Characteristics of Good Governance
Participation
All men and women should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively.
Rule of law
Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on human rights.
Transparency
Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them.
Responsiveness
Institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders.
Consensus orientation
Good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interests of the group and,. where possible, on policies and procedures.
Equity
All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.
Effectiveness and efficiency
Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while making the best use of resources.
Accountability
Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organisations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. This accountability differs depending on the organisations and whether the decision is internal or external to an organisation.
Strategic vision
Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development. There is also an understanding of the historical, cultural and social complexities in which that perspective is grounded.
Source: UNDP (1997) Governance for Sustainable Human Development. United Nations Development Programme
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Governance: Definitions, 8 Characteristics, And Importance by Avijit Biswas
The term ‘Good Governance’ had been very popular in the field of Public Administration as well as social sciences during the last decade. But the concept of good governance is very old, like human civilization.
We have found the concept in the ancient Indian writings like Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ ‘Mahabharat’, Shukracharya’s ‘Nitisar’ and other western scholars like Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Hobbes, etc. In that ancient India, rulers were obligated by the precepts of Dharma which was closely related to good governance.
What is Good Governance?
Governance as the normative sense has given the concept of ‘Good Governance’. It refers to the welfare in governance and improving the quality of governance. It enables the government to provide equal opportunities and fair delivery of goods and services to the people who are most marginal in society.
Good governance refers to mobilizing the people of a country in the best direction possible. It requires the unity of people in society and motivates them to attain political objectivity. In other words; It ensures proper utilization of all the resources of the state for its citizens which ensures sustainable development.
Definitions of Good Governance
According to the world bank (1992) “good governance is central to creating and sustaining an environment which fosters strong and equitable development and it is an essential complement to sound economic policies”.
According to UNDP, “Good Governance is, among other things, participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable. And it promotes the rule of law. Good governance ensures that political, social, and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision making over the allocation of development resources”
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has defined the concept “as a broad concept covering all aspects of how a country is governed, including its economic policies, regulatory framework, and adherence to rule of law”.
The IMF very much emphasized promoting the concept of mainly two areas:
The management of public resources through reforms covering public sector institutions and
The development and maintenance of a transparent and stable economic and regulatory environment conducive to private sector activities.
Mohit Bhattacharya (2013) has been discussed the recent developments of good governance in three ways:
It is an attempt to widen the scope of public administration by going beyond the formal government.
It is an externally dictated term invented to prescribe aid-conditionality.
It is a more genuinely democratic intensifying concept- to make public administration more open, transparent, and accountable.
He has also opined that good governance needs to be discussed beyond the World Bank and other funding agencies have been representing this. “A more creative approach would be to treat the issues as new opportunities to have a fresh look at state-civil society relationships in today’s complex world of governance”.
8 Major Characteristics of Good Governance
Governance needs some parameters to make it good. From the above definitions, we can be said that good governance has some Characteristics or indicators for the establishment of sound economic management and ensuring the relationship between the state and civil society. From the study of World Bank documents and several studies, there are 8 major characteristics of good governance. These are mentioned below-
Participation
Rule of Law
Transparency
Responsiveness
Consensus Oriented
Equity and Inclusiveness
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Accountability
1. Participation
The participation of citizens in the process of governance is the key characteristics of good governance. Participation as an important step for mobilizing people to participate in the decision-making process. It can be direct or indirect but Participation needs to be informed and organized. The aims and objectives of the political rights would be fulfilled by the greater participation of the people in the society. The legal framework represents the rule of law which ensures impartiality in terms of participation in the decision-making process of governance.
2. Rule of Law
Another important characteristic of good governance is rule of law. It needs a fair legal framework to establish rule of law in society. Rule of law ensures impartiality which helps to protect human rights, particularly who is most marginal in society. The Independent judiciary system, its impartial nature, and the incorruptible police force are the key element to ensure rule of law.
3. Transparency
Governance needs transparency for the fair delivery of services to the citizens. It ensures a balance between policymaking and its enforcement following proper rules and regulations. It enables the citizen to access governmental information regarding various policies and their implementation freely. Proper media should be established for an easy understanding of this information.
4. Responsiveness
Responsiveness has a basic necessity of the administration which can motivate the interrelationships between administration and people. It requires sufficient services to the people within a specific time.
5. Consensus Oriented
Governance depends on the consensus of people in society to make it good. It could fulfill the interest of the people as well as the community. It helped to achieve the long-term perspective of human development. And it originated from the social culture and institutional behaviors of the particular society.
6. Equity and Inclusiveness
An equitable just society must be established for ensuring good governance. Society’s well being depends on how its members feel about it. It requires all its members feel that they have a stake in it and they are not excluded from the mainstream in the governance.
7. Effectiveness and Efficiency:
Effectiveness and efficiency ensure the outcomes of the institutions to meet the needs of society. Proper utilization of society’s resources for the establishment of sustainable development is the key to good governance. It also ensures the sustainable use of natural resources for the protection of the environment.
8. Accountability
Accountability is one of the most important characteristics of good governance. Good governance depends on how accountable Governmental as well as private sectors and civil society organization to their people and its institutional stakeholders. Without transparency and rule of law, accountability cannot be established.
Importance of Good Governance
The importance of good governance in a state is immense. Sustainable development is not possible without good governance.
Economic Development
Without good governance in a state, the economic development of that state is not stable. All elements of economic development, such as production, distribution, investment, and even consumption, face various obstacles. If good governance is established, such obstacles will be removed and the fair distribution of state resources will be possible.
Social Development
Good governance is essential for social development. The role of it does not end only with economic development. The result of development ensures that every class of people in society enjoys the basis of fairness. People of different religions, castes, and classes live in a society. Now, if there is no fair distribution of wealth among all these people, social discontent will increase.
Again, the proper distribution of wealth is not enough. We have to make arrangements so that the minority people can walk without fear. In the same way, various reform laws have to be enacted to reduce the gap between men and women in society.
Political Development
Its relationship with political development is quite important. If the political leaders of a country are not active in establishing good governance, then its establishment in that country is not possible.Its success depends largely on the sincerity of the political leadership and adherence to the rules and regulations of the political establishment.
The constructive cooperation between the political institutions and the political parties and the formulation of programs for the welfare of the people play an important role in establishing good competition and good governance among themselves. For example, in a democracy, mutual cooperation between the government and the opposition helps to establish it in the country.
Conclusion
In conclusion, good governance is the proper management of the state, society, and resources. It seeks to protect the interests of people from all classes. It emphasizes on public sector management, the legal framework for development, accountability, transparency, and free flow of information.
When good governance is established in a state, people can easily guess it by some of its characteristics. Then characteristics of good governance like Participation, Rule of Law, Transparency, Responsiveness, Consensus Oriented, Equity and Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Efficiency, Accountability can be easily noticed.
There is good governance for political, economic, and social development. Good governance and development complement each other. It protects the social, economic, and political rights of citizens irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender. As a result, a country’s development index tends to go up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global and National Leadership in Good Governance
About the author
Amitav Banerji
Amitav Banerji is a former diplomat and international civil servant. He is currently Projects Director at the Global Leadership Foundation.
