Dr Michael JenningsDept. of Development Studies

SOASmj10@soas.ac.uk

GDAI Residential School, Addis Ababa, 28th March 2012

The Origins and Evolution of Good Governance as an Idea

Governance is not a new idea …

The experience of structural adjustment policies

1940s – late 1970s: The ‘state’ was in control of development

Late 1970s+: State became defined as main obstacle to progress

Ushered in a period of structural reforms: SAPsGovernments forced to downsize their bureaucraciesPublic assets privatisedState controls over exchange rates removedOpening up of the market (liberalisation)

BUT: the reforms did not provide the hoped for stimulus for growth and development. WHY?

‘Africa in crisis’

World Bank: ‘Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth (1989)

“Underlying the litany of Africa’s development problems is a crisis of governance.”

“Overall Africans are as poor today as they were 30 years ago”

Saw key to achieving development as improving the enabling environment, in particular the state:

“A root cause of weak economic performance in the past has been the failure of public institutions. Private sector initiative and market mechanisms are important, but they go hand in hand with good governance.”

1st document to outline good governance: “Africa needs not just less government but better

government – government that concentrates its efforts less on direct interventions and more on enabling others to be productive.”

Third wave democratisation & the end of the Cold War

Late 1980s & early 1990s saw: Rise of pro-democracy movements in Africa, Latin

America, Eastern Europe Collapse of Soviet empire

History seemed to suggest: large, authoritarian states were not efficient (reinforcing

neo-liberal models) Multi-party democracy was an integral part of good

governance

Ending of Cold War also saw decline in patronage of client states with little regard for their character

1992 World Development Report

Report signalled a change in policy: a new emphasis on the importance of state institutions

Good governance is important because: It creates & sustains an environment conducive to achieving

development objectives Sound development management is linked to efficacy of Bank

investment

Good governance defined as: “…the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a

country’s economic and social resources for development. Good governance, for the World Bank, is synonymous with sound development management.” [1992, 1]

“… good governance is central to creating and sustaining an environment which fosters strong and equitable development, and it is an essential component complement to sound economic policies.” [1992, 1]

Reviving the place of the state

What can the government do? “Even in societies that are highly market-oriented, only

governments can provide two sorts of public goods: rules to make markets work efficiently and corrective interventions where there are market failures.” [1992, 6]

“In addition, the state must play a key role in providing services such as education, health, and essential infrastructure, particularly when such services are directed at the poor and are not forthcoming from the private sector. A well-educated labour force and adequate infrastructure are fundamental to the quality of private investment.” [1992, 6]

But what kind of state: Clear separation of public & private Predictable legal & regulatory frameworks, implemented

impartially by the state Independent judiciary Wide based decision-making Full transparency & full accountability

Evolution of an ideaUN approaches:

Emphasises empowerment & political dimensions of governance

E.g. UNDP Focus on: human rights legislative support Judicial reform Electoral assistance & multi-

party democracy

Kofi Annan: good governance is about respect for rights & rule of law

strengthening democracy promoting transparency &

capacity in public administration

DFID

Called for more political approach to good governance than Bank definition:

“The Bank and the IMF are limited by

their mandate to addressing issues of

‘economic governance’. … The Bank and

the Fund should recognise more

explicitly the widening agenda of state

capabilities… They should … seek to

work in partnership with other agencies

with fewer inhibitions in addressing

more political aspects of government.

Their staff need to convert good

intentions in these regards into

operational practice.” [2001, 27]

US approaches

Countries eligible for MCA funding must meet explicitly political criteria

Promote political pluralism, equality & rule of law

Respect human rights Protect private property rights Encourage transparency &

accountability Efforts to combat corruption

AGOA eligibility includes political criteria

Political pluralism & rule of law Poverty reduction policies Fighting graft Provision of education & health Support rights of workers &

children

African Union approaches

NEPAD: “Good governance as a basic

requirement for peace, security and sustainable political and socio-economic development.”

Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance (2003):

“ … we reaffirm our commitment to the promotion of democracy and its core values in our respective countries.”

“We believe in just, honest, transparent, accountable and participatory government and probity in public life.”

“We are determined to increase our efforts in restoring stability, peace and security in the African continent”

“In the light of Africa’s recent history, respect for human rights has to be accorded an importance and urgency all of its own.”

Bank approach, 10 years on

2002 World Development Report Bank accepted good governance has political aspect But also re-affirmed commitment to more technical

approaches

“In focusing on institution building, it does not devalue the importance of policy. But good policies are not enough. The details of institution building matter for growth and poverty reduction.” [2002, 2]

Are rights, participation & empowerment outcomes of good governance, or integral to the approach?

Drawing out the political sting

Bank argues it is prohibited from engaging in politics: “The Bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political

affairs of any member; nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the member or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions, and these considerations shall be weighed impartially… [Article IV, section 10]

Leftwich: “The effect of this principle … was effectively to evacuate any

professional assessment of the politics of development or non-development from its analytical concerns”

Tom Weiss “In working to remove ‘politics’ from the debate … the Bank’s

position on governance is preoccupied with public sector management, the reduction of transaction costs and contract enforcement.”

A victory for the state?

Is the key aim of good governance restoring state effectiveness, promoting political pluralism & participation? Donor discourse would suggest that it is They are both integral to good governance, and outcomes

from it

OR: is the political language a mask for a continuation reform process begun under SAPs: is it a Washington Consensus in sheep’s clothing? Good governance is important because it makes markets

function more effectively, helps attract overseas financial investment & helps the private sector grow

The Western model is held up as the sole model of good governance

Other non-western approaches fall outside good governance parameters

Conclusions

Good governance has multiple definitions, with different outcomes

It may also be used as a cover for other interventions that are less obviously linked to ‘good governance’

Some questions to leave you with: Is good governance addressing the key needs of development, or

the interests of donors? Are the greatest constraints on development at the national level

(which may be addressed by good governance), or by international structures that constrain individual action & national policy

How can a good governance agenda be implemented: are conditions appropriate?

Has the good governance agenda been internalised, or is it an external process

Is the good governance model the only appropriate model?