The Book Goran Hyden, Julius Court and Kenneth Mease, Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from 16 Developing Countries (2004, Lynne Rienner)
Rationale Limitations of studies on Democracy and Development The importance of politics and development Lack of analytical usage of governance Need for better ways of assessing / measuring governance
Key Questions In what ways and why does governance vary in countries around the world? What rules affecting governance matter most? When, why and how do these rules make a difference to the way a country develops? What deficiencies in political arrangements make conflict more likely?
Meaning of Governance WGS focuses on the national level. Consensus Nature of relations between state and society More than just government Process-oriented Result of human agency Definition - Governance refers to the formation and stewardship of the rules (formal and informal) that regulate the public realm, the arena in which state as well as economic and societal actors interact to make decisions.
Arenas of Governance Civil Society the ways citizens raise and become aware of political issues Political Society the way interests in society are aggregated in the political process Executive government stewardship of the system as a whole (by government) Bureaucracy the way policies are implemented Economic Society the relationship between the state and the market Judiciary the way disputes are settled
Principles of Good Governance 1. Participation: involvement and ownership by stakeholders 2. Fairness: do rules apply equally to everyone in society 3. Decency: rules are implemented without harming people 4. Accountability: political actors are responsible for actions 5. Transparency: clarity and openness of decision-making 6. Efficiency: use of limited resources for greatest outputs. NB: there is no one list of principles
Analytical Framework Determinants Governance Realm Development Context 1. History 2. Political 3. Economic 4. Social 5. International Arenas Civil Political Soc Executive Bureaucracy Economic Soc Judiciary Outcomes 1. Human Security 2. Political Rights 3. Economic Opps 4. Social Caps 5. Trust
Survey Instrument Six Dimensions: Socializing, Aggregating, Executive, Managerial, Regulatory, Adjudicatory Six Principles: Participation, Fairness, Transparency, Efficiency, Decency, Accountability + Human Rights-Based Concept of Development = 30 Pilot Indicators
Data Collection Approaches International Panels Public Opinion Surveys Focus Groups In-country Panel of Experts (In-country / Panel of International Experts) 22 Countries panel of 35-40 experts questionnaire 30 questions (plus qualitative views)
Pilot Countries Africa Nigeria, Tanzania, Togo Asia China, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, PNG, Samoa, Thailand E. Europe and FSU Bulgaria, Russia, Kyrgyz Middle East Jordan Latin America Argentina, Chile, Barbados, Peru OECD Korea (51% of world s population) (16 of 22 Pilot Countries in Book)
Data Analysis The WGA index was examined for reliability and validity. The reliability was measured by using Cronbach s Alpha with a score of over.90 for the 30 item index The WGA country scores were then compared with other measures of governance. It is possible to assess governance rigorously using panels of WIPs.
Book Outline Introduction Governance, Democracy & Development Governance: The Aggregate Picture Civil Society Political Society Executive Bureaucracy Judiciary Conclusions
WGA Governance Scores 1995 and 2000 150 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 Togo Pakistan WGS Scores for all 16 Countires in 1995 and 2000 Russia Kyrgyzstan Philippines Indonesia China Peru WGS in 1995 WGS in 2000 Argentina Bulgaria Mongolia Tanzania Jordan India Chile Thailand
Democracy and Governance Not all high-scoring governance countries are also the most democratic (Jordan). High governance scores are possible in poorer countries (democracy is not only route to legitimacy). It is a definite finding that governance is not only assessed in terms of regime quality but also regime stability.
Findings What we have are two distinct governance challenges. One deals with rule adherence, the other with rule design. In an era of liberalization and democratization, the issue of design or re-design may not be as acute as the issue of adherence The WGA can meaningfully identify the weak spots in the governance realm Civil Society, Government, and Economic Society have scores considerably above the other three. Political Society, Bureaucracy, and Judiciary stand out as the more problematic governance arenas.
Findings There can be very different ratings between arenas and within arenas be careful of aggregates. Reform takes a long time especially in bureaucracy and judicial arenas. Reform is political not just technical.
Critical Indicators Arena Civil Society Political Society Government Bureaucracy Economic Society Judiciary Indicator Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly Free and fair elections Civil-military relations Transparency Accountability Absence of corruption Impartial judgment
Conclusions Using a broader governance lens is helpful. It is possible to assess governance rigorously using panels of WIPs and it is helpful. We can identify weak spots in general and in a nuanced way. Perception of system legitimacy important, e.g. for decisions on whether to investment in a country. Poorer countries can have good governance. More work is needed on governance indicators.
Our Next Steps Round 2 Assessments: Work again with in-country coordinators Revised Questionnaire Improved Approach Use of Online Tools Greater emphasis on capacity building Working with others (UNDP, GTZ, INWENT, DHF)
Thank you. Contacts Goran Hyden ghyden@operamail.com Julius Court jcourt@odi.org.uk