The United Nations can claim many achievements over the 70 years of its existence. In preventing another World War, it has done what the League of Nations singularly failed to do. It can legitimately take credit, however, for much more—for upholding human rights, promoting the rule of law, providing international dispute settlement mechanisms, protecting the environment, eradicating diseases, and bettering the living conditions of millions of people around the world. Just in the last five months it has shown its enormous convening power and consensus-building capacity—in New York last September when the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was agreed, and in Paris in December 2015 when the Paris Agreement on climate change was adopted.
But there are many problems the United Nations has not managed to resolve, and it can hardly sit on its laurels. It must address many new challenges and much unfinished business. A few are enumerated below.
The graph of conflict across the globe, which had been in significant decline at the turn of the millennium, has turned the wrong way again. As Jean-Marie Guéhenno pointed out recently in his article in Foreign Policy, "for twenty years after the end of the Cold War, deadly conflict was in decline. Fewer wars were killing fewer people the world over. Five years ago, however, that positive trend went into reverse, and each year since has seen more conflict, more victims, and more people displaced. 2016 is unlikely to bring an improvement from the woes of 2015: it is war—not peace—that has momentum."1
East-West rivalry is back, both direct and by proxy. Ukraine and Syria both offer testimony of this. Who would have predicted that NATO would seek to reinvent itself at the 2014 Wales Summit? Likewise, how many would have foreseen that the G-8 would revert to the G-7?
The seemingly inexorable advance of democracy appears to have stalled and is even being reversed in some places. There are more and more examples of elections not being held on level playing fields, of powerful executives seeking to control the legislature and/or the judiciary, and of leaders who pay no heed to term limits.
Violent extremism is showing its most ugly face and the mix of extremist ideology and politics is more toxic than ever before. The combination of rising extremism, radicalization of young people and inward migration is testing societies the world over and strengthening the hands of right wing political parties and those that seek to erect new barriers.
According to the World Bank, 12.7 per cent of the world's population still lives at or below US $1.90 a day. The World Food Programme estimates that some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life, i.e., about one in nine people on earth, and that poor nutrition causes nearly half of deaths in children under 5 years of age—3.1 million children each year.
These are only some of the daunting challenges the world must confront. There are others: the menace of terrorism, cybercrime, the existential threat to several small island developing States from global warming, and the continuing inability to bring fundamental reform to a United Nations that was crafted to reflect the global realities of seven decades ago.
Whatever the challenges that need to be met, two propositions remain of abiding relevance. Firstly, multilateralism must remain central to global consultation, decisionmaking and leadership. Secondly, the quality of national leadership for good governance is key to creating nations that are at peace with themselves and that can offer a better life for their citizens.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies of the United Nations system or other multilateral agencies, it is indisputable that none of the world's challenges can be confronted without effective international organizations and without the show of political will that must go hand in hand with belonging to them. Some of the problems that afflict individual nation states-such as environmental degradation, combating terrorism or commercial crime, or dealing with the impact of migration—can only be addressed and resolved through global cooperation. The system of global governance represented by the United Nations, warts and all, thus remains crucial to global order, peace and development.
The logic of good governance and strong, enlightened leadership within nations is equally compelling, but this is a more complex matter. The expression "good governance" has entered the lexicon in a big way since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the almost contemporaneous dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is widely quoted as observing that "good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development".
There is, however, no universally accepted definition of good governance, nor any globally agreed mechanism that sits in judgement on whether governance is "good" or "bad". It is salutary to remember, in this context, that every perpetrator of a coup d'état and every dictator known to history has acted with the avowed aim of bringing salvation to the country and delivering people from inept governance.
There have been attempts to define good governance. The most cited definition has come from the United Nations itself, which deems it to have eight major characteristics. According to this definition, good governance is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law. Furthermore, it seeks to ensure that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive both to the present and future needs of society.2
Here again, there are differences between international development institutions and political bodies. For example, the World Bank and other multilateral development banks look at good governance from an economic perspective and through the lens of public sector management, highlighting transparency and accountability, regulatory reform, and public sector skills and leadership. Other organizations built on political collaboration, such as the United Nations, European Commission, and the Commonwealth, focus on democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights. There is a significant degree of consensus across the board that good governance relates to political and institutional processes and outcomes that are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of development.
A number of organizations around the globe offer indices of governance, some looking at specific aspects while others offer a more holistic assessment. Thus, Transparency International seeks to measure the extent of corruption in countries, while Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International assess respect for human rights. The Committee to Protect Journalists measures media freedom. The Human Development Index of the United Nation Development Programme offers a measure of the quality of life, while the Ibrahim Index of African Governance offers an assessment in the broadest sense, defining governance as "the provision of the political, social and economic goods that any citizen has the right to expect from his or her state, and that any state has the responsibility to deliver to its citizens".3
Many countries still treat organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as pressure groups linked to western Governments and taking a Eurocentric view of the world. At the same time, the philosophical debate about whether open and democratic societies more seamlessly generate development rages on. Critics, both academics and practitioners, often juxtapose the economic performance of the controlled Chinese economy over the past two decades against the relatively slow growth during that period of democratic India. The examples of Singapore and Malaysia in Asia are often put forward as role models for telescoping growth. Similarly, in Africa, the experience of Rwanda is hailed by many as an example of an accountable Government delivering economic growth and return on investment, notwithstanding its controversial human rights record.
Many international organizations have come a long way from the days when the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs made it all but impossible to be intrusive or interventionist, even when there were obvious excesses against citizens. Whether it is the United Nations concept of the Responsibility to Protect, or efforts by the Commonwealth and La Francophonie to devise measures to police the implementation of fundamental political values, these have often foundered because of inability to generate the necessary broad-based political support within the organization. The recent experience of the African Union with Burundi vividly illustrates the point.
What is considered beyond dispute is that national leaders can make a big difference. Developing countries looking to fast-track sustainable development in particular need visionary and strong leaders. Being a visionary leader requires not just a clear and attainable vision of what is sought to be achieved, but also the ability to look beyond himself or herself to the longer term interest of the nation and hence the will to bequeath a legacy that includes strong institutions as well as an enabling environment that allows other leaders to step into their shoes once they leave office.
Vision apart, there are many requisites of a great leader. Effective leadership requires motivation and commitment, courage of conviction but also the ability to be inclusive and build consensus, being a good communicator, being able to motivate a team, to be flexible and not hidebound, to accept responsibility as well as accountability, to be honest and to rigorously promote probity and integrity in public life, and to put the national interest above self.
There is no school that churns out effective national leaders. When the buck stops with them, Heads of Government must learn the hard way what they have not already learned in their political careers. This includes accepting good advice and rejecting bad counsel and taking difficult decisions in the national interest.
Help is available from former peers such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair—among several others—who have set up organizations that offer policy advice to current leaders. Some of them are run as commercial organizations. Then there are groups like The Elders, the Club de Madrid and the InterAction Council, which largely do public advocacy on current issues of global concern. Bodies like the Kofi Annan Foundation do both global advocacy and targeted engagements.
The Global Leadership Foundation, established by F. W. de Klerk in 2004, is unique in that it offers more discreet, confidential and hands-on support to current leaders who could benefit from the advice of former peers that have experienced similar challenges in their own countries. The agenda is always determined and owned by the Head of Government seeking the advice, not by those offering external support. Advice is available on a range of policy areas—be it governance in the broadest sense, or political, economic or social. And the fact that a leader is being offered advice is never put in the public domain, unless that leader wishes that to be the case.
