With seven prime ministers in ten years and the fragmentation of the two-party system, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that UK leaders struggle to hold on to their position. The World Bank ranks nations around the world on governance indicators – and its data show that, on certain metrics, voters in the UK may have good reason to be dissatisfied.

The World Bank has been collecting this data for the last 30 years. Each country on the list gets a score out of 100 on six dimensions of governance. These are “voice and accountability”, “political stability”, “government effectiveness”, “regulatory quality”, “rule of law”, and “control of corruption”. A high score means that a nation has good governance and a low score the opposite.

Some significant changes have occurred in three of these measures in the UK over this period. When it comes to “control of corruption”, “government effectiveness” and “political stability”, all of these have been declining. The remaining three have not changed much – and in the case of “voice and accountability”, not at all.

Corruption, stability and effective governance in the UK

The indicators show that the UK has become more corrupt, less stable and has a less effective government than in the 1990s. For example, political stability declined quite rapidly after Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997. It is likely that Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war in 2003 contributed to this, since it produced major protests from opponents. It has not subsequently recovered, with the lowest score occurring in 2024.

Control of corruption hit a low point after the financial crash of 2007-8, but then recovered slightly when Gordon Brown became prime minister. This continued under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The backlash against the scandal of 2009 when many MPs were claiming dubious expenses led to growing perceptions that politicians are corrupt. The rules were tightened after this scandal.

But then the data show that control of corruption started to decline again after the Brexit referendum in 2016, particularly during the period when Boris Johnson was prime minister.

Most notably, government effectiveness has experienced an almost constant decline – from a score of 84 in 1996 to 74 in 2024. This is highly significant. It recovered a bit during the coalition government, only to crash after the EU referendum.

Slide in government effectiveness

So why is this happening? The American economist Mancur Olson had an interesting explanation, which he applied to many countries and was set out in his book The Rise and Decline of Nations.

He argued that special interest lobbying organisations have grown in importance, pursuing benefits for their clients from the state. These benefits take the form of tax breaks, subsidies, preferential contracts, restrictions on competition, and direct access to those who control legislation. In return, they provide money and support for the political parties that are likely to end up in power.

Olson wrote that eventually this would dominate the political process to the point that governments prioritise the interests of these groups at the expense of the wider population. This reduces the effectiveness of government in delivering what most voters want. And of course it turns people off politics.

One possible example of this in the UK recently is lobbying by city firms to restrict cash Isas (individal savings accounts) with the idea of boosting stocks and shares Isas. This could generate millions in fees for these firms, analysis suggested.

At the budget last year, then-chancellor Rachel Reeves did indeed drop the annual limit for cash Isas from £20,000 to £12,000 for savers aged under 65. Reeves said she wanted to encourage Britons to invest in the stock market in the hope it might offer them better returns while boosting the UK economy.

The growth of lobbying in the UK

It’s clear that the number of registered lobbyists in the UK is rising. The official numbers are registered with a government office, the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. The registrar’s annual reports covering the period from 2015 show that lobbying the UK government is a rapidly growing industry.

It can of course be argued that in a democracy rival campaigns will emerge to counteract these special interest lobbyists. However, there are problems involved in organising such campaigns. The benefits of lobbying are valuable to the special interests and so they invest heavily in these activities.

The costs however – in the form of higher prices for products and from tariffs – can be spread across the entire population. This makes it difficult to mobilise large numbers of voters to curb the concessions being made to lobbyists. In other words, the benefits are concentrated and the costs are diffused. This means lobbying can be highly profitable; counter-lobbying is not.

That said, the UK is not broken. In fact, compared to some other countries on the World Bank’s governance index it is still doing quite well. But with a fickle electorate seeking quick solutions and often unwilling to make sacrifices for the general good, governing has become an increasingly difficult prospect.