LINKING
GENDER AND GOVERNANCE
Introduction
Governance
is one of the key concepts in current development debate. The concept of
governance which includes accountability, participation, transparency and human
rights as its basic components is considered as crucial requirement for the
success of development especially in developing countries. International
development agencies with diverse interpretation, yet similar emphasis on
governance substantiate these components of governance in term of good governance.
Since the 1990s good governance become an issue of conditionality in promoting
accountable and effective governance in aid recipient countries. However,
concerns on the imposition of Western concept of governance and good governance
by international development agencies on developing countries and the
inconsistencies in the achievement of the application of ‘good governance’
among developing countries bring concept of governance and good governance into
the centre of development debate.
This chapter will review the
principles of good governance and tensions it creates when implemented in a way
that neglect the diversity of cultural, political and historical contexts among
countries. It will first elaborate on debates on the definition and usage of
governance. However, this chapter does not intend to built
fix definition of governance rather it will elaborate on discussion on diverse
concepts of governance in gaining insight to the complexities of governance in
its implementation. I will argue that since governance is an interactive
process of governing, governance approach rather than government approach
provides a framework in examining processes of governing. This approach also
provides a space for women as one of the stakeholders. By focusing on the interaction
and interdependencies among diverse stakeholders at different level, concept of
governance provides a space for the emergent of women as one of the various
stakeholders in development. Thus, I will use governance concept primarily as a
descriptive and analytical tool through which several questions crucial in
understanding governance can be posed: What are the notions of governance? What
kind of interaction will best served the inclusion of the variety of
stakeholders in influencing development policies? If governance means the
plurality in interaction, what about the accessibility of women? In what ways
do concept of government and governance differ in explaining the empowerment of
women in local development? What about women perception of what constitutes as
a good governance? Do criteria of good governance mention any minimal standard
of women involvement in decision making? Do the diverse definitions of good
governance have incorporated a gendered understanding of policy and
implementation?
Governance has long been equated
with ‘governing ‘the process aspect of government (Mayntz 1998). The first
paradigm of a theory of political governance perceives governing as steering, a
top down approach in policy making and policy implementation (Mayntz 1998). In
steering, governing becomes a linear model in which power is used to secure the
implementation of policies that have been determined by the rulers. The strict
division between the ruler and the ruled create the zero-sum game of power. Deviations
of the ruled reactions towards the determined policies, norms and rules are
considered as threats towards the power of the ruler. Thus, it creates
suspicion towards each other. This mode
of governing make the implementation and enforcement of policies and programmes
become more intensive and expensive (Dunsire 1993:24) since the state has all
the responsibility and act as a single agent in policy making and
implementation. The huge burden on the state, the rigidity and clumsiness of
its bureaucratic structure reduces the capability of the state to establish
close relation with the society which then contributes to its lost of legitimacy (Peters & Pierre 1998). ‘Men should be governed in such a way that
they do not regard themselves as being governed, but as following their own
bent and their own free choice in their manner of life; in such a way, then,
that they are restrained only by love of freedom, desire to increase their
possessions, and the hope of obtaining offices of the state’ (Spinoza 1677
cited in Dunsire 1993:30).
Dissatisfaction to state’s performance as the centre of political control in dealing with pluralist demand from public gave rise to governance. Discussion on governing diverts its attention to alternative forms of societal governance which put more value on the potentials and capabilities of the society in governing. The search towards alternative forms of societal governance develops into two separate line of discussion the market principles and horizontal self-organisation (Mayntz 1998). Based on the political ideology of neo-liberalism and Thatcherism, the market principles emphasise on deregulation and privatisation as main instruments in achieving both economic growth and economic efficiency. The private sector rather than the state is considered as being more effective as agents of development (Mayntz 1998; Peters& Pierre 1998). In horizontal self-organisation the state actors still occupies a special position as participants in policy networks in which they still maintain crucial means of intervention even where there is devolution of decision making to institutions of societal government (Mayntz 1998). Commitment to have continuous dialogues between the state and private sector becomes the basis for the working of self-organisation governance. Continuous dialogue and exchanges of information reduce the problem of bounded rationality while at the same time reduce opportunism through locking governance partners into a range of interdependent decisions over a mixture of short-, medium- and long-term horizons; and building on the interdependencies and risks associated with ‘asset specificity’ by encouraging solidarity among those involved. The network between the state and private sector which is characterised by interdependency between actors function as mechanism for negotiations in mobilising consensus and building mutual understanding. The dialogic rationality of governance is ensured through the nature of reciprocity between actors in which in order to gain some political influence and benefit from a better overall function of the system individual economic partners give some of their autonomy to the state. On the other hand the state gives some of its authority in decision making to have influence over economic activities (Jessop 1998).
Diverse
definitions of governance emerge in this new paradigm of governance. The UNDP
(2000) defines governance as the exercise of political, economic and
administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels
UNDP. This definition equates governance with the management of society.
However, the complexity of the
interdependency between the state, community and private sector in fulfilling
the diverse public demands and interests implies that governance cannot be limited
to managing the society efficiently. The World Conference on Metropolitan
Governance in its meeting in Tokyo 1993 reject the reduction of governance to
management and the division of governance into merely the political and
technical dimensions. Governance is perceived as including the visions and
strategic decisions of a country. Governance has five fundamental dimensions:
political, contextual, constitutional, legal and administrative/managerial. It
implies bottom-up decision making; having all concerned people at every level
of government and non-government organisations (Beal 1996:4). Hence, the meaning of governance embraces not
only efficient management but also the quality of civic engagement in the processes
and structures of governance.
Pattern of
interaction and network in governing, then, become the dominant feature of
governance in this new paradigm. Using the ‘duality structure approach’ Kooiman
(1993:258) explains governance as the ‘emerging pattern (or order) of a system
that is both the outcome of social processes (interactions) as well as the
medium through which actors can act and interpret this pattern’. Concurs with
this definition, Jessop (1998:30) refers to governance as the models and manner
of governing, government to the institutions and agents charged with governing,
and governing to the act of governing itself’. These interpretations of
governance concept provide insights in defining the relationship between
governing and governance.
Thus, as
Mayntz (1998:1-2)) notes that recently there is a shift in the development of
governance paradigm from political guidance or steering (the first paradigm)
to:
1.
Governance as a new mode of governing that is distinct from the hierarchical
control mode, a more cooperative mode where state and non-state actors
participate in mixed public/private networks.
2.
Governance as different modes of coordinating individual actions, or basic
forms of social order.
This new
paradigm of governance reveals a shift from a more traditional patterns of governing
as ‘one way traffic’/unilateral focus (from those governing to the governed) to
a ‘2 way traffic’/interactionist focus in which ‘(dis) qualities of
social-political systems and their governance are viewed from the perspective
of the recognition of mutual needs and capacities’ (Kooiman 1993:35-36).
The notions of governance brought
about by the new paradigm provide a dynamic approach in understanding
governance in the ways:
1.
the notion of
governance requires us to focus on active processes rather than passive, static
accounts of institutions. While an understanding of the structure of political
institutions is indispensable, it allows for the exploration towards the ways
in which the key actors have used those structures and institutions; what resources,
options and strategies make available to those actors?
2.
the notion of governance suggests a process of rule
making in which government and political elites are locked into economic and
social networks – these may be formal or informal, vertical hierarchies or more
horizontal egalitarian relationships, cooperative or conflictual (Goldblatt 1998:1-2).
These notions of governance rest on 3 theoretical principles or premises:
-the
existence of a crisis of governability
-that this
crisis reflects the exhaustion of the traditional form of state intervention
-the
emergence of a tendency or of a convergent political trend in all the developed
countries that is giving rise to a new form of governance better adapted to the
context ([Merrien 1998:57).
Despite
diverse definition and interpretation on governance, debates on governance seem
to agree that governance refer to styles in governing in which stakeholders
create dependent network. In these governing styles the boundaries between and
within public and private sectors have become blurred.
Whilst
identifies six separate uses of governance: as the minimal state, as corporate
governance, as the new public management, as ‘good governance’, as
socio-cybernetic system, and as self-organizing networks, Rhodes (1997) also
identifies the shared characteristics of governance:
1.
Interdependence between organisations. Governance is broader than government,
covering non-state actors. Changing the boundaries of the state meant the
boundaries between public, private and voluntary sectors became shifting and
opaque.
2.
Continuing interactions between network members, caused by the need to exchange
resources and negotiate shared purposes.
3.
Game-like interactions, rooted in trust and regulated by rules of the game negotiated
and agreed by network participants.
4. A
significant degree of autonomy from the state. Networks are not accountable to
the state; they are self-organizing. Although the state does not occupy a
sovereign position, it can indirectly steer networks’ (Rhodes 1997:57)
From the foregoing discussion it is obvious that interaction and network among mutually dependent power become basic interrelated concepts in governance. Differ from the concept of government which concerns mainly with institutional aspects of policy making and policy implementation, and adopted a top-down perspective, concept of governance focuses on processes of governing and interactions among diverse actors as mutually dependent power. Governance is about managing networks, not only by government but also by the interaction between government and society; private and public institutions (Rhodes 1997:52). The essence of governance is its focus on governing mechanisms which do not rest on recourse to the authority and sanctions of government (Stoker 1998). It is a dynamic process and produces by the interaction of public and private (Kooiman 1993:2). The concept of governance which emphasises on processes of governing rather than on institutional aspects allows for greater attention to link various actors and use their potential to deal with development problems which would otherwise be neglected if we only discuss about government.
To some,
the dispersion of political control and policy making to collections of
non-state actors in the new paradigm of governance may be perceived as the loss
of the state power and control (Merrien 1998; Peters&Pierre 1998). However,
this shift from government to governance in which there is power transfer from
the state to the society cannot be considered as the diminishing power of the
state. The concept of governance does not mean the state loose its power or
withdraw from the activities in governing or separate from the society, rather
it is a changing form of state’s control (Bhatta 1998) and a shift in the way
of governing in which state role play its role as a balancer of social forces
and social interests and enabler to social actors and systems in order that
these actors may organize themselves (Kooiman 1993). For example, in the
collibrition mode of governance, the state as a balancer influences and directs
relations between social actors into a more desirable balance (Dunsire 1993).
In arguing that governance implies for changes in ways of governing rather than the lost of state control, Kooiman (1993:2) points out that in the ‘co’ forms of governance such as: co-steering, co-managing, co-producing and co-allocating (social-political way of governing), public or private actors do not act separately but in conjunction, together, in combination’ that is to say in ‘co’ arrangement’. He further on argues that ‘Instead of relying on the state or the market, social-political governance is directed at the creation of patterns of interaction in which political and traditional hierarchical governing and social self-organisation are complementary, in which responsibility and accountability for interventions is spread over public and actors, but leaves enough autonomy on the micro level’ (Kooiman 1993:252).
Hence, in governance the responsibility between public and private become more diffused. Interaction based on the recognition of interdependencies since the strength and weaknesses among stakeholders differ. To succeed, governing needs to cooperate and integrate stakeholders’ contributions to strengthen each other.
In
governance, the quality of civic engagement is of equal importance as with the
governing capacity of government. At
this point, the synergistic relationship between government and the governed is
crucial. Evans (1996) provides a useful definition of synergy as mutually
reinforcing relations between governments and groups of engaged citizens which
rests on relational basis: ‘An intimate interconnection and intermingling among
public and private actors is combined with a well-defined complementary
division of labor between the bureaucracy and local citizens, mutually
recognized and accepted by both sides’. As enabler , government is expected to
‘enable not only highly organized and strong actors but also individual
citizens and social movements to infiltrate within the administration and to be
represented within the policy making process ‘(Kooiman 1993:257). Thus, synergy
goes beyond the question of how to make the strength and weakness of diverse
stakeholders becomes complementary to the embeddedness between society and
government.
Order, rule
and collective action are the expected outcome of both government and
governance. ‘Governance is ultimately concerned with creating the conditions
for ordered rule and collective action. The outputs of governance are not
therefore different from those of government. It is rather a matter of a
difference in processes ‘(Stoker 1998:17). Whereas government (as the first
paradigm of governance) reveals the hierarchic mode of governing in which
government officials and institutions guide or steer policy development and
implementation, in governance these policies and implementation are determined
through interaction of various stakeholders.
Although in
general, there seem to be the similarity of the outcomes between government and
governance, that is order, yet the concept of governance requires greater
degree of diverse
stakeholders’ participation in achieving the objective. The concept of
governance also implies the existence of network in which diverse stakeholders
depend on each other. In this new paradigm of governance, government is only
one part of the components in the network of governing which has to interact
independently with other components. Interdependencies between stakeholders
imply that none of them has absolute control over the processes of governing
which will enlarge the maneouvering space for diverse stakeholders in
influencing the processess
(Peters& Pierre 1998).
Good Governance
Governance
is a buzzword among donors’ development agencies and it gains interest in the
1990s in relation with World Bank’s findings of the significance of a country’s
capacity as a component in achieving a success and sustainable development (Bhatta
1998:4). The Western notion of governance is developed by international donor
in incorporating good governance as a condition in giving aid to developing
countries.
International
aid donors although similarly emphasis on the significance of governance, have
broad interpretation in defining governance ranging from neutral label of
governance into a more political definition of good governance. Under the label
of ‘good government’ the Department for International Development
Administration (formerly UK Overseas Development Administration) provides an
example for an “overtly political” definition of governance (Minogue, Polidano
&Hulme 1998:5-6) as it contains of four main components:
1. Legitimacy implies that a system of government
must operate with the consent of those who governed, who must therefore have
the means to give or withhold that assent; such legitimacy is seen in the
British policy document as most likely to be guaranteed by pluralist,
multi-party democracy.
2. Accountability involves the existence of mechanisms which ensure that public officials and political leaders are answerable for their actions and use of public resources, and will require transparent government and a free media.
3. Competence in making and executing appropriate
public policies and delivering efficient public services is essential
4. Respect for law and protection of human rights
should buttress the entire system of good government.
On the
other hand the UNDP uses a more neutral label of sound governance which good
governance is defined as addressing the allocation and management of resources
to respond to collective problems and that it is characterised by
participation, transparency, accountability, rule of law, effectiveness and
equity (UNDP2000). This definition is more sensitive to cultural and political
differences among countries since it recognises the differences in governments’
response towards the ideas of participation, individuality, order and authority
and also the possibility of differences in combining efficiency and
accountability across diverse forms of political authority (Minogue et al
1995).
The World
Bank has an in-between interpretation of governance which leads to a seemingly
contradictory strategy. Whilst its documents emphasis on professional policy
making and management in using resources effectively, thus, policy making of
political interventions should be avoided, yet, by also emphasising on the
significance of strengthening the civil society, World Bank has frequently
passed the border of its neutrality which was reflected in its inability to
avoid political connotations of nearly half its governance lending projects in
1991-1993 (Minogue et al 1995).
Linking good governance to development Larmour
(2000) provides another useful classification of the definition of governance
as:
1.
Democratic governance which concerns with legitimacy, accountability, and human
rights. It addresses traditional concerns of Western political theory, and
tends to be invoked by bilateral aid donors, and OECD, which links good
governance to
participatory development and the improvement of women’s rights.
2.
Effective governance which is less concerned with the form of government and
focuses more on the ability to govern. It is expressed by the World.Bank, which
has had to be careful to avoid going beyond its mandate and commenting on its
members ‘internal political affairs’
3. Coordination that sees order as
the resultant of the actions and interactions of formally constituted
governments and other private and voluntary associations. Order is not
something imposed by the government’s actors, and cannot be sharply
distinguished from them. Three distinct ordering principles or modes of
governance can be identified within these relationships: hierarchical rules;
market exchanges; and shared values. Any actual policy, program or organisation
involves a mix of modes. The governance as coordination approach provides a
framework for understanding the role of private sector, non-government
organisations, and the state in development .
Despite the classification of the definition of good governance, in general good governance has accountability, transparency, openness, and rule of law as its basic components (Bhatta 1998:232). It entails a vast set of democratic processes and institutions at every level of society, from the local council to regional, national and international institutions, that allow the voices of the people to be heard, conflicting interests to be peacefully resolved and a forging of consensus towards greater social progress (Wijkman 1998:2).
Good
governance aims more than merely efficient management of economic and financial
resources, or particular public services to encompass a broad reform strategy
to strengthen the institutions of civil society and make government more open,
responsive, accountable and democratic. Thus in good governance the efficiency
concerns of public management overlap with issue of governance accountability
(Minogue et al 1998:6).
The
universality of the aim of good governance in supporting democracy and human
rights raises significant issue of the applicability and the achievement of
good governance among diverse countries. International development agencies are
criticised of being unaware of structural and cultural differences between
developed and developing countries and also within developing countries
(Alcantara 1998; Roots 1996). Concept of governance is coined in the North by
international development agencies based on Western experiences of development.
The OECD document reflects the promotion of the universality of Western model of
development while the document lacks of reference of the recent experience of
contemporary
The Western
concepts differentiate and separate between strong and weak state. Based on
Western concepts good governance occurs when the state retrenches, becomes less
powerful, assumes a low profile and operates in a network with private
interests and groups as a partner scarcely more important than the other
(Merrien 1998:58). In the realm of developing countries especially in
The African
perspective on governance also criticises the universality of good governance
(Kruiter 1996). The North imposing their notions of good governance which is
coined in the North with emphasis on accountability and transparency is
considered as being neglectful and derogatory toward the images of African
culture and government since it perceives as though dishonesty (in the form of
corruption) among the Africans as the root of development problems in Africa.
From the African perspective inefficiency in development process in
Another
insight puts forward by Alcantara (1998) by criticising the tendency of international financial institutions in using
governance rather than ‘state reform’ and ‘political change’ to avoid severe
critics of being undermining the sovereignty of aid recipient countries. The
technical rather than social and political consideration has been used in
implementing these institutions’ neo-liberal economic programmes more
efficiently (Alcantara 1998:107). She continues that this focus on efficiency
contributes to the difficulties faced by borrowing countries in implementing
specific initiatives. The emphasis on promoting a more efficient government
institution and on improving the capability of government creates the
standardisation of models of political institution building (Alcantara 1998).
World Bank, she notes, has used the concept of good governance on a purely
technocratic issue of governing which provides no analysis on the existence of
vested interests within and outside the state. Thus it has neglected the
political side of development.
In between the universal and
particular view, Lamour (2000:8-9) argues that good governance is a blend of
universal and particular. He specifically explains that although there are
similarities of the state: a set of similar looking organisations,
legislatures, departments, local governments which carry out a similar set of
tasks yet there are also country specificity in implementing governance since
the meaning differs among countries. Therefore middle level theories about good
governance, between arguments for the universality of good governance and the
peculiarity of countries is needed in discussing good governance.
These critiques lead us to question the universal applicability of governance and good governance. The governance concept points to the creation of a structure or an order which cannot be externally imposed but is the result of the interaction of a multiciplicity of governing and each other influencing actors (Kooiman & Van Vliet 1993). As the consequence of governance as process determined by actors, who are bound and influenced by their social, political and historical environment, the definition of good governance therefore should be as diverse as to be responsive to different needs and concerns of different societies/groups and should be defined by and for themselves. This concept of good governance should be defined and applied within the specific history and social context of the society in which the concept is being implemented. The concept, strategies and methods of good governance should be based and derived from the local knowledge and experiences and local circumstances.
Several
reasons can be proposed in arguing for the urgency to relate and interpretation
of governance and good governance to the diversity of national and local
environment among countries. Social values and histories of
countries diverse. There are particular conditions in developing
countries that may contribute to the inappropriateness in implementing models
of governance and good governance which derived from advanced countries. Good
definition of good governance must therefore be sensitive to and acknowledges
the diversity of nations. The concept of good governance cannot be perceived
and implemented as universal ideas with universal application. It must be
adjusted to the ‘concrete social settings’ in diverse countries (Alcantara
1998:113)
More attention and emphasis need to be given to the political/cultural aspect of good governance such as the strengthening of the capacity of community organisations (civil society) that looks more on the involvement of the society in governing rather than merely focusing on enhancing the technocratic capacity of government as being applied by international development agencies in promoting good governance. He also found that government's performance may depend as much on civic associations, as on institutional design; simple, incremental reform that are consistent with policymakers’ values are easier to transfer; policies adopted by developing countries are vulnerable to reversal at many subsequent points, depending on whether resistance erupts into the public arena, or remains within the bureaucracy (Larmour 2000:12).
The above critiques raise significant issues of good governance: universality, ethical issues regarding the sovereignty of countries with their norms, values and historical experiences (qualitative aspect of good governance) and debate on management/technocratic and political aspects of development which needs to be explored in examining the applicability of good governance in developing countries. Does the imposition of good governance not the same with intervening with aid recipient countries’ sovereignty in dealing with their internal affairs? Governance needs embedded values and norms of the people. Concept of governance and good governance as the measurement of governance should be anchored locally based on local knowledge and norms in order to best serve the needs and interests of the people. This critique need to be elaborated on a gender perspective if good governance aim in enhancing popular participation and influence in all aspects of development is to be fulfiled .