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development represents a collective global investment in the future well-being of humanity. It states, inter alia, that "there can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development". That is a self evident truth, but that peace must surely be more than simply the absence of conflict. The onus on today's leaders, both on the global stage and on every national one, is to build a sustainable peace. And for that, good governance will always be a crucial requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Governance:
Rule of Law, Transparency,
and Accountability
by Michael Johnston
Department of Political Science,
Colgate University
Executive Summary
Improved governance requires an integrated, long-term strategy built upon cooperation between
government and citizens. It involves both participation and institutions. The Rule of Law,
Accountability, and Transparency are technical and legal issues at some levels, but also
interactive to produce government that is legitimate, effective, and widely supported by citizens,
as well as a civil society that is strong, open, and capable of playing a positive role in politics and
government. This paper considers goals for better governance, key challenges confronting efforts
at reform, examples of successful good-governance efforts, and action steps for improving both
participation and institutions.
Goals identified are:
• Legitimate, effective, responsive institutions and policies (“embedded autonomy”)
• Understandable processes and outcomes:
• Transparency:
• Incentives to sustain good governance:
• Vertical accountability:
• Horizontal accountability and leaders, and among segments of government:
Key challenges that must be addressed include:
• Avoiding excessive legislation and regulation
• Giving politics its place in good governance
• Building broad-based support for reform
• Paying close attention to incentives for leaders and citizens 2
• Assessing public opinion
• Strengthening checks and balances, both administrative and political
• Recognizing opposition to reform
• Thinking regionally
• Staying focused on the long term
Action steps are proposed for both the participation and institution dimensions of governance:
Participation:
• Rule of law: A frank, broad-based assessment of representation, civil society, social
support and compliance with policy
• Accountability: Public opinion, consultation, evaluations of government
• Transparency: Public education
Institutions:
• Rule of Law: Clear institutional standards and enforcement
• Accountability: Responsibility, checks and balances
• Transparency: Open and understandable rules, procedures, information
The emphasis is not on novel ideas so much as sustained, coordinated effort that brings leaders
and citizens together in support of common goals. 1
I. Introduction: Goals for Governance
Good governance involves far more than the power of the state or the strength of political
will. The rule of law, transparency, and accountability are not merely technical questions
of administrative procedure or institutional design. They are outcomes of democratizing
processes driven not only by committed leadership, but also by the participation of, and
contention among, groups and interests in society—processes that are most effective
when sustained and restrained by legitimate, effective institutions.
Never have these concerns been linked to more momentous opportunities. In the
Fall of 2002 the 191 Member States of the United Nations committed themselves to eight
Millennium Development Goals: eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving
universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women,
reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership
for development. 1 As daunting as these goals are in technical and resource terms, they
are no less challenging to Member States’ abilities to mobilize people and resources, to
make and implement difficult policy choices, and to involve their citizens in initiatives
that will shape their futures.
In this paper I suggest that good governance, the rule of law, transparency, and
accountability embody partnerships between state and society, and among citizens—
partnerships sustained not by good intentions alone but by lasting, converging incentives
and strong institutions. Let us begin with some basic definitions:
1 UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG): http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 2
Good governance: legitimate, accountable, and effective ways of obtaining and
using public power and resources in the pursuit of widely-accepted social goals
Rule of law: the exercise of state power using, and guided by, published written
standards that embody widely-supported social values, avoid particularism, and enjoy
broad-based public support
Transparency: official business conducted in such a way that substantive and
procedural information is available to, and broadly understandable by, people and groups
in society, subject to reasonable limits protecting security and privacy
Accountability: procedures requiring officials and those who seek to influence
them to follow established rules defining acceptable processes and outcomes, and to
demonstrate that they have followed those procedures
While the language and some of the ideas in these definitions draw upon the
Anglo-Saxon tradition, the fundamental concerns they embody—justice and the search
for a good life—are universal concerns. These values must be pursued and protected in
different ways in various societies. They are interdependent as well: accountability
requires transparency, both function best where laws are sound and widely supported, and
the equitable enforcement of those laws raises major questions of accountability and
transparency—to cite just a few interconnections. Upholding these values requires a
delicate but durable balance between self-interest and cooperation: citizens and officials
must see good governance not only as an ideal, but also as improving their own lives.
Rule of Law. Where rule of law is strong, people uphold the law not out of fear
but because they have a stake in its effectiveness. Virtually any state, after all, can enact
laws; corrupt and repressive regimes can legislate at will. Genuine rule of law, by 3
contrast, requires the cooperation of state and society, and is an outcome of complex and
deeply rooted social processes.2
Wrongdoers face not only legal penalties, but also social
sanctions such as criticism in the news media, popular disapproval, and punishments
from professional and trade associations. An approach that relies solely upon detection
and punishment may work for a time, but will do little to integrate laws and policies with
social values, or to create broader and deeper support for the system.
Transparency. Transparency too rests on a partnership: officials must make
information available, and there must be people and groups with reasons and
opportunities to put information to use. Chief among those are an independent judiciary
and a free, competitive, responsible press, but an active civil society is critical too. Rules
and procedures must be open to scrutiny and comprehensible: a transparent government
makes it clear what is being done, how and why actions take place, who is involved, and
by what standards decisions are made. Then, it demonstrates that it has abided by those
standards. Transparency requires significant resources, may slow down administrative
procedures, and may offer more advantages to the well-organized and influential interests
than to others. It also has necessary limits: legitimate issues of security and the privacy
rights of citizens form two such boundaries. But without it, “good governance” has little
meaning.
Accountability. Accountability is partly a matter of institutional design: formal
checks and balances can and should be built into any constitutional architecture. But
accountability requires political energy too: people, interest groups, civil society, the
courts, the press, and opposition parties must insist that those who govern follow
2 My thanks to Mtro. Antonio Azuela, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico, for his comments on these points. 4
legitimate mandates and explain their actions. The same is true within governments:
horizontal accountability (Schedler, Diamond, and Plattner, 1999) depends upon the
ability of one part of government to find out—and, where necessary, to stop or correct—
what other sectors are doing. Those demanding accountability must be confident that they
can do so safely, that officials will respond honestly, and that social needs and demands
are taken seriously.
Participation and Institutions
Developing societies possess formidable social energy, and their undeniable problems
create strong demands and grievances. How can we harness those forces to build good
governance while maintaining the balance between openness and effectiveness noted
above?
The answers, fundamentally, have to do with democratization and justice. Years
ago Rustow (1970: 341-350) pointed out that the factors that sustain democracy—
literacy, affluence, multi-party politics, a middle class, and so forth—are not necessarily
the ones that created it. Democracy, he argued, emerges out of “prolonged and
inconclusive political struggle…[T]he protagonists must represent well-entrenched
forces…and the issues must have profound meaning to them” (Rustow, 1970: 352). In
those struggles, “Democracy was not the original or primary aim; it was sought as a
means to some other end or it came as a fortuitous byproduct of the struggle” (Ibid.,: 353;
see also Roberts, 1966; Peck, 1990; Johnston, 1993). Similarly, checks and balances,
public accounting procedures, open but orderly markets, competitive politics, and
administrative transparency are institutions and values essential to good governance, but 5
citizens and officials both must have a stake in making them work. Good governance is
thus inseparable from questions of power and justice.
