regardless of how well the policies, decisions, and projects benefited the people being governed. Moreover, it is not at all clear how one can measure «coordination between government, local and regional authorities» and the other sets of actors.
Instead, I define country governance as the extent to which a state delivers to its citizens the desired benefits of government at acceptable costs (9, p. 3–18). By defining governance in terms of benefits to citizens rather than coordination among units, we can assess the quality of governance by using standard measures, such as the World Bank’s six Worldwide Governance Indicators:
1. Rule of Law (RL) – capturing perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence;
2. Voice and Accountability (VA) – capturing perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media;
3. Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (PV) – capturing perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including politically‐motivated violence and terrorism;
4. Government Effectiveness (GE) – capturing perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies;
5. Regulatory Quality (RQ) – capturing perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development;
6. Control of Corruption (CC) – capturing perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as «capture» of the state by elites and private interests (10).
All of these indicators are important, but the first, the Rule of Law, is especially important. One scholar writing on the «Euro-Mediterranean partnership» wrote: «At the macro level, donor agencies have increasingly realized that programmes promoting good governance and the rule of law are vital in creating the type of environment in which the benefits of social programmes can reach the most vulnerable» (4, p. 348).
He quotes a United Nations publication that said: «Development is unsustainable where the rule of law and equity do not exist» (8, p. 6).
This study examines how all twenty-two Mediterranean countries differ on the sole Worldwide Governance Indicator, Rule of Law (RL). RL scores for 214 countries in 2011, collected under the auspices of the World Bank, are freely available on the Internet (17). The scores were normed so that the mean (average) for all 214 countries was 0 and the standard deviation was 1. Positive scores above 0 indicated that the nation scored above average on Rule of Law, while negative scores indicated below average scores.
In 2011, Finland had the highest score of +1.96, with seven other nations above +1.8. Somalia had the lowest score at –2.35. For further reference, Russia’s score was –0.78 and the United States scored +1.59. The distribution of scores for 214 nations is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Distribution of 214 polities on Rule of Law in 2011
This study focuses on the 22 Mediterranean countries – including Portugal. It compares the 2011 Rule of Law for countries north of the Mediterranean Sea with those to the south and east. It also compares RL scores for Mediterranean countries in the European Union, for those seeking EU membership, for those entirely out of the EU, and for all non-Mediterranean EU countries. The 9 EU Mediterranean countries averaged +0.93 on Rule of Law, below the +1.2 average of the 19 EU countries outside the Mediterranean. The 4 EU applicant countries scored –0.17 on RL, and the 9 countries not in the EU averaged –0.24. The data for all 41 Mediterranean and EU countries are plotted in Figure 3.
Figure 3.2011 RL Scores for Mediterranean countries, by EU Status
Figure 3 shows that EU members generally scored higher on Rule of Law in 2011 than the other countries, but two member states (Romania and Bulgaria) scored about the same as the EU applicants. All nine Mediterranean EU members scored higher on Rule of Law as a group than the non-EU countries – with the exception of Monaco and Israel. Tiny Monaco, by location and heritage a European polity, even adopted the Euro for its currency. The «External Action Service» of the EU is studying how it might incorporate «microstates» like Monaco, Andorra, and San Marino, but has not decided how (15). Israel, it might be argued, is by heritage a European country, but it is not by location. Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents political problems for the EU. Israel has attracted special attention in the EU’s «neighbourhood policy» (3).
All four EU applicants among the Mediterranean countries rated lower in Rule of Law than the nine already in the EU, but the small differences between Croatia at the bottom of the EU scores and the Rule of Law scores for Turkey and Montenegro fall short of statistical significance for the Worldwide Governance Indicators (10, p. 11). Clearly, however, the seven Arab nations (all in Africa except Lebanon) as a group rate below all the European countries, regardless of their EU status.
The XVIII century French philosopher Charles-Louis Montesquieu might explain differences between European and African countries in Rule of Law by differences in climate. He wrote that «passions disclose themselves earlier» in «warm climates»9. Northern European countries score higher in Rule of Law than African countries, he might say, because of climatic differences. The temperate European climate, presumably, favors rational development of rule of law in public affairs, while the hot African climate produces hot-blooded politics and authoritarian government. Long before Montesquieu wrote, however, inhabitants in the mild climates of today’s European territories were mired in ignorance during the «middle ages» of the V through the XV centuries,