The State and Development Governance
Presentation to DelegationsIn the framework of courses organized by UNCTAD Virtual Institute
on International Economic Relations, 18 March 2011
Charles GoreHead, Research and Policy Analysis Branch
Division for Africa, LDCs and Special Programmes
Key concepts• Governance
– Why use the word “governance” rather than “government”?– Is governance only about institutions or is it about policies?
• Good governance– What normative values are imbued in the goodness of good
governance?– Can good governance be bad?– Is good governance about procedures or outcomes?
• Developmental State– Is there a danger that the developmental state is “deified
into some kind of omnipotent and omniscient leviathan which always gets its way” (Mkandawire 2001).
• Development governance: WHAT IS IT?
Good Development Governance is partly a question of procedures of governing…
6 Core Principles
…but Good Development Governance is also about development outcomes
• ‘Development governance is about creating a better future for members of a society by using the authority of the State to promote economic development, and in particular to catalyze structural transformation, create prodcutive opportunities and raise living standards for present and future generations’ (LDCR 2009: 15)
• ‘Development governance is about the processes, policies and institutions that are associated with purposefully promoting national development and ensuring socially legitimate and inclusive distribution of costs and benefits’ (LDCR 2009: 15).
Lets look at good governance
Some Definitions of Governance and Good Governance
• Governance is “the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprise the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizen and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences UNDP 1997
• “Good governance is epitomized by predictable, open and enlightened policy making; a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; and executive arm of government accountable for its actions; a strong civil society participating in public affairs; and all behaving under the rule of law”. World Bank 1994
The current ‘good governance’
institutional reform agenda
• It has an immense scope
• It is rooted in a dichotomy between two ideal types: a formalized ‘good governance’ system and informal ‘bad governance’ system
• Also it involves the introduction of particular Western institutions (electoral democracy, new public management)
Table 1: The Scope of the Good Governance Agenda: Key Arenas and Principles
Principle/ Arena
Participation
Fairness Decency Accountability
Transparency Efficiency
Civil society
Freedom of association
Society free from discrimination
Freedom of expression
Respect for governing rules
Freedom of the media
Input in policy making
Political society
Legislature representative of society
Policy reflects public preferences
Peaceful competition for political power
Legislators accountable to public
Transparency of political parties
Legislative function affecting policy
Government
Intra-governmental consultation
Adequate standard of living
Personal security of citizens
Security forces subordinated to civilian government
Government provides accurate information
Best use of available resources
Bureaucracy
Higher civil servants' part of policy-making
Equal access to public services
Civil servants respectful towards citizens
Civil servants accountable for their actions
Clear decision-making process
Merit-based system for recruitment
Judiciary Consultative processes of conflict resolution
Equal access to justice for all citizens
Human rights incorporated in national practice
Judicial officers held accountable
Clarity in administering justice
Efficiency of the judicial system
Source: ..
The Scope of the Good Governance Agenda
Problems with the Good Governance Reform Agenda
• This has led to disabling reform overload• Troubles with governance indicators • What is good governance when a country has
limited resources• Instrumental value of good governance.The
evidence does not indicate a close relationship between the quality of governance (according to GG indicators) and growth of per capita income BUT rather with income levels– Is good governance a good development strategy?
(Meisel and Aoudia 2007)
Limits of Governance Indicators
• Arndt and Oman 2006: Because the average value is zero and standard deviation always one, the indicators cannot be reliably used for monitoring changes in the level of governance over time (p.61)
• Analysis of potential cross-country comparisons amongst LDCs on the six governance dimenions in WGI for 2006 showed that only 40 per cent of 14700 comparisons were statistically significant. That is to say, 60 per cent of the differences in governance quality amongst LDCs were too small to be statistically significant.
• The indicators show goodness of governance relative to other countries not in absolute terms – a country can have worsening scores even if its governance is improving.
Some Problems with Governance Indicators
• Arndt and Oman 2006: Because the average value is zero and standard deviation always one, the indicators cannot be reliably used for monitoring changes in the level of governance over time (p.61)
• Analysis of potential cross-country comparisons amongst LDCs on the six governance dimenions in WGI for 2006 showed that only 40 per cent of 14700 comparisons were statistically significant. That is to say, 60 per cent of the differences in governance quality amongst LDCs were too small to be statistically significant.
• The indicators show goodness of governance relative to other countries not in absolute terms – a country can have worsening scores even if its governance is improving.
LDCs with real GDP growth > 6% during the boom
(2002-2007)
LDCs with real GDP growth
between 6% and 3% during the
boom (2002-2007)
LDCs with real GDP growth < 3% during the boom
(2002-2007)
Fragile states (according to WB 2004 CPIA score)
11 3 12 26
Non fragile states 8 13 2 23
19 16 14
Real GDP growth and "fragile states" during the boom
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
IRIS 'Property Rights' Index 1990 (ranges f rom 0 to 50)
Gro
wth
Rate
of P
er C
apita
GDP
19
90–2
003
Advanced Countries Converging Developing Countries Diverging Developing Countries
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IRIS Corruption Index 1984 (ranges f rom 0 to 6)
Gro
wth
Rate
of P
er C
apita
GDP
19
80–1
990
Advanced Countries Converging Developing Countries Diverging Developing Countries
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IRIS Corruption Index 1990 (ranges f rom 0 to 6)
Gro
wth
Rate
of P
er C
apita
GDP
19
90–2
003
Advanced Countries Converging Developing Countries Diverging Developing Countries
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
0 10 20 30 40 50
IRIS Property Rights Index 1984 (ranges f rom 0 to 50)
Gro
wth
Rate
of P
er C
apita
GDP
19
80–1
990
Advanced Countries Converging Developing Countries Diverging Developing Countries