Most of the emphasis in the aftermath of political and economic transitions has
been upon participation in liberalized economies and politics. But institutions are
essential to sustain and restrain orderly competition within, and essential boundaries
between, politics and the economy, and to enable developing societies to shape their own
destinies in an increasingly interdependent world. Many such institutions will have the
task of checking the excesses of the powerful in the name of ordinary citizens: courts, for
example, must enforce laws of fair play, such as honest elections and basic business
transparency, as well as enforcing contracts. That potential mismatch means that
institutions must not only be well designed, but must also have solid support at all levels
of society. State and society must be able to influence each other, within limits: policies
must respond to social realities and demands, just as participation must be subject to the
rule of law. Legitimate paths of access between state and society are just as important as
boundaries between them; where legitimate access is insufficient it will become an illicit
commodity to be bought and sold. Here too there are questions of balance: accountability
must be balanced by the ability to govern authoritatively—what Evans (1995: 12) calls
“embedded autonomy”.
But the problem with establishing such institutions de novo is often that leaders
and citizens do not have a sustaining stake in the reforms. That is in part a matter of
incentives, both positive and negative. Good governance is not just a matter of deciding
to be good people; instead, officials and citizens must believe they will be better off
under a reformed system of governance. Reforms have their costs, too: old partnerships 6
and privileges, and cozy public-private linkages, may be disrupted while taxes may be
collected and regulations enforced more effectively. Sometimes the early winners under
reform may seek to halt further changes (Rose-Ackerman, 1999). Political and
administrative leaders must believe they stand to gain from, or at least are not directly
threatened by, new ways of doing things. For citizens, better and more reliable services,
trust in government, and confidence that others also support new laws and procedures are
all important. These things take time to achieve. Where circumstances allow, the best
approach is to build broad-based coalitions that work in partnership with public officials
to support good government (Johnston and Kpundeh, 2002). Even where political
realities make openly democratic strategies unrealistic, leaders who can claim credit for
enhanced services, increased morale among officials, and more effective development
efforts can still have a stake in reform.
The Regional Dimension
Just as good governance raises important issues at the level of civil society, it is a
regional and international issue too. Nearly all of the Millennium Development Goals
have international dimensions. To achieve them, governments and citizens must be able
to cooperate with, and to trust, their neighbors. Moreover, neighboring countries often
share historical, social, cultural, and other characteristics, and can exchange critical
insights about how to improve governance and pursue development in the context of
regional realities.
One of the most important and promising regional initiatives is NEPAD: The New
Partnership for Africa’s Development. On July 3, 2001, the Millennium Partnership for
the African Recovery Programme (MAP) and the OMEGA Plan were merged into a new 7
regional partnership that has come to be known as NEPAD. Under its overarching goals
of promoting sustainable development, ending poverty and integrating Africa more
fully—and on more favorable terms—into the world economy, NEPAD embodies a
shared commitment among the leaders of African states, with the backing of the G8
countries and major international and intergovernmental organizations, to improve the
quality of governance and coordination among states in the region. Political and
economic governance issues head the list of NEPAD action plans, but access to markets,
human resources, infrastructure and the environment are also major “sectoral”
initiatives.3
Particularly important to those efforts will be the African Peer Review
Mechanism. I will have more to say about NEPAD below, but it is an important example
of the good-governance opportunities that exist at the regional level.
Setting Goals
The risk, of course, is that “good governance” can become a one-size-fits-all
buzzword lacking specific meaning. Therefore, I conclude this section with a list of
specific goals for governance—one that will not satisfy all citizens and officials
everywhere, but that does remind us of the issues identified so far, and of the benefits that
can be attained:
Goals for Governance
• Legitimate, effective, responsive institutions and policies (“embedded
autonomy”)
3 See the NEPAD “Summary of Action Plans” at http://www.nepad.com/ 8
• Understandable processes and outcomes:
--with visible results in citizens’ lives
--with clear standards for success or failure
--with clear lines of responsibility and accountability
• Transparency:
--openness from above
--participation and scrutiny from below
--honesty from all
• Incentives to sustain good governance:
--for leaders: the opportunity to take credit
--for citizens: a credible chance for justice and a better life
--for neighboring societies: sharing insights, experiences, expertise, values
• Vertical accountability:
--government that answers to citizens
--citizens who accept and abide by laws and policies
• Horizontal accountability and leaders, and among segments of government:
--access to information
--the right to be consulted
--the power to check excesses and abuses
II. Key Issues and Challenges
In practice the governance movement will encounter major pitfalls. While we know bad
governance and its effects when we see them, good governance has no universally 9
accepted definition, much less an agreed master plan. Some efforts have been strikingly
effective, while others have had little benefit, have wasted finite resources and
opportunities, or have done more harm than good. What are the major challenges to be
anticipated, and what mistakes must we avoid?
Avoid excessive legislation and regulation. In attempting to improve policy and
implementation it is tempting to rely too much on laws and top-down policymaking.
Controls on administrative, fiscal, and personnel systems can become so strict that
managers cannot manage and elected officials cannot get their programs implemented.
Discretion can be reduced to such a minimum that cases with any unusual aspects take
weeks and months to be resolved. The resulting inflexibility wastes resources and
opportunities, produces policies that are unresponsive to social realities (thus eroding the
credibility of good-governance efforts), and can increase incentives to corruption. There
is a need for policies that increase the space for debate and consultation, encourage
innovation, and pursue desired outcomes with positive incentives rather than through
prohibitions alone. Procedural controls may generate massive amounts of information,
but if it comes in forms that only other officials can understand, or if it is generated
predominantly by citizens’ giving information to government rather than government
opening up to citizens, transparency is not aided and people are unlikely to develop a
personal stake in reforms.
Remember that politics is a part of good governance. The controversy and
delay that often accompany open political debate may seem an unaffordable luxury, or
indeed a serious problem, in societies seeking to enhance the rule of law. Too many
reformers view governance primarily as a set of technical administrative tasks, and public 10
participation as either a pro forma exercise or a process to be orchestrated from above via
high-profile, but short-lived, mass campaigns. In either scenario citizens have little
opportunity or incentive to participate in any long-term way, or to link official promises
to the problems of their own communities. Civil society, where it exists, can and should
help define the ends and means of governance reform, benefit from its successes, and
claim part of the credit for initiatives that turn out well. Open debate airing real
differences, while engendering some controversy, can elicit sustained participation—
particularly if it has clear-cut effects upon the decisions and policies eventually
implemented. In both established and renewed democracies citizens will be the final
arbiters of what is, and is not, credible governance reform; thus it is important to involve
citizens and NGOs in the shaping of reform agendas from the start.
Build broad-based support for reform. There is no doubt that governance
reform requires lasting leadership and commitment from above, and that identifying
reform “champions” is an important early stage in providing such leadership. But such
initiatives cannot be effective if they are confined to blue-ribbon commissions that hand
down proclamations, or to a “one-man show” model of reform. Even though it takes time,
effort, and resources, and even though it will involve sharing the credit for improved
governance, it is far better to get out into communities, learn about popular concerns, and
build a broad base of support. Pay close attention to problems and controversies: as
suggested in the opening section, those issues can mobilize popular energies and
commitment far more effectively than can “good ideas” alone. Without those sorts of
connections, citizens will see few links between the rule of law, transparency, and
accountability on the one hand, and the concrete problems of everyday life, and they will 11
not develop a sense that change for the better requires their own support, participation,
and compliance. Reform leaders who cannot demonstrate broad-based and deep social
support will find it all the more difficult to sway officials and interest groups skeptical
about, or openly opposed to, reform. Actively corrupt figures will take such a lack of
support as evidence that the reform movement will be short-lived—and often, they will
be right. Over time, high-profile efforts that do not succeed will lead to public cynicism,
and will make the next round of reform even more challenging.
