How governance configurations shape subjective well-being: Evidence from cross-national data
Wei Huang, Yuqi Zhang, Xiaofang TuSubjective well-being (SWB) has become an important indicator of societal progress in cross-national research, yet substantial variation persists even among countries with similar levels of economic development. Existing studies increasingly recognize the role of governance quality in shaping well-being outcomes but often rely on linear models and average effects that overlook institutional heterogeneity across countries. This study uses cross-national panel data covering 163 countries from 2011 to 2024 to examine how governance indicators relate to SWB. Drawing on complexity-oriented and configurational perspectives, we conceptualize governance as a multidimensional system and classify countries into four institutional configurations based on government effectiveness and voice and accountability. Using ensemble models with SHapley Additive exPlanations-based attribution, we find that SWB can be predicted with high accuracy. While economic conditions remain fundamental predictors, the relative salience of governance indicators differs across institutional contexts. In governance-deficit settings, government effectiveness serves as the primary governance predictor, suggesting that output-based performance is particularly relevant where institutional capacity is weak. In capacity-dominant regimes, economic conditions dominate. In balanced regimes, voice and accountability and rule of law gain prominence, reflecting a shift toward input-based legitimacy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this pattern intensifies: Rights-based and procedural indicators become the leading predictors, suggesting that procedural safeguards gain salience under crisis conditions. These results suggest that the governance–well-being relationship is not universal or additive; rather, it varies across institutional contexts and shows non-linear patterns. This supports a configurational perspective and highlights the need to align policy priorities with countries’ institutional configurations.
Points to practitioners
This study highlights that governance reforms should be tailored to institutional context rather than following a uniform template. In settings with weak administrative capacity, prioritizing basic service delivery and government effectiveness is essential for well-being. Where administrative capacity exists but accountability mechanisms are limited, strengthening economic security and labor market resilience may yield greater returns. In contexts with open participation but limited capacity, anti-corruption efforts and procedural transparency become central. Where both capacity and accountability are relatively strong, reforms should emphasize participatory and legal-procedural dimensions. These findings underscore that aligning policy priorities with a country's institutional configuration is critical for improving societal well-being.