Concept Paper: Governance

(Note: This paper was written in the first quarter of 2018–24 February,2018 — as part of a Research Design course)

Summary

This paper explores the concept, “Governance”, using a semantic approach. It conceptualizes its negative and positive poles, identifies the levels and dimensions of Governance, and describes its characteristics. Governance is a concept relevant within and among entities and applicable to diverse array of units in society (individuals, households, organizations, civil society groups, government, supranational agencies). In each of these levels and cases, there are commonalities concerning what constitutes Governance. These intersections come to light when interactions within and among actors are observed. Participatory decision making, and integrated planning are identified as the most important traits to look out for if on a search for Governance. The paper concludes by emphasizing that, “Governance is not Governance for Governance sake but because of the outcomes”. Therefore, tangible development outcomes, evidenced in the quality of life of members of a “constituency” is the missing leg needed for Governance to stand.

Introduction

The concept “Governance” is one with a positive connotation and refers to the act of providing direction in a way that results into benefits for all. Governance is intrinsically good, evokes images filled with expectations of favourable outcomes, and goes in tandem with terms such as democracy and development. Situations devoid of Governance are filled with inequality, corruption, and all the things that stem from them — violence, conflicts, and total chaos. A lack of Governance also leads to a lack of coordination which leads to shallow and myopic actions with debilitating aftermaths. Straddling between Governance and “no-Governance” is a lukewarm zone that idolizes the status quo, characterized by bureaucracies and other bottlenecks that results into endless theorizing about what ought to be, stalemates and stagnancy. The search for Governance is the search for outcomes such as democracy and development. This search births the search for institutions, policies, governments that align with the characteristics of a population, their history and can engender collectively desired positive outcomes.

Since its independence in 1964, Kenya has had three constitutions and two major amendments including the last 2010 Kenya Constitution.[1] The 2010 constitution devolved political, fiscal and administrative power from the central government to 47 counties.[2] Most of Kenya’s post-independence government had been centralized with a one-party state. “The over-centralization of the state allowed certain ethnic groups to dominate leading to inequitable resource distribution, politicized ethnicity in ways that fueled violence, and stimulated a political culture of corruption”.[3] The devolution process was in response to the outcries against ethnic marginalization and demands for participatory government and even development.[4] The quality of Governance in Kenya would be a deciding factor if devolution would lead to negative or positive outcomes.

Dimensions of Governance

Although this paper focuses on Governance at the polity level, the concept of Governance at the individual and organizational levels has some parallels with Governance at the polity level. For example, a rational individual/organization/government would not adamantly commit to something despite negative reactions from the body/members/citizens. Governance can also be intra-entity or inter-entity. Governance within and between entities is complementary. If each entity can control itself and meet its needs, various entities can work together amicably since each action needed to be taken is not seen as survival of the fittest or a struggle for survival. An entity’s control over itself also involves resisting the urge bully or manipulate other entities.

Governance is also holistic; you cannot commit to Governance sporadically or haphazardly because effects average out and the part that is without Governance end up corrupting or reversing the progress made in parts with Governance. “In the 1980s, political scientists broadened the meaning of Governance as including, not just government actors, but also civil-society actors. Today, Governance includes three sectors: the public sector (state actors and institutions), the private sector (households and companies), and the civil society (non-governmental organizations). These three sectors are said to work hand in hand in the process of Governance”. [5]

What is Governance?

Governance refers to the values, rules and norms that stipulate the process of interactions between actors towards achieving mutually agreed goals. It involves team building, decision making, and distribution of roles and responsibilities with no single actor assuming that it has better knowledge of what is best and how to achieve it. Sometimes dictatorial leaders in government in economically prosperous states cater to the social needs of their people and do not engage them in dialogue on what they think is best for them. While basic needs are being met, esteem, respect and self-actualization goals, which according to Abraham Maslow are higher order goals and lead to greater fulfillment do not find full expression. Self-actualization includes many things including the ability to choose one’s path in life and not have it thrust upon one.[6] While achieving goals is an important part of Governance, the process of achieving those goals is also important. It involves acknowledging participants as equal participants and leaders seeing themselves as stewards of the people. The relationship between leaders and the people is managed by continuous feedback and information sharing so gaps do not graduate to gullies and become lines of secession.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the dearth of dialogue and oversight in dictatorial regimes can be taken advantage of. They might be able to provide public services, but high levels of corruption and misuse of public funds may go unnoticed. Although needs are being met in the short term, it is not efficient because there is a risk of conflict or societal break down in the longer term. In addition, this lack of participation disrespect peoples’ agency.