Pay close attention to incentives. Governance reforms often emphasize public
goods, such as efficiency, honesty, cultural empathy, and the like, to the exclusion of
private benefits. Other kinds of appeals—that better governance would cut taxes, make it
easier to find jobs in a revived economy, protect one’s family and property—receive too
little attention, even when the goal is enlisting the participation and support of civil
society. As a result, good-governance efforts encounter collective action problems:
people decide that if reform improves governance for anyone it will do so for all, and
thus that their own efforts are inconsequential or even unwanted. Extensive efforts must
be made to persuade citizens, government functionaries, and political leaders that they
stand to benefit from reform—that is, to create the sort of sustaining stake in reform
noted above.
Public opinion matters—in many ways. All of this suggests that even in
emerging democracies reformers ignore public opinion at their peril. Surveys and
community meetings to identify what people believe about the current state of affairs and
expect of reform are essential. So are sustained efforts to educate the public about key
problems, the justification for proposed changes, the costs of better governance, and 12
actual results. Public education can also change citizens’ conduct by encouraging them to
resist exploitation by officials or by other citizens, to file useful reports of problems, and
to obey new laws and procedures. Technical improvements to government operations
such as new budgetary and procurement procedures may be impressive. But if people do
not think such measures will give them better police service or cut down on time lost in
dealing with bureaucrats, then key sources of support will have been lost. The public’s
reform criteria may well be achievable: better road repairs, an end to demands for bribes
by the police, and fairer and more equitable tax assessments might be examples.
Moreover, success at those levels can win support for more ambitious governance
reforms, and the patience and tolerance needed for them to take full effect. But if reform
leaders are not aware of what citizens think of when they hear words like “reform” and
“good governance”, credibility may quickly be lost.
Strengthen checks and balances. While a measure of coordination among
segments of government is essential, it is only part of the picture. Government must also
be able to check its own excesses. The judiciary is essential to interpreting and enforcing
new laws and standards, and if it is not independent of the government of the day it will
be ineffective. Similarly, executive agencies require oversight, and here legislative
scrutiny and credible external “watchdogs” can enhance effective policy implementation
and check abuses. An ombudsman system to which citizens can make complaints and
reports may also be valuable, but citizens must be confident that they will not face
reprisals and that their reports will be taken seriously. (Even then, in some societies
citizens will resist filing reports for cultural or historical reasons). These sorts of 13
oversights and controls must be active, consistent, and sustained; if invoked only in
emergencies or in the wake of failures they will be of little benefit.
Never underestimate opposition to reform. Many governance problems result
from a shortage of resources or a lack of state technical and political capacity. But others
persist because someone benefits from them, a fact that reformers cannot ignore. Serious
reforms may encounter increasing resistance within government, or from segments of the
public, to the extent that they begin to gain “traction”; yet it will be at precisely those
points that active support from top leadership and from civil society may be most
important. Transparency and accountability problems are particularly likely to persist
because of vested interests in government and society, and reformers must be aware that
at times those resisting enhanced transparency and accountability will go through the
motions—filing reports, producing data, carrying out reviews and assessments—in ways
that actually conceal rather than revealing and attacking governance problems. Here too,
outside monitors—auditors, legislative oversight bodies, investigating judges—will be
essential.
Think in regional terms. Neighboring societies and governments may well be
coping with similar problems and constraints, and may be finding ways to adapt rule of
law, accountability, and transparency mechanisms to new and complex situations. In
addition, few of the problems good governance is intended to attack are contained within
national boundaries. Sharing ideas, experiences, and resources, coordinating rule-of-law
functions on a regional basis, and peer review of governance procedures can all
contribute to reforms appropriate to social realities, and can make better use of scarce
resources. 14
Stay focused on the long term. Too often governance reform is a short-lived
issue. This is particularly the case following a crisis or scandal; once matters settle down
it is easy to conclude that all is well and governance problems have been fixed.
Particularly with respect to the rule of law and its social foundations, governance reform
will take a generation or more, not just a few months or years. Much the same is true of
transparency and accountability too, in the sense that agency, political elite, and civil
service “cultures” may need to be changed. More rapid progress may be possible in those
areas to the extent that individuals can be replaced and the incentive systems of
institutions overhauled. Even then, however, bureaucrats will need periodic retraining,
elected officials will need continuing information on governance problems (and
continuing incentives to fix them), and citizen support will be required over the long
term. Here too, public education will be an integral part of any effort to deepen the rule of
law, and to improve transparency and accountability.
III. Successful Governance Efforts
Despite all of these difficulties and challenges, significant success is possible.
Here are just a few efforts that have turned out well.
Bangalore: Bringing Citizens and Government Together.
4 The capital of Karnataka State, Bangalore is India’s fifth-largest city with a population of about 6 million.
Located in the South about midway between the two coasts, it has long been a center for
managerial and technical education, and in recent years has become a focus of India's
burgeoning computer software industry.
4 This account draws upon Johnston and Kpundeh, 2002, and Paul, 1995. 15
In 1993 a market research agency based in Bangalore began gathering survey
data, informant interviews and statistical indicators focused upon the performance of
local government, an effort supported by funding from the World Bank. The data were
compiled into “report cards” assessing the quality of a variety of city government
services. Corruption, efficiency, quality and timing of services delivered, responsiveness
to citizen views and complaints, and other issues were among the evaluation criteria.
Extensive bribery and demands for payments were reported, along with waste and
inefficiency. These results drew extensive attention and debate within local government,
in the press, and among the public at large.
Three years later a second series of report cards were drawn up to assess trends.
Prior to publication, senior officials of the major public agencies covered in the second
round discussed the findings. A mini-report for each agency outlined the key indicators of
service quality and public satisfaction. Citizens were then brought into the discussions
and public meetings were held to consider the results and options for improvement.
Agency heads listened to the citizens' reactions, examined their organizations'
performance, and considered ways to improve responsiveness. More important, all the
public agency heads involved in the report, without exception, commended the initiative
and acknowledged the value of popular feedback.
A new Chief Minister of Karnataka took office around the time the second report
card was released. He made a public commitment to improve state governance, and in
particular to upgrade local infrastructure and services. He established the Bangalore
Agenda Task Force (BATF), consisting of prominent citizens, with a mission of getting
industry and civil society more involved in the city’s rejuvenation. This was the first time 16
that the state's chief executive had openly responded to demands of the citizens, the
media, and public interest groups to increase city service providers' accountability. A
major public event—”The Bangalore Summit”—followed; in addition to pledges of
improvement from the heads of public agencies, industrialists and businesspersons made
public commitments of funds to improve or develop specific public activities or
infrastructure.
