Good Governance

Good governance is a good idea. We would all be better off, and citizens of many developing countries
would be much better off, if public life were conducted within institutions that were fair, judicious,
transparent, accountable, participatory, responsive, well-managed, and efficient. For the millions of
people throughout the world who live in conditions of public insecurity and instability, corruption, abuse
of law, public service failure, poverty, and inequality, good governance is a mighty beacon of what ought
to be.

Due to this intuitive appeal, good governance has grown rapidly to become a major ingredient in
analyses of what’s missing in countries struggling for economic and political development. Researchers
have adopted the concept as a way of exploring institutional failure and constraints on growth. Putting
governance right has become a major aspect of development assistance. Advocates have linked the
advancement of a variety of issues to improved governance. By the 2000s, a significant portion of the
development agenda was related to good governance; international development agencies created
departments of governance employed a small army of governance advisors and researchers, included
governance components in their assistance packages, and increased funding for good governance
initiatives.

Intuitively and in research, good governance is a seductive idea—who, after all, can reasonably defend
bad governance? Nevertheless, the popularity of the idea has far outpaced its capacity to deliver. In its
brief life, it has also muddied the waters of thinking about the development process. The trajectory of
this idea—an introduction that provides new energy to research and practice, mounting popularity as it
is adopted by a host of academics and practitioners, and inflation as it becomes increasingly essential to
end goals in development—is not uncommon in the field of development. Indeed, the field can be
credited with much faddism of the magic bullet variety, overly susceptible to the thrall of ideas that
promise to deal effectively with a host of constraints on prosperity and equity. Community
development, basic needs, participation, sustainability, appropriate technology, and a host of other
ideas—the history of development thinking is littered with elastic concepts that grow in inclusiveness as
they become popular. None of them is necessarily a bad idea, and some are probably very good ideas,
but all have fallen short of the inflated expectations of their proponents.

Having failed to meet these expectations, or having unearthed knowledge of new constraints, such
concepts have often been devalued as the field moved on to new ideas that promised to “deliver”
development. This is a possible future for the concept of good governance. But throwing away ideas
that fall short of expectations is rarely warranted, and good governance is a useful concept. It calls
needed attention to the institutional underpinnings of effective economic and political management.
Yet this laudable idea has become conflated with the capacity to generate growth, alleviate poverty, and
bring effective democracy to peoples in poor countries. Rather than discarding it because it has become
inflated, scholars and practitioners should instead seek a reasonable understanding of what good
governance can deliver—and what it cannot. They should also assume more realistic expectations about
how much good governance can be expected in poor countries struggling with a plethora of demands on
their capacities to pursue change. In this chapter, I explore how and why the concept of good
governance, its meaning, principles, ingredients and indicator and evaluating Pakistan governance on
these basis .1

In the last two decade theoretical and empirical evidence has offered a new insight: that broader that
broader socio economic development including the distribution of the benefit of growth is determined
by the quality of governance and institution. Economic policies, however sound and benign they may be,
cannot disperse the gain widely unless the institution intermediating these policies is strong, efficient
and effective.

According to world Bank Governance refers to the manners in which public official and institution
acquire and exercise authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services. The key
dimensions of governance is public sector management, accountability, legal framework for
development and information and transparency.

Meaning of Good Governance

Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in development
literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our
societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans
on the condition that reforms that ensure "good governance" are undertaken. This article tries to
explain, as simply as possible, what "governance" and "good governance" means.

The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put "governance"
means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not
implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as corporate governance, international
governance, national governance and local governance. Since governance is the process of
decisionmaking and the process by which decisions are implemented, an analysis of governance focuses
on the formal and informal actors involved in decision-making and implementing the decisions made
and the formal and informal structures that have been set in place to arrive at and implement the
decision. Government is one of the actors in governance. Other actors involved in governance vary
depending on the level of government that is under discussion. In rural areas, for example, other actors
may include influential land lords, associations of peasant farmers, cooperatives, NGOs, research
institutes, religious leaders, finance institutions political parties, the military etc. The situation in urban
areas is much more complex. Figure 1 provides the interconnections between actors involved in urban
governance. At the national level, in addition to the above actors, media, lobbyists, international donors,
multi-national corporations, etc. may play a role in decisionmaking or in influencing the decision-making
process. All actors other than government and the military are grouped together as part of the "civil
society." In some countries in addition to the civil society, organized crime syndicates also influence
decision-making, particularly in urban areas and at the national level. Similarly formal government
structures are one means by which decisions are arrived at and implemented. At the national level,
informal decision-making structures, such as "kitchen cabinets" or informal advisors may exist. In urban
areas, organized crime syndicates such as the "land Mafia" may influence decision-making. In some rural
areas locally powerful families may make or influence decision-making. Such, informal decision-making
is often the result of corrupt practices or leads to corrupt practices.

Definition of Good Governance

Although it is hard to precise define governance there is widely governance that good governance
enables state, civil society and private sector to enhance the well being a large segment of population.

There is no single and exhaustive definition of “good governance,” nor is there a delimitation of
its scope, that commands universal acceptance. The term is used with great flexibility; this is an
advantage, but also a source of some difficulty at the operational level. Depending on the
context and the overriding objective sought, good governance has been said at various times to
encompass: full respect of human rights, the rule of law, effective participation, multi-actor
partnerships, political pluralism, transparent and accountable processes and institutions, an
efficient and effective public sector, legitimacy, access to knowledge, information and education,
political empowerment of people, equity, sustainability, and attitudes and values that foster
responsibility, solidarity and tolerance.

However, there is a significant degree of consensus that good governance relates to political and
institutional processes and outcomes that are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of
development. It has been said that good governance is the process whereby public institutions
conduct public affairs, manage public resources and guarantee the realization of human rights in
a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption, and with due regard for the rule of law. The
true test of "good" governance is the degree to which it delivers on the promise of human rights:
civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The key question is: are the institutions of
governance effectively guaranteeing the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food,
quality education, fair justice and personal security?

Good Governance principals

The six principles identified by Hyden at al. that are related to governance are: a. Participation

b. fairness c. decency d. accountability e. Transparency f. efficiency

Good Governance characteristics

Participation:

Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be
either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point
out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable
in society would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and
organized. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil
society on the other hand.

Rule of law:

Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full
protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an
independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.

Transparency:

Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows
rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those
who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is
provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media.

Responsiveness:

Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a
reasonable timeframe.

Consensus oriented:

There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires
mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the
best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-
term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals
of such development. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social
contexts of a given society or community.

Equity and inclusiveness:

A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do
not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most
vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.

Effectiveness and efficiency:

Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society
while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good
governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.
Accountability:

Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the
private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional
stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are
internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is
accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced
without transparency and the rule of law.

Each nation path to governance will be different culture, geography, political and administrative
tradition economic condition and many other factors. The scope of activities allocated to the public and
private sector diverge markedly and so does the variation in scale. Yet governments share many
features. They face similar responsibilities in that they need to establish a basic policy framework and
provide critical goods and services, protect and administer rule of law and advance social equity. What
has been the experience of Pakistan with respect to governance and how has the tension between the
collective good of society and the self interest of the state actors been managed? What can be done to
improve governance and strengthen institution to promote the welfare of the majority?

Most observer and analyst within and outside Pakistan firmly believe that quality of economic
governance and decision making and capacity of institution gradually deteriorated over time. Pakistan’s
main problem in holding on to macro-economic stability, sustaining economic growth and delivering
stability and delivering public services to the poor is due to the weak governance and a gradual but
perceptible decline in institutional capacity. The elitist nature of state and society and both the conflict
and collusion among various power structures of the country can explain the phenomenon.It is not the
content of public policy that has been wanting but the implementation of those policies yhat has been
proved to be the major culprit. The implementation capacity that itself is the function of the vision and
objective of political leadership, the competence of civil service and the capabilities of public
institutions.

Improvement of economic has not been consistent pursued in Pakistan as implementation required
several decade which elected and military government have short term horizon. Elected government, in
pursuit of their wining next election, and military government in their attempt to gain legitimacy, get
bogged down to ad-hoc and occasionally populist measure without addressing the root cause :that is
building institutional capacity, to deliver improving standards for the majority of the population and
setting up a viable governance structure personalized decision making according to the whim and
caprices of the individuals at the helm has therefore displaced and informed well thought our
institutionalized process.
Chronicle political instability and frequent changes in in political regimes have also caused disastrous
consequences for economic governance.

Essential ingredients of Good governance are participation, Transparency, credibility, rule of law,
efficiency and accountability are now accepted are as essential and measured through indicator such as
(a) voice and accountability, (b) political stability (c) government effectiveness (d) regulatory burden (e)
rule of law (f) corruption.

1.This paper draws on two earlier publications. See Merilee S. Grindle, “Good Enough Governance:
Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration, and Institutions 17, no a4 (October 2004): 525-548; Merilee S. Grindle, “Good Enough
Governance Revisited,” Development Policy Review 25, no. 5 (2007): 553-574.