The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0306-8293.htm

UNDP on good
UNDP on good governance governance
Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi
York University, Guelph, Canada

1167
Abstract
Purpose – Since the 1990s, most bilateral and supranational donor agencies have been pursuing Received July 2009
“good governance” as their priority development policy. Yet, in their own evaluation, the speed of Accepted July 2009
progress of this gargantuan governance project has remained unsatisfactory. The purpose of this
paper is to examine the causes of this slow progress by scrutinizing its conceptual foundation.
Design/methodology/approach – The analytical approach of this paper is purely speculative,
which is occasionally supported by real world data and socio-political evidences. Since the paper uses
Governance for Sustainable Human Development – A UNDP Policy Document as the ruling reference
material, the paper has been so titled.
Findings – First, defining governance as a process misrepresents its problematic nature, which is
primarily political and therefore diverts world attention from its root-causes. Second, governance
literature treats the state and government as synonymous and by that confuses their political nature.
Finally, the paper assigns an all-impressing role to civil society organizations (CSOs) in promoting
good governance in the developing world. However, experience shows that they are deeply involved in
the creation and continuation of poor governance in the developing country.
Practical implications – Humankind now lives in a global village divided into territorially
demarcated political units. Accordingly, the peace and prosperity of the global village critically depend
upon how democratically each of member state is governed. Good governance in turn hinges on
politically trained intelligent and ethical individuals running public administration. The analytical
opinions of the paper underline this notion.
Originality/value – The paper shows that the ongoing development discourse on good governance
revolves around a faulty conceptual foundation. By reviewing the major ideas of the governance
paradigm, it clarifies the conceptual connections between political theories and democratic
governance.
Keywords Individual development, Governance, Society, State, Government
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The term, “good governance” was first mentioned, causally, in the World Bank’s (1989)
report: Sub-Sahara Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth – A Long-Term
Perspective Study. Within a decade, the idea crystallized into the most popular
international development policy project. The major bilateral and supranational donor
agencies put the project at their apex policy agenda and redefined the conceptual
framework of their aid policies. One of the organizations, which took particular interest
in the idea, is the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The mission and
mandate of UNDP is to materialise sustainable human development in the developing
world, which is inseparable good governance. This proposition was forcefully forged in
the 1997 policy paper Governance for Sustainable Human Development – A UNDP International Journal of Social
Economics
Policy Document (UNDP, 1997): Vol. 36 No. 12, 2009
pp. 1167-1180
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
This is the revised version of the paper presented at the Atlantic Canada Economics Association, 0306-8293
Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, 24-26 October 2008. DOI 10.1108/03068290910996981
IJSE Governance and human development are indivisible. Human development cannot be
sustained without good governance. Governance cannot be sound unless it sustains human
36,12 development. The UNDP believes that developing the capacity for good governance is a
primary means of eradicating poverty.
And the UNDP believes that it has added advantages in promoting good governance in
the developing world compared to other external development partners.
1168 The UNDP has remained true to its promise. In 2008, it allocated 34 per cent of its
budget to democratic governance, 72 per cent of this money was invested in making
democratic institutions more accountable and responsive to citizens and 46 countries
are receiving parliamentary supports from UNDP (2009a). Besides, the UNDP, other
supranationals, like the World Bank and bilateral agencies like, United States agency
for international development (USA), Canadian international development agency
(Canada), Japanese international cooperation agency (Japan) and Department of
international development (UK) are supporting good governance projects in the
developing countries.
Yet, the outcomes of these impressing external efforts are far remote from their
expectations. In his 2005 report to Economic and Social Council, the UN
Secretary-General was highly critical about the achievement of good governance
(United Nations (UN), 2005). The progress of the LDCs as a group, the report reveals,
was insufficient to meet the goals of the Brussels Programme of Action and its
objectives of eradicating poverty, sustained growth and sustainable development. It
also identifies the major obstacles persistently hampering implementation of the
Programme of Action, which are weakness in three crucial areas – country ownership,
national capacity and resources.
From governance perspective, country ownership is most critical. It signifies political
mobilization within a country to implement its developmental strategy, including the
externally aided projects, programs and policies. Naturally country ownership requires
the political party in power to garner sufficient support in favour of its development
strategy among stakeholders both within and outside of government (World Bank, 2009).
This includes line ministries, parliament, sub-national governments, civil society
organizations and private sector groups.
Evidently, country ownership is critically important for good governance in any
sovereign nation. When people in power fail to mobilise their citizens around their
policies and activities, it simply means, in political term, that they are governing
without “general consent” – an indicator of poor governance. Thus, the international
development community needs to investigate factors responsible for the unsatisfactory
improvement in country ownership. This investigation can be pursued from different
angles. However, the angle that appears under-explored is the conceptual foundations
of “governance” and “good governance” and the key institutions supposed to achieve
these goals – the state, private sector and civil society organisations. For example,
ordinary understanding about the ideas of governance and good governance is that
they are somehow related to the performance of government, the political institution
responsible for exercising the executive power of the state. Yet, the literature hardly
talks about the performance of the regime in power. They constantly talk about the
state and its relation with the civil society and the private sector. Does this mean that
the state and government are synonymous? Do these words refer to the same political
institution?
 To highlight these conceptual confusions, this paper uses the 1997 policy paper of UNDP on good
UNDP document mentioned above, as the ruling reference material. A précis of the governance
main concepts and their relations articulated in the UNDP policy papers are presented
in Section 2. Section 3 describes the main concepts of good governance – social
contract, civil society, the state and government – from their historical perspectives.
Section 4 critically examines the key ideas and their conceptual connections conceived
in the UNDP policy document, and the paper is concluded in Section 5. 1169
2. Governance for sustainable human development
Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choices, achieved through
expanding human capabilities and functionings (UNDP). The process includes three
essential capabilities for human development – leading long and healthy life, be
knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living. However, the realm of human
development goes further: essential areas of choice range from political, economic and
social opportunities for being creative and productive to enjoying self-respect,
empowerment and a sense of belonging to a community. There are five aspects to
sustainable human development that particularly affect lives of the poor and
vulnerable: empowerment, cooperation, equity and sustainability and security.
As noted above, the mission and the mandate of the UNDP are to promote
sustainable human development in the developing world. Accordingly, the policy
document conceptually connects good governance idea with organisation’s mandate. It
first defines and discusses governance and good governance, and then describes their
conceptual connections with the state, private sector and civil society. The following is
a précis of each of these concepts.

Governance
According to the 1997 policy paper, governance is the exercise of economic, political
and administrative authorities to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises
mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate
their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their
differences. Governance has “three legs”: economic, political and administrative.
Economic governance includes decision-making processes that affect a country’s
economic activities and its relationships with other economies. Political governance is
the process of decision making to formulate policy. Administrative governance is the
system of policy implementation.
A new report – jointly published by UN Office of the High Representative for the
Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island
Developing States and the UNDP (2009b) – provides a slightly different version.
Democratic governance is a political system that incorporates into the notion of good
governance, not only efficient processes, but also principles and institutions that secure
the civic rights and freedoms of all people, including the poorest of the poor and
marginalized groups. Furthermore, any idea of good governance that values human
progress must logically satisfy one of two criteria. At the very least, it must not retard
development, and at best should contribute to its advancement. As a conceptualisation
of democratic governance that is fundamentally normative, it aims to be coherent and
generally acceptable. In addition, such a framework must be pragmatic and flexible for
it to remain relevant to the evolving realities of the 50 LDCs.
IJSE Good governance
36,12 While governance is understood as the exercise of economic, political and administrative
authorities to manage a country’s affairs, good governance is defined as the processes
and structures that guide political and socio-economic relationships. The absence or
extent of good governance is implied by several characteristics: participation means all
men and women have voices in decision making, either directly or through legitimate
1170 intermediate institutions. Rule of law refers to fair and impartially enforced legal
frameworks. Transparency signifies the processes, institutions and information
accessible directly to those concerned. Responsiveness means institutions and processes
serve the concerned stakeholders. Good governance is consensus-oriented meaning it
creates broad consensus through mediations among different stakeholders. Equity – all
men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.
Effectiveness and efficiency – processes and institutions produce results that meet
needs while making the best use of resources. Accountability – decision makers in
government, the private sector and civil society organisations are accountable to the
public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. Strategic vision:
Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and
human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development. There is
also an understanding of the historical, cultural and social complexities in which that
perspective is grounded. Interrelated, these core characteristics are mutually reinforcing and
cannot stand-alone.

The state
“Governance encompasses the state, but it transcends the state by including the
private sector and civil society organisations”. “In countries where electoral processes
exist, the state is composed of an elected government and an executive branch”. Based
on this definition, the policy paper lists the major functions of the state: “Being the
focus of the social contract, it defines citizenship”; being the mandated authority it
controls and exerts force, and is responsible for public services’. It creates an enabling
environment for sustainable human development, meaning establishing and
maintaining stable, effective and fair legal-regulatory frameworks for public and
private activities, ensuring stability and equity in the marketplace, mediating interests
for the public good and providing effective and accountable public services.

Private sector
Sustainable human development demands, and depends on, job creation for the mass.
The private sector is mainly responsible for this purpose in the non-communist state.
The state can help the private sector in performing this responsibity through several
measures:
.
creating a stable macroeconomic environment;
.
maintaining competitive markets;
.
ensuring that the poor (especially women) have easy access to credit;
.
nurturing enterprises that generate abundant jobs and opportunities;
.
attracting investment and helping knowledge and technology transfer to the poor;
.
enforcing the rule of law;
 .
providing incentives for human resource development; and UNDP on good
.
protecting environment and natural resources. governance
Civil society
Civil society, lying in-between the state and private sector, consists of individuals and
groups interacting among themselves socially, politically and economically:
1171
Civil society organisations are the host of associations around which society voluntarily
organises. They include trade unions; non-governmental organisations; gender, language,
cultural and religious groups; charities; business associations; social and sports clubs;
cooperatives and community development organisations; environmental groups; professional
associations; academic and policy institutions; and media outlets. Political parties are also
included, although they straddle between civil society and the state if they are represented in
parliament.
“Civil society also protects the rights of all citizens”. As the state and the private sector
are being reshaped and their relationships redefined, civil society is changing in
important ways. Civil society is more than just society. It is the part of society that
connects individuals with the public realm and the state – it is the political face of
society.
Civil society organisations channel people’s participation in economic and social
activities and organize them into more powerful groups to influence public policies and
gain access to public resources. They can provide checks and balances on government
power and monitor social abuses. They also offer opportunities for people to develop
their capacities and improve their standards of living – by monitoring environment,
assisting disadvantaged, developing human resources and helping communication
among business people.
Finally, civic networks ease the dilemmas of collective action by institutionalising
social interaction, reducing opportunism, fostering trust and making political and
economic transactions easier. Well-developed civic networks also amplify flows of
information – the basis for reliable political, economic and social collaboration and
public participation of civil society members. These relationships and social norms
make up a nation’s social capital.

3. Social contract, civil society, the state and government

The UNDP policy document includes six key concepts – human development,
governance, good governance, the state, private sector and civil society. Human
development is the goal; good governance is the means; and the state, private sector
and civil society are the political and non-political institutions/agencies involved in the
governance process. The achievement of a social/political goal is conditional upon the
sound conceptualisation of the linkages among key institutions involved. This in turn
requires factual description of each of these institutions. One might suspect whether
the UNDP document fulfils this requirement of logics.
With a view to shedding some light on this point, this section explores the conceptual
connections among four political vocabularies – social contract, civil society, the state
and government – from the perspectives of political philosophy. The justification for
doing this is that the state is a political institution and is founded on political values
and beliefs, which are codified and justified in the political philosophy literature.
IJSE Naturally, to understand the problems of governance in the developing world and the
36,12 UNDP’s proposal and policy to improve this situation by coordinating the activities of
the state, private sector and civil society, we need to know those values and beliefs.
These cannot be found in the governance literature, although its authors freely use
those concepts as they find them convenient to support their conceptions.
The governance issue has received utmost attentions from some of the humanity’s
1172 wisest minds including Plato and Aristotle. However, the writings, particularly
relevant for this discussion, are those of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke
begins Second Treatise on Government with the proclamation that individuals,
ambitious of ruling or exercising “political right”, must seek people’s consent. Rousseau
on the other hand, introduces The Social Contract with these words:
I want to inquire whether there can be some legitimate and sure rule of administration in the
civil order, taking men as they are, and laws as they can be. I will always try in this enquiry to
bring together what right permits with what interest prescribes, so that justice and utility do
not find themselves at odds with one another.
The good governance literature, a closer look would reveal, also deals with the same
problem but in a different time and a different context.

Social contract
Social contract is a conceptual watershed that acts as a facilitator in the humankinds’
transition from the State of Nature to civilised life. In order to trace the natural growth
of human society, Locke and Rousseau, following Hobbes, postulated that people lived
in the State of Nature before submitting them under the authority of civil government.
As Locke (1976, p. 4) says:
To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what
state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and
dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
The State of Nature is also a state of equality; all powers and jurisdictions in this state
are reciprocal and therefore no one has more than another.
However, the major fault, which inspired people to leave this state, is that it had no
authority to punish those who transgressed the laws of nature:
In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than
that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men,
for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tie which is to secure
them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him (Locke, 1976, pp. 6-7).
Although Locke pioneered Social Contract concept as the basis of civil governance we
practice nowadays, it was Rousseau who completed the task. Rousseau postulated that
people living in the State of Nature reached a point where they could no longer
withstand the obstacles threatening their survival individually. This required changes
in the primitive manner of existence. The urge for survival created the condition for
men to unite together to act with a single motive power. The problem that stood in the
way of this unification is how people could surrender their natural right and liberty, as
these are the chief instruments of their self-preservation. Rousseau (1987, p. 148) poses
the issue as follows:
 Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and UNDP on good
goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless
obeys only himself and remain as free as before. governance
This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution,
which Rousseau (1987, p. 148) defines as follows:
Each of us threaten their survival places his person and all his power in common under the 1173
supreme direction of the general will; and, as one we receive each member as an indivisible
part of the whole.

Civil society, the sovereign and the state

This act of association creates a moral and collective body, which takes the name
republic or body politic. It is called the state when passive, sovereign when active and
power when compared with similar ones. Members of this association, who own its
sovereign power, are collectively called people and individually citizens. Finally, they
are called subjects as they obey, or are compelled to obey, laws of the State. Thus, the
three terms – civil society, the sovereign and the state – carry the same meaning; it is a
body politic or political community living in a politically defined and geographically
demarcated territory.
The transition from the state of nature to the civil state produces remarkable
changes in individuals; it substitutes justice for instinct in their conduct, and gives
their actions the morality they had formerly lacked. More specifically, this association
replaces physical impulses and right of appetite with the voice of duty. People used to
consider only their interests, finds them forced to act on different principles – to
consult their reason before listening to their inclinations.

Law and government

The social compact, Rousseau says, gives the body politic existence and life; this
now needs laws for gaining movement and will. These laws are, properly speaking, the
conditions of civil association. Since people are the owner of the body politic and
subject to laws, they ought to be their author. This is however evidently impossible.
So Rousseau suggests for a superior intelligence, which beholds all human
passions but feels none; and which, although knows them thoroughly, is wholly
unrelated to our nature.
Once laws are made, the next step in ordering the society is to execute them so that
each and every subject can conduct life accordingly. Here, comes the need for the
institution of government. Government, according to Rousseau, is an intermediate
body set up between the subjects and the Sovereign, to secure their mutual
correspondence; it is charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of
liberty, both civil and political. The members of this body are called magistrates or
kings, that is to say governors, and the whole body bears the name prince. It is simply
and solely a commission, an employment, in which the rulers, mere officials of the
Sovereign, exercise in their own name the power of which it makes them depositaries.
Government or supreme administration, Rousseau says, is the legitimate exercise of
the executive power, and prince or magistrate the man or the body entrusted with that
administration.
IJSE 4. Some critical observations
36,12 The theories of political philosophy briefly reviewed above are not just empty words;
these are the theories on which modern democratic states are founded. A simple
survey of the constitutions of democratic countries would testify this truth. All
democratic constitutions, unambiguously and unequivocally, preamble that people,
individually called citizen, are the sovereign authority of the state. But for obvious
1174 reasons, people cannot carry out the functions of public administration; this job
requires the creation of a political institution that is separate from the state or body
politic but is morally and legally accountable to it. This political institution is called
government.
All modern governments consist of three departments – legislature, executive
and judiciary. Of these three, judiciary, composed of appointed legal experts, is
totally professional and bureaucratic. The legislature, which enjoys exclusive power of
lawmaking, is totally political. The executive branch – that enjoys the right to exercise
the state’s sovereign power and hence is responsible for executing the laws and
policies passed by the legislature – consists of both civil and military bureaucrats and
elected politicians. The civil and military bureaucrats are professionals, trained to
perform the jobs assigned to them. They take orders and instructions from their
political bosses who are elected by people. Naturally, any conceptualisation
linking governance with related political and social institutions will be
policy-effective only if it truthfully describes those institutions and their
inter-relationships. This is the guiding principle of critical scrutiny of the UNDP
governance conception that follows.

Social contract
Except in the ancient Greece, where democratic public administration exited in the city
of Athens for a brief period, our known world was subdued by a variety of
authoritarian political systems. History testifies how much sacrifices the humankinds
had made to establish, at least accept the idea of, people’s administration. And if we
search for one political perception that made this possible, perhaps we would end up
with “social contract”. When we cruise through the academic world, the idea seems
very abstract, far remote from reality. Yet, we are practicing its essence in our real life.
Any voluntary association, no matter how small it is, must be founded on some kind
of contract, implied or explicit, written or unwritten. For example, the marriage
between a man and woman implies an implicit contract that each will make other
happy. In case of the state, where its members pursue diverse, often diagonally
different, objectives, it must be based on a contract, which would unite them together.
In modern democracies, the constitutions might be considered as the written
expression of this contract.
Given the importance of “social contract” in governance issue, one would expect
that the idea would be dealt with proper significance and signification. The authors of
UNDP policy paper did not feel that way; they finished their job a unduly causal way:
“The state’s functions are manifold – among them, being the focus of the social
contract that defines citizenship [. . .].” This statement seems very strange, because its
meaning and implication are not at all clear. The idea of social contract is only relevant
for democratic states, not for the socialist and monarchical states. Does this mean that
natives of non-democratic states cannot be defined as citizens?
Civil society UNDP on good
Civil society, in the tradition of modern political philosophy, is the most magnificent
outcome of social contract. According to Rousseau, it produces remarkable changes in
governance
man, by substituting justice for instincts in man’s behaviour and giving his actions a
moral quality they previously lacked:
Only then, when the voice of duty replaces physical impulse and right replaces appetite, does
man, who had hitherto taken only himself into account, find himself forced to act on 1175
other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations (Rousseau,
1987, p. 150).
This moral musing about civil society is alien to its current conceptualisation, which
UNDP articulates so aptly. According to this version, civil society is an aggregate of
associations formed voluntarily, such as trade unions, non-governmental
organisations, charities, business associations, professional associations, academic
and policy institutions, media outlets, etc. Political parties are also included, although
they straddle civil society and the state if they are represented in parliament.
The first casualty of this re-conceptualisation is the moral foundation of democratic
political system. In its conventional conception, civil society and the body politic are
the same political institution. Consequently, the leaders of a regime or simply
administration as Americans describe their system, become collectively accountable to
people by principle. Since civil society now consists of a variety of voluntary
organisations and the state is defined as made of “an elected government and an
executive branch”, people have little political roles to play in the system. The only time
they can say something is at the time of general elections. Once these elections are over,
they have little to say about the activities of their rulers; this responsibility is now
performed by civil society organizations. Governance is now a constitutional or legal
matter, not any more moral or political.
Besides, this very theoretical point, the current definition of Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) encounters scepticism. The international development literature
holds CSOs in high regards concerning their roles in improving poor governance in
the South. However, a closer look might suggest just the opposite; some of these
organisations are no less responsible for the g- þ rave governance situation in the
developing world than the political establishments there. This captious scepticism
questioning the role of CSOs is explained by taking Bangladesh as an example[1].
Bangladesh is well known for poor governance. She had championed five
consecutive years in corruption perception index from 2001 to 2006. Although the
situation has improved a little bit, but Bangladesh still trades places with the most
corrupt countries in the world. Finally, problem of poor governance reached such a
stage that military intervened to save the country from total anarchy. What was role of
CSOs in this unacceptable deterioration of “good governance”?
Two political parties – Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh
Awami League (AL) – dominate politics in Bangladesh, although 32 political parties
have registered with Bangladesh Election Commission. And both these parties have
political wings in private and public institutions. For example, teaching and student
communities are openly divided along party lines in public educational institutions. AL
has national student organisation called Bangladesh Chatra (student) League, while
BNP’s national student organisation is Jatiyo Chatra Dal. Even though teaching
communities have no national organisation, teachers in different educational units
IJSE organise them along these two popular parties and participate in both associational
36,12 and institutional governance.
Academic associations are also CSOs by definition, suggesting that they are supposed
to help in improving governance in educational establishments. In Bangladesh, the
picture seems to be very different. Academic virtues do not determine the criteria for
appointments, prestigious executive positions or promotions in these institutions;
1176 participation in party politics and close communications with party leaders are often the
determining qualifications to begin academic career and secure power and prestige. This
situation is seriously damaging intellectual and academic developments in Bangladesh.
Brilliant and professionally honest university teachers and researchers often leave the
country if opportunities prevail. The rest probably follow the conventional wisdom of
ordinary life – set aside professional ethics and do what is best for leading a comfortable
and non-confrontational life. Student leaders do not promote the interests of their fellow
students, which are basically obtaining quality degrees in routine time; they promote the
partisan interests of their political bosses. In Bangladesh, activities of academic CSOs are
thought to be the main reason for poor governance and deteriorating intellectual quality
in educational institutions. This scene about the nature of CSOs’ contributions in
governance can be seen in other sectors, both public and private, in Bangladesh.
If this is the situation, what are those CSOs that external aid agencies are trying to
partner with for instituting good governance in Bangladesh? They include
developmental NGOs, like BRAC, Centre for Mass Education in Science (CMES) and
PROSHIKA, research organisations like Centre for Policy Research (CPD), advocacy
CSOs like Transparency International of Bangladesh (TIB), Sushasoner Jonno Nagorik
(Shujan), etc. An important point to note here is that leaders of most influential CSOs,
like TIB and SHUJAN are also reputed and respected academics. Yet, they hardly talk
about the governance and corruption situations in academic institutions, indicating
inconsistency in their roles as advocacy leaders.
Finally, UNDP assumes that CSOs are well governed; only the state has governance
problems. This assumption appears far remote from truth. Transparency International
Bangladesh (2007) undertook a study on the governance problems of the NGO sector.
The findings of the study are quite contrary to what people expect from NGOs:
.
The founding executive head picks up the governing body, so that it serves
his/her interests.
.
The chief executive has autocratic discretionary power in decision making.
.
There is little transparency in finance. Employees are paid much lower salaries
and benefits than shown in the project proposal; while many employees are
shown in different projects although they receive salary from one project.
.
NGOs directly bribe government officials for getting projects and other project
related activities.

The message this study conveys is that CSOs are directly/indirectly involved in poor
governance in the developing world.

The state and government

In classical political philosophy, the state and civil society imply the same political
entity while the state and government are different: whereas the state is sovereign,
government is limited by the conditions of constitution. These ideas no longer guide UNDP on good
the current conceptions of state and government used in good governance policy governance
development. The following statement, quoted from the 1997 UNDP policy paper,
reveals the nature of current conceptions.
In countries where electoral processes exist, the state is composed of an elected
government and an executive branch. The state being the focus of the social contract, it
defines citizenship; being the mandated authority, controls and exerts force, and is 1177
responsible for public services. The state empowers the people by providing equal
opportunities and ensuring social, economic and political inclusion and access to
resources.
This statement definitely begs questions and scrutiny. Since the state is composed of
“an elected government and an executive branch”, there can be no difference between
the state and government. People are needed in this political system only during the
election time. Once a government has been elected, CSOs, representing various types of
voluntarily formed associations, become responsible to protect citizens’ rights:
Civil society also has to protect the rights of all citizens. As the state and the private sector are
being reshaped and their relationships redefined, civil society is changing in important ways.
Unresponsive government and unrelenting economic and social pressure have undermined
some traditional civil society organisations and strengthened others – and in many cases
forced people to organise in new ways. Civil society is thus more than just society. It is the
part of society that connects individuals with the public realm and the state – it is the
political face of society.
Then the statement is apparently confusing. This paper narrated the supposed nature of
democratic government at the beginning of this section. The executive branch of
government consists of civil and military bureaucrats, but the policymaking authority
clearly resides with elected politicians. Thus, these professionals who people the executive
branch of government are appointed to take orders and instructions from people’s
representatives. And these representatives are to be blamed if the civil and military
bureaucracies do not work well, simply because it is their job to see that the state employees
carryout their duties and responsibilities efficiently and effectively. Thus, making the state
employees as part of government (the state!) is a serious conceptual mistake.
These and other conceptual weaknesses raise scepticism about the success of this
mega governance project undertaken by the bilateral and supranational development
partners (Smith, 2007; Welsh and Woods, 2007). But these critiques are failing to raise
the most critical question about “good governance” conceptualisation: does, or should,
the idea of governance imply processes or performance of an administration?
Abdellatif (2003, p. 4), a UNDP governance advisor, states, “Governance is about
processes, not about ends. Common definitions describe governance as a process by
which power is exercised without explicitly stating the ends being sought”. He is
probably referring here the political aspect of governance. The World Bank avoids this
dimension explicitly:
Whilst the Bank recognises that governance is about power and decision-making, it does not
regard governance as a synonym for “democracy” and therefore it is not necessarily
concerned with the issue of legitimacy [. . .] Governance has a technical aspect – how should
governance system operate – and a political dimension – who should be involved in
governance processes. Whilst for some, governance might most readily bring to mind
political aspects such as political parties, parliament, electoral processes, human rights,
IJSE justice and free media, the Bank – reflecting its Articles of Agreement which state that it
should be a non-political institution – focuses on technocratic aspects of governance. It aims
36,12 to focus on “economic” governance issues, such as good public accounting procedures and
recognition and enforcement of property rights (Wood, 2005, p. 4).
The World Bank exposes the position that bilateral and supranational development
partners take, and why they take it, concerning governance reforms in the developing
1178 world. Since working there for over half century, they understand the problem of
governance and its root-causes clearly, but they are unable to talk about it because of
their organisational limitations. This however does not justify confusing the world
with misconceived ideas or diverting the attention from the political factors that are
causing the governance problem in the first place. The legal frameworks for taking
over offices and executing authorities, which are really indicated by the definition,
“governance is a process”, are all there, although not perfect. The problem is that
politicians do not follow the rules. They bend or break those rules once in office in
order to perpetuate their holds on power. In doing this, they create all kinds of
governance problems at lower hierarchies.
The solution to poor governance in the developing world is making the politicians
follow the rules of game both in seeking political authorities and executing them.
Perhaps, it is obvious to the concerned observers of international development
community that the current conceptualisation of governance and good governance are
simply inadequate to achieve this objective. Instead of projecting “governance as a
process”, the international development partners might consider articulating
“governance as performance” of a regime or administration, so that politicians can
be held responsible for their actions and accountable to people, who empowered them
to exercise their sovereign authority.

5. Conclusion
Conclusions deducible from the above analysis are fairly general, even though they
concern the policy paper of only one supranational organisation. First, descriptions of
civil and political institutions involved with governance process are very confusing.
Governance is a political issue; this is perhaps the reason why the document picked up
jargons of political philosophy – social contract, civil society, the state and government.
However, the policy paper does not describe the conceptual connections among these
concepts in their historical contexts or current institutional forms. For example, the state
and government are very distinct political institutions, both theoretically and
practically. The state is a political association of individuals living in a well-defined
territory, meaning it is sovereign. Government, on the other hand, is another political
institution where people’s supreme power remains entrusted. It is subordinate to the
state, because the people periodically elect its administrators. The UNDP document
makes no such distinction; it treats government and the state synonymous.
Second, the document assigns an all-impressing role to CSOs in promoting good
governance in the developing world. They stand in-between the state and private
sector and mediate their differences and protect the rights of all citizens:
Civil society is more than just society. It is the part of society that connects individuals with
the public realm and the state – it is the political face of society.
In reality, CSOs are deeply involved in poor governance in the developing country.
 Finally, the conception – governance is a process – misconceives the true nature of UNDP on good
governance problem in the developing world and diverts world attention from real governance
political factors responsible for creating all sorts of governance problems there.
Governance, an out-and-out political issue, must be treated as the performance of a
regime or administration, so that the regime can be held accountable if governance is
poor and credited for good governance.
1179
Note
1. The author, born and educated in Bangladesh, is a passionate observer of the socioeconomic
and political developments in Bangladesh. The narratives reflect his personal experiences,
while data supplied are collected from personal communications and internet browsing.

References
Abdellatif, A.M. (2003), “Good governance and its relationship to democracy and economic
development”, paper presented to the Global Forum III on Fighting Corruption and
Safeguarding Integrity in Seoul, 20-31 May.
Locke, J. (1976), Second Treatise on Government, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis, IN.
Rousseau, J.J. (1987), The Basic Political Writings, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, IN.
Smith, B.C. (2007), Good Governance and Development, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Transparency International Bangladesh (2007), Problems of Governance in the NGO Sector: The
Way Out, available at: www.ti-bangladesh.org/index.php?page_id¼401 (accessed 1 June
2009).
UN (2005), “Implementation of the programme action for the least developed countries for the
decade 2001-2010; report of Secretary-General”, A/60/81-E/2005/68, United Nations,
23 May.
UNDP (1997), “Governance for sustainable human development – a UNDP policy document”,
United Nations Development Programme, available at: http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/
policy/(accessed 1 June 2009).
UNDP (2009a), Fast Facts, United Nations Development Programme, available at: www.undp.
org/governance/docs/Overview_pub_FastFactsDemGov.pdf (accessed 1 June 2009).
UNDP (2009b), Governance for the Future: Democracy and Development in the Least Developed
Countries, United Nations Development Programme, available at: http://opentraining.unes
co-ci.org/tools/pdf/otpitem.php?id¼602 (accessed 1 June 2009).
Welsh, J. and Woods, N. (2007), Exporting Good Governance: Temptations and Challenges and
Challenges in Canada’s Aid Programme, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo.
Wood, A. (2005), “Demystifying ‘Good Governance’, an overview of World Bank governance
reforms and conditions”, available at: http://trocaire.org/policyandadvocacy/policydocument.
php?id¼11 (accessed 1 June 2009).
World Bank (1989), Sub-Sahara Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Bank (2009), Comprehensivev Development Framework, available at: http://web.
worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/CDF/0,contentMDK:
20072933, menuPK:140843, pagePK:139301, piPK:139306, teSitePK:140576,00.html
(accessed 1 June 2009).
IJSE About the author
Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi PhD, a Bangladesh-born Canadian, is an agricultural economist by
36,12 academic accreditation. He taught economics and agricultural economics at the Bangladesh
Agricultural University, BRAC University, Bangladesh and the University of New Brunswick,
Saint John, Canada. Currently, he is a Research Associate at the York Centre for Asian Research.
Over the past decade, his academic interests and aspirations have changed dramatically, York
University, Canada. His research interests now mainly concerns analysing public policy issues
1180 from the perspective of moral and political philosophy. In particular, he is currently exploring the
possibility of harmonizing citizens’ security in this rapidly evolving global village by explicating
the relationship between democracy and global governance. Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi can be
contacted at: Kqe53@yahoo.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints