great, thanks a lot Balazs for your suggestion. Your opinion is well noted

Hi David, there are several authors who have criticized good governance concept from various perspectives since the early 1990s. As stated by Balasz, the mentioned elements/attributes are necessary in general. However, this statement could be tricky. For instance higher participation (or engagement) of various stakeholders (especially if there is a lack of expertise at their side) can be an obstacle for efficient decision-making... So, taking into account your question, implementation of good governance concept into practice can lead rather to higher legitimacy instead of economic efficiency. And I can refer to the Balazs´s second note here and confirm that well-being is not automatically associated with economic development (growth).

I published an article on criticism related to good governance (http://147.232.5.25/krvam/files/clanky/klimovsky/klimovsky_01.pdf) but unfortunately it is not written in English - you can find there some interesting references at least... Daniel

Economic growth is largely defined by where and in what private capital chooses to invest. It may invest in places where there is good local governance – for instance because there is good infrastructure, a healthy workforce and low crime. Porto Alegre in Brazil that was characterized by good local governance in the 1990s (and socially progressive governments) also attracted foreign investment because of this. But private capital may be well served by places where its needs are met but little provision for the well-being of the population – Mumbai is a very successful city in economic terms but a high proportion of the population live in informal settlements lacking good provision for water, sanitation, drainage, health care, schools and even policing. Or private capital’s needs may be met in locations where there is no good governance at all (many mines and areas with oil? Nations or cities with no effective occupational health and safety regulations or minimum wages…...)

Good (local) governance certainly increases well being in most locations in that it increases the influence of those facing the most serious life, health, asset and livelihood threatening risks to get these addressed (and to have an influence in how these are addressed).

Although with many notable exceptions, at least in urban areas (where my work is concentrated), there are many cities where good local governance has contributed greatly to well-being. In almost all of these, elected city councils and mayors were important (especially but not exclusively in Latin America). In many of these, it was also the result of representative organizations and federations of slum/shack/homeless people who showed local government what they could do and offered to work in partnership with them. I suspect that these places increased their attractiveness to some kinds of private capital because they are much nicer places to live and work.

I can suggest many case studies of this if needed

Thanks a lot Daniel for the wonderful opinion you have on this question in relation to good governance. Your point is well noted

Thanks a lot David for the wonderful suggestion. For clarification, if I understand your suggestions properly, the implication of good governance on economic development and well being is location and context specific right?

At least for urban areas, good governance is context specific in that each city and nation has its own specific political economy - but we can generalize about key characteristics of good local governance and about the importance of organized urban poor groups able to influence it and hold it to account. There are also underpinnings of well-being that are universal (safe, sufficient water, sanitation systems that safely dispose of human excreta, drains of sufficient capacity .... good quality health care, schools, emergency services.... ) although the means by which they are provided, funded and monitored will be influenced by local contexts and by the extent to which higher levels of government provide supportive frameworks and access to funds.

Impressive, thanks a lot David for the clarification

"(...)higher participation (or engagement) of various stakeholders (especially if there is a lack of expertise at their side) can be an obstacle for efficient decision-making (...)": I totally agree with Daniel.

There's a lot of literature on "difficult citizen", "professional citizen" and "excess of democracy" that could be of help to better define your question.

In my PhD work, I am trying to match spontaneous feedback with good governance. Have also a look at some works on Hirschmann's "voice"...

Thanks a lot Alessandro for the opinion shared. Your point is well noted

Hello David,

David Satterthwaite makes a solid argument above with which I agree. What I would add is that, while economic growth is mostly agreed as a concept (in terms of measurement), well-being is still fairly fuzzy. What is included (e.g. Sen's proposals versus more utilitarian definitions )and how does one measure these aspects?

The next set of issues relates to the good governance characteristics. What actually do these mean in any given local context? Despite measures, such as WB institute GG indices, gross measures of key concepts don't really indicate the local intepretations. For instance, wrt Transparency , Sweden has incorporated freedom of information as a constitutional right since 18th Century, whereas, Australia only has a fairly recent administrative law (since 1982). This has different political and social consequences, which can only be very indirectly linked to economic growth results or prospects.

Economic growth can and has taken place in many locations around the world that show few good governance characteristics. On the other hand, well-being may or may not have increased in these places depending on how you view that concept. If one looks at surveys, e.g. barometer reports, many of the good governance characteristics are indeed counted as important in the sense of well being but these are not necessarily related to any significant increase in income for individuals.

I would argue that any linear models of a simple relationship among GG, economic growth and wellbeing are likely to be off the mark or at least very limited in context.

Impressive, thanks a lot Lorinne for the brilliant response. Your suggestions are well noted and very much appreciated

Perhaps looking at the underpinnings of "economics" and "well being" would be in order. Why are global economies based on a false construct of "money" -- creations of banks to support a "built environment," buildings, roads, infrastructure, strip mines, etc. -- instead of, say, on the things needed to sustain human and other life forms? Things such as water, air, food, shelter, human/civil rights, security, health, healthy natural environments . . . which are necessary for the well-being of people.

thanks a lot Hak for the attachments and your wonderful opinions shared

Dear David, I endorse the answer and the subtle question that Lorinne Du Toit has posed. Economic ends are not necessarily the sole objectives of good governance. The two terms that you have used - economic growth and well being are mutually supportive but may exist independent of each other.

Case in point is the Iraq of Saddam Hussain. The dictatorial rule of Saddam was not necessarily conducive to well being. But, economically Iraq was a regional power of significance in West Asia. The democratic (perhaps we must wait for some more time for this to come true!) Iraq now, may have holier notions (At least on paper) of ensuring the well being of the people, but its economic realities do not permit it to function so.

Good governance, in my opinion, would use a calibrated approach to economic growth that makes for fulfilment of the basic needs of majority of the population's well being instead of an accelerated and unbridled growth that paves the way for the rich to become richer and poor the poorer. In the context of India and other such developing nations, no one had understood the balance that is necessary between growth and well being like Mahatma Gandhi. I quote " Equality is the ideal. But since it can not be achieved, I work towards equitability".

Good governance is the ideal, but it should not be pledged for mere economic prosperity of the few.

Impressive....thanks a lot Srinivasan for the wonderful piece of enlightenment...Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Dear Hak Choi, I must clarify with reference to your comment.

My argument above is not a 'support' for dictatorship, but it is about governance. The world has moved over from mere idealism to realism in the past thirty years or so. People are not really concerned whether there is a democratic model or dictatorial model of governance. At least in the developing world, people are asking 'what is the government doing for me to lead a peaceful and productive life'. There was a time when 'participative management' used to be associated with socialistic models of governance. Today, we feel that true democracy is participative. The focus is on participative governance at local, regional and national levels. It is not to be read as though the concept of democracy is acquiring socialist colors. It is to be understood as a need through which the pulse of the people will be integrated with planning process, which will strengthen democracy further.

My point through the example above was, therefore, towards finding a balance between economic growth and well-being. I am sure you would have noted that in the third paragraph of my comment above.

Have a great day!

Dear Hak Choi,

I agree. So have been socialist models, Fascist and such other models. No 'ism' in this world is good or bad. We as people make it good or bad. Three factors, in my opinion determine whether a form of government is good or bad.

One, the quality of leadership. Second, the quality of citizens' awareness and activism. Third, the quality of institutions of governance. We have had classical monarchies, benevolent dictators, responsible socialists and people-oriented democrats who have governed their country with foresight and commitment. We have had classical failures too. As a contemporary example of the good type, the just departed Nelson Mandela is a good case study.

Take the case of Otto Van Bismarck or Kamal Ataturk. They may not fit the description of 'democratic' leaders, but they led their country to consolidation, progress and growth.

Take a look at Scandinavian countries. Their governance model is widely acclaimed as successful because they have been able to grow a fairly good combination of leadership, peoples participation and responsible institutions.

In any form of governance, the choice is always with people. They have to decide at some point or other whether to live with what is good or to throw out what they consider as evil. In some countries, due to sociocultural values inherent in the society, the threshold is reached after ages. In some, it just flares and seeks out change. The French, American and Russian Revolutions are classical examples.

Not withstanding what I have said, you are right - democracy is not good, at least in the form in which it is practiced in some countries. They need responsible democratic practices to be 'good'.

I agree with Srinivasan Rajamanickam that 'democracy' is not the same as 'participative governance', you can find one without the other, and neither are necessarily 'good' in terms of means and/or outcomes.

One of the most useful aspects, analytically, of the concept of 'governance' (without adjectives) is that it does not pre-define where or even how decisions are taken . i.e. it is not bound to any particular type of regime. The adjectives (good, poor etc) come from examining a case of governance in practice and adding value judgements about how things work, who gets what and how this affects both internal and 'external' relations.

'Good governance' (GG) is a much more prescriptive idea. In the international development arena during 1990s especially, use of the term often implied that nation-states had 'poor' governance if they were not also classified as 'democratic' and rather downplayed that some democracies still have 'poor' governance attributes such as vote rigging, weak public management, etc...