Participation in Governance

The interactions between actors creates a culture of reciprocity and interdependence. Leaders work towards gaining the support of their people by listening to them and being responsive to their needs. When those who govern learn to govern themselves by listening and being accountable to the people, they earn the support, trust and loyalty of the people. Thus, they can work together towards goals. However, the challenge is that oftentimes leaders are unable to govern themselves because they are sometimes consumed with the task of feathering their nests or they are busy dancing to the tunes of their godfathers. Listening and keeping the lines of dialogue open, allows for checks and balances and serves as control for corruption. Dialogues help ensure long term workability of Governance by ensuring that trust between the leaders and the people do not become eroded.

Therefore, the recognition that every member of society is indispensable and has a role to play and given the opportunity or enabling environment to do so is the foundation of a flourishing Governance apparatus. This implies a commitment to justice, dignity, and to the voices of vulnerable groups (economically disadvantaged, ethnic minorities and other minority groups), that are usually the victims of marginalization. Out of this spring a government that is participatory and accountable. In most cases, issues of justice, dignity and marginalization are systemic issues and pose as constraints to development. However, with commitment to listening they can be overcome, and a Governance that leaves no seething groups behind possible.

As highlighted above, participation is a necessary ingredient for consensus making. Consensus is important because when everyone agrees on a plan it is easy for them to come onboard for implementation. Participatory dialogues or public discourse allows identification of interest overlaps and routes that can be maximized to increase these intersections. The ability to agree on what we want and how to get there creates team spirit and inter-solidarity.

Therefore, there must be an enabling environment for consensus making. There must be no concentration of power in any actor except for purposes of providing restraint for domineering or violent actors. Teamwork and acknowledging everyone’s role respects the dignity of the actors. This will increase both Governance effectiveness and efficiency; the ability to meet needs and being able to do that with minimal losses. Participatory decision making and building consensus may be demanding time and resource wise but the trade-off with regards to mitigating future conflict makes the resources expended worthwhile. Although there are no guarantees that conflict may not result in the future, it is better to know that steps were taken to avoid conflict and that the conflicts may not be as severe as it would have been if participation was not prioritized.

It follows naturally then that accountability, checks and balances have more impact. It is relatively easier to hold government, institutions, and individuals answerable to decisions jointly agreed upon. Ensuring accountability, ensuring power is not concentrated anywhere, being responsible to one another, helps actors to exercise restraint over oneself and allows for order and coherence — integration and consistency of plans.

Outcomes of Governance

Nurtured by participatory decision making and teamwork, as people have their needs met and experience other development outcomes, the governed are confident and more willing to support and participate in government because not only is it meaningful and worthwhile, their voice counts. Insecurities and inequality gaps start to level out because everyone is being catered for there is no need to amass collective resources for personal gain and those in government being unable to do this do not see the need to stay in power longer than is necessary. There is also peaceful coexistence/cohesion: as everyone feels their need is being met.

The fruits are the proofs the effects. When conceptualizing Governance, it is important to conceptualize and measure both fruits and effects and investigate variances. From the foregoing, in addition to the values, norms and rules that stipulates the mechanisms and process of interactions between actors towards achieving mutually agreed goals, Governance involves having a consensus, a clear sense of direction and ability and commitment to implementing these goals. Ability here refers to a government empowered financially, militarily and in other respects to overcome, manage or mitigate external or internal constraints. A government committed to its people would have individuals and institutions committed to building state capacity/ability; educated individuals investing their knowledge and technical expertise to build the industrial sector, value addition for agricultural produce, individuals/institutions who do not evade tax and so on.

Measures of Governance that do not include public service delivery or development outcomes in their conceptualization of Governance or try to include development in terms of policies, organizational, administrative and fiscal allocation mechanisms end up measuring only “leaves” not “fruits”. Actual outcomes that are disaggregated and related to provision of public services should be measured directly. Although the World Bank Governance Index include indicators such as “perceptions of the quality of public services” and “perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development”, it does not include human development indicators. In 2014, the ADB conducted a cross country study using the World Bank Governance Index and tried to answer the question if “Governance Indicators explain development performance”. Their findings reveal that, “when pooling all the countries in the world together, there is no difference in growth performance between Governance surplus countries and deficit countries. But when the analysis is broken down by region, Governance quality does have a significant impact on growth performance, especially in developing Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. In developing Asia, countries with Governance surplus in government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and control of corruption grew close to 2 percentage points faster annually than those with Governance in deficit during 1998–2011”.[7] This connection between Governance and development should not be a post Governance measurement but measures of development outcomes should be a part of the measures itself. The 2017 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) Index Report does better in this regard with the inclusion of measures of sustainable economic development and human development indicators such as infrastructural development and welfare services.[8] Regression analysis would then be able to identify factors contributing to human development and service delivery among all Governance indicators measured and vice versa.

