Impact of Local Governance Quality on Economic Development
Authors
Assistant Professor- Stage III Department of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Economics St Aloysius (Deemed to be University) Mangalore-575003 (India)
Deputy Manager HR Nitte (Deemed to be University) Derlakatte, Mangalore-575018 (India)
Article Information
DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1304000202
Subject Category: Economics
Volume/Issue: 13/4 | Page No: 2365-2370
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-04-22
Accepted: 2026-04-28
Published: 2026-05-15
Abstract
Historically, good governance has been seen as a significant factor, or building block, of a longer-term and sustainable economy; however, the effects of good governance on the experiences of ordinary citizens living in secondary cities in India remain largely unexplored. This research examines how individuals who have benefited from urban development programmes in Mangalore (Mangaluru), Dakshina Kannada District, Karnataka, perceive their local government, as well as whether those perceptions can be linked to measurable improvements in their economic well-being. Through a stratified random sample of 400 beneficiaries of the Mangaluru Smart City Mission, PMAY-U, DAY-NULM, and related projects (2024-2025), the WGI framework developed by the World Bank was used to assess and adapt six Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI’s) to the local context of Mangaluru. Additionally, a composite governance index was established, as well as an economic development index (EDI) including indicators of income growth, job stability, asset accumulation, and access to credit.A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design was employed. Primary data came from a bilingual, pre-tested questionnaire administered in person and through mobile-assisted interviewing between January and March 2025. Secondary data were sourced from the (Karnataka, 2026), Mangalore City Corporation reports, and district statistical handbooks. Reliability was robust (Cronbach’s α > 0.82), and validity was established through expert review and exploratory factor analysis (KMO = 0.89).
Responders bore very positive impressions of all three components of local governmental processes ([mean composite rating = 3.68/5). Most highly regarded by the respondents were the constructs: effectiveness of government and control of corruption. Ordered multiple linear regression analysis, after controlling for various socio-demographic variables, shows an increase of one unit in the composite measure of local governance is correlated to an increase of 0.42 units on the Economic Development Index (EDI) (β = 0.42, p < .001) and accounts for 58% of the variance. Effectiveness of government (β = 0.221) and control of corruption (β = 0.236) are both the two strongest predictors of the EDI score. Additionally, a significant positive bivariate correlation exists between the all adaptations of the World Governance Indicator Constructs (correlation coefficient range = r = 0.41-0.68).
The study results support the theoretical perspectives (North 1990; Acemoglu & Robinson 2012) of inclusive institutions being important, and similarly extend the Indian literature base (Vashistha & Bishnoi, 2025; Mallick 2023) to secondary urban cities. These findings are also consistent with the current evaluations of the Smart Cities Mission which suggest a need for implementation focused on the citizen beyond infrastructure (Government of India, 2025). In addition, it provides policymakers recommendations that include the use of digital transparency tools, conducting annual social audits, building capacity to urban local authorities and implementing performance-based funding through Smart Cities Mission 2.0. Although the limitations of cross-sectional data and self-reporting exist, the findings offer concrete evidence for improving urban governance in Karnataka's tier-II cities.
Keywords
Local governance, Economic development
Downloads
References
1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Ananthpur, K. (2006). Dynamics of local governance in Karnataka. Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Inbanathan, A. (2009). Local governance, patronage and accountability in Karnataka. Institute for Social and Economic Change Working Paper. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430). World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Mallick, H. (2023). An assessment of public confidence in governance and economic development across Indian states. Regional Science Perspectives, 3, Article 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsap.2023.100023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. (2025). Making a city smart: Learnings from the Smart Cities Mission. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Rao, M. G. (2025). Economic growth and development of Karnataka. National Council of Applied Economic Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Singh, N. (2024). Theories of governance and development: How does India’s experience fit? India Review, 23(3), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2382596 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Sukarno, M. (2023). E-Government Development Index impact on World Governance Indicator Index in Southeast Asian countries. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 4(1), 106–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Taraporevala, Z. (2017). India’s Smart Cities Mission: An assessment (ORF Occasional Paper). Observer Research Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Vashistha, A., & Bishnoi, C. R. (2025). Good governance, economic growth, and human development in India: A frequency domain causality analysis. Aarthika Charche, 10(1), 5–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. World Bank. (2025). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: 2025 methodology revision. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Government of Karnataka. (2026). (Karnataka, 2026). Directorate of Economics and Statistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in India
- Issues Involved in Digitalisation Special Reference to Indian Tourism Growth
- Relationship Marketing and Customer Loyalty in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Industry in Nairobi County
- Financial Literacy or Financial Inclusion? Which is Which, What is What—To Achieve Uganda’s 10-Fold Economic Growth By 2040
- Harnessing Natural Gas for Economic Transformation: Overcoming the Regulatory and Infrastructural Bottlenecks in Nigeria