BATF met with all the service providers on a regular basis to track their resulting
action plans. The initiative has demonstrated some “quick wins”, such as developing a
system for the self-assessment of property taxes. Rather than relying on tax collectors,
who traditionally have levied property taxes arbitrarily and taken advantage of the
citizenry, the new system has easy-to-follow, verifiable criteria that citizens can apply
themselves. Grievance procedures are also open and clearly defined. Information has
been disseminated through meetings in different parts of the city, held in cooperation
with citizen groups and other NGOs.
Bangalore illustrates the value of reinforcing links between government and civil
society, and between self-interest and reform. Citizens were able to express their
concerns and see results; agency heads were able to target energy and resources to key
issues, and to take credit for improvements. As noted, agency heads welcomed citizen
feedback and judgments on those issues, and support from the new Karnataka state
executive played a critical role. BATF's growth was built upon a diverse repertoire of
incentives. Purposive goals (Wilson, 1973), such as improved services and institutional
performance, are clear, and the links between civil society and governmental leaders
provide clear political incentives too. But business, and leaders in both government and 17
civil society, were able to affiliate themselves with a popular, prestigious body and to
share in the credit for improved local services. Similar incentives extended to citizens
too: taking part in community meetings, and the satisfaction of taking action against local
problems, can be important rewards—as can the sense that someone in local government
cares enough to listen.
Botswana: Social Foundations for Rule of Law. Botswana, located in Southern
Africa, is a large but lightly populated country whose economy is built upon farming and
raising cattle. While it faces significant development challenges, it is nonetheless one of
Africa’s success stories in terms of governance. For example, when scandals broke out
regarding housing-related corruption in Gaborone, the capital, early in the 1990s, a new
anti-corruption agency was established and public inquiries held. Both legal and reform
responses were quite effective overall. Botswana’s government has been careful to
preserve, and to build upon, traditional family-based authorities and values that have deep
roots in society. As a consequence laws have a legitimacy, and links to established social
values, that they lack in many other developing societies. Moreover, law-breakers
encounter social sanctions along with legal penalties, and find it difficult to justify their
actions in terms of traditional values or the alleged arbitrariness of a distant, culturally
foreign legal framework.
Botswana’s solid social and political framework has facilitated innovative efforts
to attack poverty through improvements of governance at the local level.5
National
administrative agencies are complemented by four bodies charged with devolution and
5 This discussion draws upon “Local Governance for Poverty Reduction: The Case of Botswana.”
Country Report Prepared For The Fifth Africa Governance Forum: AGF–V, Maputo,
Mozambique May 22 – 25, 2002:
http://www.undp.org/rba/pubs/agf5/AGF%20V%20Botswana%20CP.pdf 18
the decentralization of planning: the District administrations, District and local councils,
Land Boards, and Tribal Administration. District and Village Development Committees,
and a variety of other organizations, also participate in setting priorities and building
public support for policy. Public education efforts are a part of the local governance
improvement strategy; a 2002 report6
indicates that “public education is spreading
gradually and the administrative capacity of local level organizations of governance is
improving steadily.” These developments have helped Botswana and its international
partners reduce poverty gradually but steadily, although the scope and severity of poverty
problems in the society should not be underestimated. Future priorities for governance
improvement reflect the need for broader participation and for state-society partnerships;
notable initiatives include ideas for “bottom-up planning”, the continuing participation of
traditional local leaders, and efforts to redress gender imbalances. Much work clearly
needs to be done, but Botswana’s sustained commitment to the rule of law, transparency,
and accountability, and its emphasis upon broad-based processes, illustrate the
importance of several key themes of this paper.
Mexico: Enhancing Transparency. Not so long ago, Mexican presidents possessed large
secret funds they could use for any purpose, national elections were an exercise in vote
buying and intimidation, and public procurement procedures were a mystery to all except
those taking kickbacks. While its social and economic problems remain formidable,
Mexico has moved faster than any other large country in recent years to make
transparency a reality in politics and government. Secret presidential funds have been
abolished. Many government procurement processes take place on the Internet, with bids
6 Ibid., p. 6. 19
and prices trackable in real time. The 2000 presidential election, building on previous
reforms in 1994 and 1988, not only produced the country’s first handover of power at the
ballot box but also featured transparency and monitoring procedures—including ballot
boxes that were literally transparent—worthy of emulation in many other countries. Some
of the world’s best surveys on the incidence and effects of corruption at the household
level are now being conducted in Mexico. The result is a system in which people,
opposition parties, and the press can push for accountability more effectively, and in
which a climate can be built in which laws and policies enjoy broader social support.
A major new initiative, launched in 2003 with World Bank support, is the
Laboratory of Documentation and Analysis on Corruption and Transparency in Mexico.
Based at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, the Laboratory will analyze procurement procedures within 22 Federal
agencies as well as supporting research and seminars. Of particular interest are proposals
to study the views and activities of civil servants as they deal with private bidders and
purchase contrasting kinds of goods and services. Through surveys and other techniques
it will be possible to learn how procurement problems arise and what their actual effects
are upon various public programs and functions, so that governance improvements to
procurement procedures can be tailored and targeted to the most critical issues.
Hong Kong: A Social Partnership. Hong Kong’s Independent Commission
Against Corruption (ICAC) is the world’s best-known anti-corruption agency. Its work to
build public support for, and participation in, its efforts holds lessons for those concerned
with a range of governance issues. The ICAC story has been told many times (for a short
history, see Johnston, 1999); among the most notable aspects, however, was the way the 20
agency first won public credibility by capturing, and winning a conviction of, a corrupt
police commander whose escape from jail had led to massive demonstrations demanding
reform. From the beginning, public education was one of the three main elements of the
ICAC strategy. Publicity efforts, school programs, television dramas and advertisements,
and a range of other sorts of messages were aimed at breaking through the sense that
corruption was inevitable, reducing public tolerance for it, and encouraging citizens to
make reports of even relatively small abuses of power.
Those efforts have been sustained for three decades;7
now, citizens report
corruption, confident that their action will remain confidential and that they will get a
response. Even more impressive have been attitude changes toward corruption: by the
1980s Hong Kong had become one of the few societies where young people held more
strict views about corruption than did their elders—a major accomplishment in terms of
rule of law and accountability. Such a long-term change means that ICAC and citizens
have become anti-corruption partners, each drawing impetus from the other, and that
large segments of society feel a stake in the reduction of corruption and enhanced
transparency and accountability. Another aspect of the ICAC’s mandate with particular
implications for the rule of law is that the agency has jurisdiction over business as well as
government corruption, and that its efforts include training and advice as well as
investigation and enforcement. As a result it is a positive force for better corporate as
well as public governance.
7 For an overview, see http://www.icac.org.hk/eng/main/ 21
NEPAD: Cooperation among Societies and Organizations
As noted in our introductory discussion, the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) has embarked on an impressive political and economic
governance agenda, as well as major sectoral initiatives aimed at attacking urgent
problems and improving the quality of life in African states. In this and other regions of
the world, there have been numerous promising beginnings that have withered away for
want of resources, coordination, and sustained political backing. In this case, however,
long-term goals are backed up by the African Peer Review Mechanism (PRM), a
voluntary agreement launched by African Union member states to monitor and evaluate
good-governance and development efforts collectively. The PRM promises to encourage
experience- and resource-sharing among African states, to spur continued commitment to
governance and sectoral goals, and to provide frank, regionally appropriate assessments
of progress and shortcoming.
NEPAD is important in part because of the new commitments that brought it into
being, but also because it is aimed at the shared problems of the continent—problems that
are increasingly regional and international in scope, yet require remedies appropriate to
local social realities and values. Thus it has been able to speak with a particularly
powerful voice on issues of concern to the South African Development Community
(SADC)—recently, for example, AIDS problems and policy, and the continuing
deterioration of conditions in Zimbabwe—in ways that single states, or global
organizations, cannot. NEPAD’s links to other initiatives have received a significant
boost from the fact that South African President Thabo Mbeki simultaneously holds
leadership roles in NEPAD, the African Union, and SADC. Even without that unique 22
circumstance, however, the NEPAD strategy may represent a promising for governance
initiatives and peer monitoring in a variety of regions.
Regional intergovernmental cooperation and evaluation are in some respects wellremoved from level of social values and participation discussed earlier in this paper. Over
time, however, such strategies may hold the promise of developing legislation, and of
implementing mechanisms of transparency and accountability, that are targeted upon the
most pressing concerns in citizens’ lives, that are congruent with social values, and that
enjoy widespread understanding and support because of efforts to educate and involve the
public. None of this is to minimize the immense problems facing African states; indeed,
many NEPAD signatories face even greater challenges because of the sense of failure and
bad faith created by past policies. Regional cooperation among governments also raises
particular problems of incentives: what will lead sovereign states to stand by their
commitments, particularly when they are often in competition for scarce capital and
development support? Peer evaluation is one promising approach to that dilemma: all
countries will be evaluated, and all will be evaluators too with the opportunities to share
their ideas and expertise. The world community, however, must be prepared to provide
resources and recognition to promising national and regional governance efforts.
Council of Europe/GRECO. The Council of Europe’s Groupe d’Etats Contre la
Corruption traces its origins back to 1994, when the European Ministers of Justice
recommended to the Committee of Ministers that it establish a Multidisciplinary Group
on Corruption. By the late 1990s it was clear that corruption was both increasing in
complexity and acquiring an international or regional character, necessitating more
extensive cooperation among states. GRECO, a collaborative mechanism to implement 23
and evaluate anti-corruption problems, was established in 1999 with an initial
membership of seventeen countries.8
Since that time membership has doubled, and the
organization has completed an extensive First Round of peer-review consultations and
evaluations.
The Council’s anti-corruption “Guiding Principles” form the core of the process,
but evaluations and consultations often look at governance in broad terms—not only at
prohibitions and penalties, but at the effectiveness of enforcement and detection efforts,
the independence of bodies charged with carrying out anti-corruption policies, and at the
effectiveness of cross-border cooperation, among other concerns. By the end of 2002 a
total of 27 Evaluation reports had been completed, effectively concluding the first round
for countries then involved in the process. The 2003 agenda will focus on follow-up to
the first round, and will launch a second round of peer reviews that will last until the
middle of 2005. GRECO has been a pioneering effort in terms of peer reviews of
governance—a central issue in the OECD Anti-Bribery Treaty process and in the OAS
Anti-Corruption convention. In effect it has been able to diffuse knowledge on
governance improvement, and to accumulate a critical fund of experience with the
possibilities and challenges of effective peer reviews among sovereign states.
Better Governance in Ukraine. A major UNDP initiative has linked accountability
to human rights and economic development goals in Ukraine. One of several efforts to
enlarge and deepen civil society in that nation (USAID has mounted similar efforts with
an anti-corruption focus), “Integrity in Action” focuses upon non-governmental
8 See “What’s the GRECO?” and related documents at
http://www.greco.coe.int/info/AproposE.htm, and the “Programme of Activities for 2003” at
http://www.greco.coe.int/docs/2002/GRECO(2002)34E.pdf 24
organizations, and in particular upon those groups’ leaders, as ways of spreading new
attitudes and knowledge. The project has links to government as well, including
Parliament, the Accounting Chamber, and Ombudsman programs. One goal is to make
human rights a continuing theme across many areas of policymaking and implementation,
and to broaden consultation on human rights issues. Success in that area will both
strengthen links between governments and the NGO sector, and will enhance the ability
of the latter groups to provide information and effective advocacy services to the
emerging civil society. A National Human Rights Plan, coordinated with the extension
and regionalization of ombudsman activities, has been one major accomplishment, and
has been augmented by national and regional public education programs. Parallel efforts
have emphasized transparency in government, as well as enhancing accountability, both
of government to society, and of officials to Parliament. Clearly all of these initiatives
will require sustained support, but hopeful signs here include the emphasis on NGOs and
civil society as active partners in all phases of the transparency and human rights efforts,
and the goal, via human rights, of linking improvements in governance to problems and
concerns in citizens’ everyday lives. There is also some evidence that values of
transparency and accountability are attracting more serious attention within other
government agencies, such as the Ministries of Finance and Justice.
Mozambique: Poverty and Opportunity. Mozambique’s history of civil war,
poverty, and natural disaster confronts that country with an exceptionally wide range of
challenges, while periods of vigorous economic growth during the past decade make it
clear that there are major opportunities for social development and the alleviation of
poverty. Both dealing with the legacies of recent history—more specifically, managing 25
the simultaneous transitions to more competitive markets and politics—and reducing both
absolute poverty and the growing economic gaps between the Maputo area and rural
areas9
make improved governance crucial.
Civil service accountability and local governance reform have been strategic
points of entry for recent UNDP efforts in Mozambique. In the former area efforts have
focused both upon drafting anti-corruption legislation and plans for implementing publicsector management reforms, and upon public involvement through opinion surveys and a
2002 “Participatory Forum” on accountability and transparency. Judges, inspectors, and
members of the Criminal Investigation Police have been re-trained on the value of
transparency and accountability, and on appropriate procedures. A particularly important
parallel effort has involved the training of journalists: in too many societies press reports
on corruption are unsophisticated efforts to retail scandal stories, or reflect the political
agendas of governments and political factions. If Mozambique can produce and sustain a
core group of journalists who can analyze and report on integrity and accountability
issues in clear and accurate ways, and who can make the most of opportunities that
transparency efforts will produce, efforts to enlist citizens in good-governance efforts can
be considerably more effective. As noted at the outset, practicing transparency is but one
side of the equation: there must be people and groups outside of government who are able
and willing to put public information to use.
For many years, local governance in Mozambique suffered both because it
followed a centralized Portuguese model inappropriate for the setting, and because the
9This discussion draws in part upon “Local Governance for Poverty Reduction in Africa: Country
Paper—Mozambique”, prepared for the Fifth Africa Governance Forum: AGF–V, Maputo,
Mozambique May 22 – 25, 2002:
http://www.undp.org/rba/pubs/agf5/AGF%20V%20Mozambique%20CP.pdf 26
colonial power itself was too weak, economically and politically, to make the most of that
model.10 After independence, local assemblies and other institutions were put in place
with a goal of building a less centralized and more responsive structure, but poverty, war,
and other problems prevented significant improvement. More recently, municipal
governments have been chartered and efforts made to involve citizens in their dealings,
and current local governance efforts have focused upon ways for those authorities, and
for Territorial officials, to fight poverty both through more effective administration of
policy and opening up new opportunities for citizens. A first phase, to last through 2004,
is aimed at building basic governmental capacity and effectiveness; a second phase
(2004-2011) will emphasize broader-impact anti-poverty and opportunity programs, as
well as a reassessment of phase one. Throughout, the goal will be to improve the
transparency and accountability of public management and to broaden citizen
participation, as well as to design better policy.11 Mozambique’s effort is noteworthy not
only because of the potential for broad social benefit, but also for the relatively long
timeframe envisioned, and because of its emphasis upon local governance capacity as
well as upon sound policy ideas for fighting poverty.
IV. Next Steps: From Ideas to Action
The specific technical aspects of transparency and accountability are well known. That
the rule of law involves a sizeable social component is a familiar notion. The question is
how to bring those levels of strategy together in such a way that they draw impetus from
each other, become sustainable and effective, and produce visible results in real societies.
10 Ibid., p. 9. 27
Better governance will be attainable where it is not reduced to some sort of
institutional “tool kit”, or some set of specific policy goals alone, but rather is a long-term
strategy to bring state and society closer together to pursue justice and to build a standard
of living that permits people and societies to realize their full potential. Enhancements to
the rule of law, transparency, and accountability that reflect credible commitments to that
long-term agenda will receive the most solid social backing—and, will earn the most
sustainable political support for the leaders who pursue them. In that sense good
governance is a broad-based partnership created and sustained over the long term by
diverse incentives and appeals—and by meaningful results. That sort of effort, as
suggested above, requires careful attention to the state of popular participation in
society’s business, as well as to the strength of institutions.
Such a strategy has many variables and will differ in important details from one
society to the next. Any discussion such as this one can only identify a few main themes
and common elements. Within the two broad categories of participation and institutions,
however, there are ideas that can guide action plans.
Participation: Policies and initiatives should be judged in terms of whether they
enhance the legitimacy of institutions; receive popular support as well as compliance;
encourage both citizens and leaders to develop a recognized stake in reform; help deepen
the strength and complexity of civil society; and are backed up by long-term efforts at
public education and attention to citizen values and opinions. These initiatives are not
11 Ibid., pp. 17-18. 28
only valuable in themselves, but should be seen as steps toward building a long-term,
sustainable foundation for good governance. Specific steps might include the following.
Participation: Building a Social Foundation for Good Governance
• Rule of law: A frank, broad-based assessment of
--the legitimacy of representative and policy institutions
--the effectiveness of their activities
--the vitality of civil society
--social support for, and compliance with, major policies
Such an assessment might be the focus of a National Roundtable process,
and, on a longer-term basis, of peer review among states
•Accountability:
--frequent, open, competitive, honest elections
--enhanced consultative processes
--public opinion surveys
--citizen assessment of public institutions, services
--cooperative definition of specific service and governance standards
--enhance transparency mechanisms and citizen use of information
--long-term support for development of civil society
• Transparency: Public education
--on transparency and its uses
--on public policies, and responsibility for their implementation
--on options for participation in politics and government
--on citizen rights and responsibilities
--on the results of governance initiatives and of citizen participation 29
While these recommendations are grouped under categories of Rule of Law,
Accountability, and Transparency, it will be apparent that those aspects of good
governance can and should overlap in practice, and that sustained effort in each field will
contribute to success in the others.
Institutions. Public institutions will foster good governance to the extent that they
ensure effective, equitable, honest policies and implementation, and access to
information, both in terms of popular access to government information, and mutual
access within government. Provisions for horizontal accountability are critical. An
independent and effective judiciary, a free and competitive press, and a strong civil
society (both an institution and an aspect of participation) will be essential partners in
improving and sustaining institutions over the long run.
An action agenda for institutional aspects of good governance might include the
following steps. In and of themselves they are not new ideas; more important than
novelty is sustained social and leadership backing. Some can be implemented relatively
quickly, while others are long term developments, but all are means to more general ends
that, as in our participation category, overlap in many ways. Most of the following
proposals will need to be implemented with careful attention to local values and
expectations as well:
Institutions: Building Governance Capacity
• Rule of Law: Clear institutional standards and enforcement
--frank assessment and, if needed, amendment of constitutional framework
--appoint, and support, Inspectors General accountable to political leadership and public
--assess and upgrade recruitment, training, and retraining of public employees, and pay
them appropriately and regularly 30
--clear, straightforward legislative policy mandates
--enhance monitoring of policy formation, implementation by elected officials and by
experts
• Accountability: Responsibility, checks and balances
--build horizontal accountability, through an honest and independent judiciary and
through political checks and balances
--clarify and publicize responsibilities for policy implementation and results
--provide positive incentives for accomplishment as well as negative ones for failure or
misconduct
--use intangible incentives too, such as recognition and enhanced status for effective
officials and civil servants
--establish a high-profile and effective ombudsman system
•Transparency: Open and understandable rules, procedures, information
--institute, and protect, Freedom of Information policies
--protect “whistleblowers” and citizens who report problems
--develop sustained Citizen Review procedures for major non-technical agencies
--develop similar reviews by independent experts for technical and non-technical
functions
--use appropriate and inexpensive technology for distributing, giving access to,
information
--simplify, speed up procedures, reduce the number of steps and time required
--establish, and publish, specific policy targets and results
--regularly publish government performance indicators, and solicit public feedback 31
These action steps are relevant to all policy sectors and all types of good-faith
initiatives. They are attainable in a wide range of social settings, not just the relatively
benign circumstances of affluent market democracies. Even more important, good
governance need not necessarily involve a radical expansion of the role of the state, its
resources, or its policy repertoire; the key, instead, is using human and material
resources, and scarce opportunities, wisely and with a long-term strategy in mind. But no
more do these proposals entail a radical rollback in state powers and responsibilities,
particularly in societies where private initiative cannot yet pick up the slack. Instead, the
major question is one of balance and integration—how to bring private interests and
sound public processes closer together without impairing the integrity or vitality of either
sector. The most important first steps will be to make improvements in the areas where
governments are already active, and in the functions the state has already undertaken to
perform. That will pay major dividends in terms of the credibility of any governance
initiatives that follow. All concerned should be aware that improved governance will
have a price tag, in terms of the expenditure of political capital as well as economic
resources. But over time, sustained improvements can more than compensate for those
costs by enhancing the political and economic opportunities available to all society, and
the support (and political credit) that will flow to leaders who take governance issues
seriously. 32
Works Cited
Evans, Peter. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnston, Michael. 1993. “Political Corruption: Historical Conflict and the Rise of
Standards”, Ch. 18 (pp. 193-205) in Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (eds.), The
Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. originally
in Journal of Democracy 2:4 (Fall, 1991), pp. 48-60.
Johnston, Michael. 1999. “A Brief History of Anticorruption Agencies”, pp. 217-226 in
Schedler et. al., op. cit.
Johnston, Michael, and Sahr J. Kpundeh. 2002. “Building a Clean Machine: AntiCorruption Coalitions and Sustainable Reforms”, World Bank Institute Working Paper
number 37208 (December).
Paul, Samuel. 1995. “Evaluating Public Services: A Case Study on Bangalore, India.”
New Directions for Evaluation, American Evaluation Association, no. 67 (Fall).
Peck, Linda Levy. 1990. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England.
Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Roberts, Clayton. 1966. The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.”
Comparative Politics 2:3 (April): 337-363.
Schedler, Andreas, Larry Diamond, and Marc F. Plattner (eds.). 1999. The SelfRestraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Wilson, James Q. 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment