From::::: paul.lundberg@un.org.pk
To::::: magnet@undp.org
Date::::: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:20:42 PKT
Subject :: Re: Food for Thought - A Definition of Governance

Dear Magnet,

Some of our colleagues have argued, vociferously in one case, that 
defining governance is an academic exercise that should not concern 
us practitioners.  I disagree with that view.  I believe that it is 
essential that we understand what we are talking about and agree 
among ourselves about the nature of our subject.  

To start my comment, I would like to submit an alternate definition 
of governance.  This definition was created by Dr. Elinor Ostrom, a 
professor of political science and a lifelong student of common 
property resource management issues.  She defines governance quite 
simply as the "regularized ways of ordering human societies at all 
levels of organization from family units to entire societies". 

Why did I think it necessary to submit an alternate definition? We 
need to define governance as a function of society, not of
government, and without referring to intended results.  
Unfortunately, the first sentence of UNDP's definition of governance 
immediately creates an obstacle for those who see the influence of 
civil society to be paramount.   Governance should not be equated 
with the processes of government.  The "management of a country's 
affairs" is an outcome of governance, not its definition.  One of the 
most difficult tasks I face when attempting to introduce the concept 
of governance to officials and politicians is to get them to 
recognize that, in a free society, it is the civil society, not the 
government, that determines the principles under which institutions 
are formed and function. 

The  second sentence in UNDP's definition helps to broaden our
view of governance, but I fear it comes too late because the 
readers are already thinking about citizens in relation to their 
governments.  However, this sentence rightly addresses the fact that 
civil society does not spend much of its time thinking about 
political society.  Most of the time people think about their 
relations with other people.  They think of government only when it 
gets in the way or when it fails to protect their rights. (More 
recently, people also think of government when they want something 
they don't want to pay for, but that is a subject for a later 
debate.)  I would argue that it is the quality of individual 
relationships that determines the quality of governance, not the 
other way around.  The decision making processes involved in the 
management of a nation's development resource allocations will depend 
ultimately  upon the dominant approach of its civil society to the 
management of family and community relations.

In support of this relational view of governance, I would like 
to quote Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote in his classic review of 
early American governance in the 1830's: "If men are to remain 
civilized, or to become so, the art of association together must grow 
and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is 
increased".  I believe the quality of association to be found 
in a society is a key determinant that can be used to distinguish 
good from bad governance.  A valuable question to ask is:  Do the 
formal and informal rule structures extant in a society, and the 
manner in which those rules are enforced, support or constrain the 
ability of people to work together for common purposes.  

Thus, the "ordering of human societies"  in Dr. Ostrom's definition 
is not a process that is done to societies, but by them in a 
self-organized manner over time.  The process of creating 
lasting systems of governance is dominated by the interaction of 
individual decisions.  Fortunately, or unfortunately, when these 
individual decisions are aggregated through social institutions the 
emergent structures are rarely predictable. 

Those of you who got this far may now legitimately ask what kinds of 
governance support initiatives are possible to consider if the 
evolution of governance systems is essentially a chaotic, 
uncontrollable process.  Obviously, we need to start by 
deconstructing the definition into its component parts and 
determining those that are appropriate for external interventions.  
The results will differ greatly among societies.  The late Nobel 
economist, Fredrick Hayak, often referred to the "fatal conceit" 
of those who believed that they could engineer societies.  To avoid 
this conceit, I suggest that we focus the bulk of our attention on 
promoting those activities that enhance  abilities at all levels of 
society to work out their problems for themselves.   If you are 
looking for examples, MDGD's LIFE is arguably one of the best.

To conclude my assessment of UNDP's definition,  I believe the 
second paragraph is inappropriatly worded.  A good definition of a 
term should not be tied to the normative values of its definers.  
This definition of "good governance" is inappropriate not because it 
is eurocentric, but because it is UN-centric.  It is too filled with 
jargon currently in fashion in development circles to have much 
general or lasting value.  

As an alternative I submit the following:  "Good governance occurs 
when societal norms and practices empower and encourage people to 
take increasingly greater control over their own development in 
a manner that does not impinge upon the accepted rights of others."

Comments and criticism are welcome.

Paul Lundberg
UNDP Pakistan
lundberg@un.org.pk