Governance in context

Governance is also context specific. Conceptions of Governance differ from society to society and even between individuals there could be variations in perceptions on what Governance is or what aspects are important to them based on their preferences and past experiences. The extent and nature of homogeneity or heterogeneity in society also informs features that are prioritized. Homogenous societies may not have a challenge with attaining consensus and may prioritize public service delivery and development outcomes. Whereas, heterogenous societies may prioritize participatory decision making and ensuring there is peace or pursuing both peace and progress side by side.

Governance measurement should also perception based and triangulated with public service delivery and human development data from civil society and government agencies. Individual actors would rate characteristics based on how important they are important to them and then rank each Governance measures on performance. The importance ratings should form the basis of the weighting of performance scores. This approach was also emphasized by Bovaird and Löffler (2003), “Governance evaluations should always be based on multiple stakeholder assessments rather than self-assessments or external assessment by some (expert) stakeholder who is not interested or does not care about a specific Governance issue”.[9]

Conclusion

Some conceptualizations of Governance prioritize the promulgation of policies and creation of institutions/agencies, without analyzing the lifecycle of these policies and institutions; to what extent those policies are a façade, put in place to create an impression of work-in-progress, and to how additional institutions could degenerate into instruments of bureaucracy. Policies and Institutions also result in different outcomes in different settings. For example, although they bear the same name and mimic the same actions, free and fair elections have dissimilar outcomes in most of Africa compared to the West. Institutions that are contextualized, sculpted based on the values and characteristics of the population increase the likelihood of even democratic, development and Governance outcomes.

Finally, Governance is not Governance for Governance sake; Governance is not a tree with many branches and leaves but no fruits. The absence of either shelter or food eventually results in death — one might just hasten the steps of death more than the other. Governance is not an end but a means to an end. It is being pro-active and pro poor, having positive and measurable outcomes. It is participation, inclusive and integrative planning. It is commitment to the principles of integral human development, justice, subsidiarity, preferential option for the poor, solidarity, and reducing vulnerabilities. Governance must be both big enough to provide shelter and have fruits to satisfy hunger. It must be able to create room for participation (both at implementation and evaluation phases), holistic plans and yield development outcomes.

References

Abraham Maslow (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Originally Published in Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. 1943 http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

Anne Mette Kjaer. Governance. Cambridge Polity Press, 2004. pg 3.

Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi. The Worldwide Governance Indicators Methodology and Analytical Issues. Policy Research Working Paper 5430. The World Bank Development Research Group Macroeconomics and Growth Team September 2010. pg 4.

Joel D. Barkan and Makau Mutua. Turning the Corner in Kenya: A New Constitution for Nairobi. The Council on Foreign Relations. 10 August 2010.

Kazi Iqbal and Anwar Shah. A Critical Review of Governance Indicators. World Bank. December 10, 2008. pg 4.

Michelle D’Arcy and Agnes Cornell. Devolution and Corruption in Kenya: Everyone’s turn to eat? Oxford University Press. Journal of African Affairs, 115/459, 246–273. 23 March 2016. pg 1–2.

Paul Graham, Stefan Gilbert and Karin Alexander. The Development and Use of Governance Indicators in Africa: A Comparative Study. Institute for Democratic Alternatives in South Africa (Idasa), EU, UNDP. December 2010.

Tony Bovaird, Elke Löffler. Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators, Models and Methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences. September 1, 2003. pg13.

Xuehui Han, Haider Khan, and Juzhong Zhuang. Do Governance Indicators Explain Development Performance: A Cross country Analysis. African Development Bank (ADB) Economics Working Paper series. №417. November 2014. pg 17.

[1] Joel D. Barkan and Makau Mutua. Turning the Corner in Kenya: A New Constitution for Nairobi. The Council on Foreign Relations. August 2010.

[2] Michelle D’Arcy and Agnes Cornell. Devolution and Corruption in Kenya: Everyone’s turn to eat? Oxford University Press. Journal of African Affairs, 115/459, 246–273. 23 March 2016. pg 1–2.

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Anne Mette Kjaer. Governance. Cambridge Polity Press, 2004. pg 3.

[6] A. H. Maslow (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Originally Published in Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. 1943 http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

[7] Xuehui Han, Haider Khan, and Juzhong Zhuang. Do Governance Indicators Explain Development Performance: A Cross country Analysis. African Development Bank (ADB) Economics Working Paper series. №417. November 2014. pg17.

[8]2017 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) Index Report. Mo Ibrahim Foundation.http://mo.ibrahim.foundation/iiag/2017-key-findings/

[9] Tony Bovaird, Elke Löffler. Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators, Models and Methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences. September 1, 2003. pg 13.

Appendix