On the other hand, regimes promoting wars or inciting civil violence tend to be more destructive, at home and across borders, of general wellbeing and broad-based economic 'growth' than other ways of choosing leaders and policies. So, one public concern contributing to the popularity of 'good governance' as a global aspiration is that nation-states not only receive on-going support of (most of) the population under their 'authority' but the current leadership (government) and national aspirations also be seen as legitimate (or at least acceptable) internationally.

As the concepts underpining the GG notion, such as accountability, transparency, participation, rule of law etc, are subject to local interpretations, I would hesitate to treat good governance generically as a direct driver of economic growth or even wellbeing per se. But I think GG metrics at national level (eg from WB Institute) can be useful as indicators of a) regime acceptability and perhaps b) as a movement towards or away from wellbeing (depending on wellbeing and population definitions). Otherwise, I think one has to ask what difference GG principles have made in the context being investigated. The direction of influence may be surprising.

Good thought, Lorinne. " I would hesitate to treat good governance generically as a direct driver of economic growth or even wellbeing per se" - merits a lot of discussion.

Have a great day!

Yes Hak Choi, so would I but the question is how to explain differences among GG versus World Development indicators in high income (especially non-OECD) countries over past decade, say? it would be worth hearing more on what you mean here by bad governance and why this couldn't drive economic growth at least over some limited period.

On the other side, what sorts of explanation can we mount for those countries showing high GG indicators but little or negative economic growth over a similar period? Another interesting point to consider is how much of the individual citizen (economic and wellbeing) situation is hidden by national-level indicators.

What are the pillars of good governance?

Good legislation,

good jurisprudence, and

good effective executive powers.

Good governance is part of the "institutions first" move that international organizations have been promoting in the last decades to ameliorate some of the problems of democracy. The idea is that democracy can produce de Toqueville's tyranny of the majority: the first Bill of Rights in England was largely about barring Catholics from political and military positions, it should be no surprise that some new democracies paved the way for local political and economic majorities to oppress local minorities. The idea is that institutions, developed through "good governance" can somehow ameliorate things like religious repression, sexism, etc. at the policy level. I don't personally agree with this, as I think history would indicate that social movements, not good governance, have been responsible for much of our egalitarian advances and moreover provide the political power to sustain them. That's not to say that good governance isn't a worthy cause, I just think NGO funds aren't as effective when "good governance" is interpreted to mean anything other than strengthening social movements that work both inside and outside the state. For the second half of your sentence: "economic growth and well being"-- I really think you're assuming a lot by throwing those two concepts together. In fact, primary sector foreign investment has been shown to correlate *negatively* with nutritional outcomes-- meaning primary sector development causes hunger. Livelihood systems, particularly subsistence systems, eradicated by extractivism have very real, very tragic consequences for rural populations across the globe. For that reason Buen Vivir (Spanish for well being) has been a central part of Ecuador and Bolivia's constitutions, and an organizing principle for indigenous groups interested in development that isn't based on economic growth. A small but growing group of academics are talking about degrowth and post-growth. And of course you also have the post-development and post-modern academics in large numbers.

Definitely, by its substance and content, the concept of good governance is an economic trigger in pure social and particularly societal constitutionalism. As some might argue the concept firstly used by the side of World Bank in 1989 to describe emerging difficulties regarding state building in Africa. Virtually at the end of 1990's the concept empowered its substantial essence and nowadays it is the main criteria to evaluate real state building in the context. By constitutional prism and insight modern constitutionalism based on three fundamental pillars: human rights, the rule of law and democracy, it is mostly accepted the so-called conventional sense of doctrine regarding limited government. Followed the idea of constitutionalism it is clear that instead of good governance and effective and efficient administration of huge state apparatus there is no an option nor possibility to implement service delivery to the citizen and ensure the pure rule of law paradigm in practice. Thus, I fully agree on the main scientific mainstream which focused towards economic origins of the concept but firmly believe that out of good governance there are no need governance at all.

In this prism and understanding, I will offer you two interesting publications regarding good governance, good administration and its basic connection with human rights and broadly modern constitutionalism.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW

(VENICE COMMISSION) STOCKTAKING ON THE NOTIONS OF “GOOD GOVERNANCE” AND “GOOD ADMINISTRATION

HUMAN RIGHTS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE BUILDING BRIDGES EDITED BY HANS-OTTO SANO GUDMUNDUR ALFREDSSON WITH THE COLLABORATION OF ROBIN CLAPP MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS 2002

All the best,

Karlo Godoladze

P.S. Please, find attached document of Venice Commission