Some significant changes have occurred in three of these measures in the UK<\/a> over this period. When it comes to \u201ccontrol of corruption\u201d, \u201cgovernment effectiveness\u201d and \u201cpolitical stability\u201d, all of these have been declining. The remaining three have not changed much \u2013 and in the case of \u201cvoice and accountability\u201d, not at all.<\/p>\n Corruption, stability and effective governance in the UK<\/p>\n The UK is slipping back on some measures. 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\u2019s involvement in the Iraq war in 2003 contributed to this, since it produced major protests<\/a> from opponents. It has not subsequently recovered, with the lowest score occurring in 2024. <\/p>\n 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<\/a> led to growing perceptions that politicians are corrupt. The rules were tightened<\/a> after this scandal. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Most notably, government effectiveness has experienced an almost constant decline \u2013 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. <\/p>\n Slide in government effectiveness<\/p>\n 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<\/a>. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n One possible example of this in the UK recently is lobbying by city firms<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n At the budget last year, then-chancellor Rachel Reeves did indeed drop the annual limit<\/a> for cash Isas from \u00a320,000 to \u00a312,000 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.<\/p>\n The growth of lobbying in the UK<\/p>\n![\"graph](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/file-20260817-59-oiku28.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n World Bank, Author provided (no reuse)<\/p>\n
![\"chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/file-20260817-49-dey89a.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n