The good governance model

Good governance is the second model of reform that has inspired initiatives aimed at changing the way the PA operates. While NPM has dominated the intellectual scene and profoundly influenced practices on the ground both in developed and developing countries from the late 1970s until the mid-1990s, in the last decade the good governance model, has become the model of reference for most actors involved in state apparatus reforms (Bovaird &

Loeffler, 2003).

3.2.1 Good governance and public administration reforms

The central idea of good governance reforms rests on the principle that

“institutions matter” (Burki & Perry, 1998, p. 7) and therefore, the state does play a pivotal role in economic and social development.

This renewed interest in the state has come with the recognition of the success of the state-led development of the Asia NIC, notes Fritz and Menocal (2006, p.

3), who mention the work of Amsden et al., (1994): such experience, note the scholars, “served to highlight the fact that even market based economies require functioning capable states in order to operate and grow”. As explained by the two scholars, the process of re-recognizing the role of the state has also gone hand-in-hand with the re-evaluation of the role of institutions. Referring to North (2006), they note that such process has invalidated the previously held assumption that “institutions arise almost effortlessly and as a by-product of economic growth”: on the contrary, conclude the authors, “improvements in institutions are essential preconditions and determinants for growth” (Fritz &

Menocal, 2006, p. 3).

Table 14: Key forces leading to governance reforms Political

▪ New political and social movements in many countries–and internationally–which contest the neo-liberal world view, especially in relation to world trade, the global environment and attitudes to civil liberties

▪ Changing expectations, fuelled by globalization (particularly through tourism and the mass media) about the quality of services which governments should be able to deliver, given what is currently available in other countries

▪ Changing expectations about the extent to which public services should be tailored to the needs of individual citizens

▪ Increased insistence by key stakeholders (and particularly the media) that new levels of public accountability are necessary, with associated transparency of decision making and openness of information systems

▪ (...) Economic/

financial ▪ Decreasing proportions of the population within the 'economically active' category as conventionally defined, with knock-on effects on household income levels and government tax revenues

▪ Economic boom of the 1990s in most OECD countries and many other parts of

the world, generally producing rising tax revenues for governments

▪ Increasing (or continuing) resistance by citizens to paying higher rates of tax to fund public services

▪ Weakening roles of trade unions as labor markets become more flexible

▪ (...) Social

▪ Traditional institutions such as the family and social class have changed their forms and their meanings in significant ways, so that old assumptions about family behavior and class attitudes can no longer be taken for granted in policy making

▪ Traditional sources of social authority and control–police, clergy, teachers and so on–are no longer as respected or influential as previously

▪ Changing perceptions about the minimum quality of life for certain vulnerable groups which is acceptable, especially in relation to child poverty, minimum wages for the low paid, and the quality of life of elderly people

▪ (...) Legal/

legislative ▪ Increasing influence of supra-national bodies (e.g., United Nations (UN), WB, IMF, World Trade Organization (WTO), European Union (EU) in driving legislative or policy change at national level

▪ Legal challenge in the courts to decisions made by government, citizens, businesses, and other levels of government

Source: Bovaird, T. & Loeffler, E. (Eds.). (2003, pp. 14-16), Public Management & Governance.

London: Routledge

Along the same line, some influential views (see, for instance, Burki & Perry, 1998; Hilderbrand & Grindle, 1994; WB, 1997a, 1999) support the idea also that those countries that best perform in terms of development outcomes (for example, measured in terms of the Human Development Index) feature specific characteristics. These are: (Hilderbrand & Grindle, 1994) ²⁵:

“They (...) are authoritative in the sense that they concentrate sufficient decision making power to respond effectively to public issues”;

“They are intelligent, in the sense that they are open to and encourage the use of technical information and analysis in decision making and problem solving”;

“They (...) respond flexibly to rapidly changing domestic and international conditions and demands so that national goals are protected and achieved”;

“They (...) are participatory in the sense that they encourage debate,

25 Retrieved on 24 February 2012 from:

http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/cdrb/parti.htm

discussion, and participation in decision making”;

“They are (...) accountable in the sense that those who are responsible for making and implementing decisions and those who manage public sector organizations are held responsible for their actions and citizens have avenues to redress abuses of power;”

“They are (...) able to go beyond concern with specific problems and their solution to develop systems, processes, and cultures that help ensure wise public choices and responsible use of resources”.

Since the state and institutions lie at the heart of the good governance agenda, the overall international development strategy tends to focus on “building state capacity” (Heredia & Shneider, 1998, p. 1). Based on this rationale, international organizations have increasingly adjusted their aid strategies based on the abovementioned principles both as aid conditionalities (i.e., financial and technical support is conditional upon fulfilling some basic governance criteria) and as policy objective, strategies which aim to support central and local institutional and capacity building (Santiso, 2001a, 2001b).

Translated into operational programs, the good governance agenda often includes some of the following measures, that range from strengthening policy capacity (i.e., rationalization of decision-making process, enhancement of policy stakeholder participation, etc.), to promoting administrative capacity building at organizational-, process-, and human resource levels, and institutional reforms, with the objective of making the state more transparent and accountable to citizens (Schacter, 2000).

Table 15: A typology of good governance reform Administrative

capacity building

▪ Organizational restructuring and renewal, including strengthening of the capacity to be more responsive to the needs and preferences of citizens

▪ Strengthening of linkages between government agencies, including strengthening the capacity of line departments to interact with one another and with central agencies

▪ Improving the quality of human resources through training and recruitment

▪ Addressing management problems related to employee performance management, wage and non-wage incentives, irrational job

classification systems, and ineffective payroll and personnel systems Strengthening

policy capacity

▪ Rationalizing and standardizing the decision-making process, improving the flow of policy relevant information

▪ Strengthening capacity for policy analysis, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Institutional reform ▪ Strengthening institutions and procedures that act as an accountability

check on the executive, such as the judiciary, independent oversight bodies, and rules related to public access to information

▪ Civil service codes of conduct and strengthened safeguards concerning public procurement

(...) ▪ (...)

Source: Schacter. M., (2000, p. 6), Public Sector Reforms in Developing Countries: Issues, Lessons and Future Directions, Paper prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Canada