1

Democracy, “Good Governance” and (Sustainable) Development

The Challenge of Matching Governing Form to Developmental Function

William M. Lafferty

Programme for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus)Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM), University of Oslo

andCentre for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy (CSTM)

University of Twente

Lecture SUM 4000, Spring 2006, 2 March 2006

2

Program for forskning og utredning for et bærekraftig samfunn

Område for miljø og utvikling

Norges forskningsråd

Program for Research and Documentation for a

Sustainable Society

One of four research programmes:

Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM)

University of Oslo

Funded by the Research Council of Norway (RCN) Division for Strategic Priorities, Department for Environmental Issues, Energy and Sustainable Development

3

The ProSus mandate:

Documentation and evaluation of Norway’s follow-up of the Rio accords and the guidelines from the UN Commission on Sustainable

development. Increasing emphasis on the European, Nordic and Norwegian strategies and action plans for sustainable development.

Strategic research on the barriers and potential facilitators for a more rational and effective realization of strategies and action plans for

sustainable development.

Information and dissemination of the project’s evaluations and research results, and the promotion of public debate on alternative strategies, scenarios and ”normative futures”.

www.sum.uio.no\prosus

4

What is “Sustainable Development”?

The Brundtland definition – complete!

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It contains within it two key concepts:

- the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

Three crucial additional principles:

- “Differentiated responsibility” – Between “developed” and “developing” member states – the issue of “over development” vs. “under development”

- “Environmental policy integration” – Integrating competing economic, social, and environmental concerns

- “Precautionary principle” – Protecting the sustainability of natural life-support systems in the face of uncertainty as to probable negative impacts from any given economic or social-welfare initiative

5

The political mandate for sustainable development:

A normative programme for change with high moral-political legitimacy (in Europe)

UN: Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, Climate Convention, Biodiversity Convention, Declaration on “Implementation of Agenda 21” from Rio +5 (New York, 1997), “Millennium Goals” from WSSD (Johannesburg, 2002), the “Global Compact”, etc, etc;

EU: Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice; the 5th EAP – “Towards Sustainability”; the Gothenburg “Strategy for Sustainable Development”; the “Cardiff Process”; numerous directives and lesser agreements (including several directives and action plans on “Renewable Energy Systems (RES)).

Nordic Council: Strategy for “A Sustainable Nordic Region”, with indicators and targets for SD – recently evaluated and revised

Norway: Numerous parliamentary decisions, governmental White Papers, “National Strategy for Sustainable Development” and the “National Agenda 21: Action Plan for Sustainable Development”

→ An integrated multi-level strategic programme for promoting SD

6

Democracy: “An idea in history”I. The basic elements

Core definition: (Cohen: Democracy)

“A system of community government,in which the members of the community,participate, directly or indirectly,in the making of decisionswhich affect them all”

Presuppositions:- Community- Rationality

Conditions:- History- Religion / values- Technology / culture- Economy / level of need satisfaction- Education- Constitutions ("power maps")

Instruments:- Elections- Representation- Majority Rule- Minority rights- Legal enactment- Judicial Review- Referenda

Outputs:- Decisions- Laws / regulations- Policies- Allocations

7

History

Scope and function

Local democracy

National democracy

Industrial democracy

Economic democracy

Democracy for “development”

Democracy: “An idea in history”II. “Democratization” – “form follows function”

Democracy for “sustainable development”

8

Democratization, “good governance” and development – Perspectives from Potter (Ch. 17)

The “Washington consensus”:“Essentially, the view was that a combination of liberal market capitalism in an international context and liberal democracy and ‘good governance’ domestically were mutually reinforcing (a ‘virtuous cycle’) and provided core elements of a comprehensive strategy for development success equally valid for all types of society”. (p. 375)

The opposing view:“... if eliminating the continuing offence of poverty and misery is the real target, then unlimited liberal democracy and unrestrained economic liberty may be the last thing the developing world needs as it whirls towards the 21st century” (Leftwich, 1993) (p. 376)

The key challenge:“The contradiction is that ‘the rules and hence practices of stable democratic politics will tend to restrict policy to incremental and accommodationist (hence conservative) options’; whereas ‘developmental requirements (whether liberal or radical) will be likely to pull policy in the direction of quite sharp change affecting the economic and social structure of the society and hence important interests within it.’” (p. 377)

9

“Good Governance” Procedural vs substantive views

The World Bank:

“Governance”: “the means in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” (p. 379)

“Good governance”: “synonymous with sound management in four areas”:

1. Public sector management2. Accountability3. The legal framework for development4. Information and transparency

Note:The World Bank criteria are highly procedural – no specific mention of substantive developmental goals (“free markets”, “liberalization”, etc.), nor of “competitive democracy”

Yet:Demands for “good governance” have, in practice, almost exclusively been connected to the liberalization/de-regulation of national developing economies (“conditionality”) and competitive party politics

Hvorfor det???

10

A triad of models of democratic form, good governance, and developmental goals”

The model of development: Guiding principles, programmes,

policy instruments

The model of good governance (public management): To

effectively realize the goals

The model of democratic

decision-making:To determine and

legitimate the goals

11

Prompt, decisive and effective actionDebate, dialogue, compromise, reflection and learning

A need for holistic, integrated decisionsPluralistic representation, partisan competition and majority governance

A strong need for science and expertise Core values of “personal preference” and “common sense”

“Categorical citizenship” and “proxy representation” of the interests of future generations and (for some) other species

Individual citizenship and direct representation of interests

Community within ecological domainsCommunity within historical-geographical domains

Goals and principles of sustainable development:

Values and principles of liberal-pluralist democracy (“polyarchy”) :

The model for democratic decision-makingcan be in conflict with

The model for development

12

Conclusions for further discussion:

• The notion of “democratization” must be relativized according to the function/purpose of the activity that is to be democratized

• The Western model of “liberal pluralism” (“competitive democracy”, “polyarchy”) is strongly conditioned by the emergence and consolidation of free-market capitalism

• There are good reasons to separate the decision-making and management functions of governing

• Standards of “good governance” are essentially formulated as standards of good – i.e. “effective” – public management.

• Some aspects of “development” are more democratically sanctioned (globally) than others: human, civil and social rights – environmental sustainability

• Northern states have a clearly moral “differentiated” responsibility to do more to reduce burdens on life-support systems and natural resources than do Southern states

• Southern states must nonetheless also be held responsible for “good governance for sustainable development”

13

For greater detail on the approach:

Edward Elgar 2004: www.e-elgar.co.ukPaperback edition from April 2006

Can be downloaded at the ProSus website

14

I. Benchmarks for vertical policy integration (VEPI): The responsibility of ministries

Evaluation: Norway

Scoping reports of sectorial activity identifying major environmental impacts associated with key actors and processes

Sectoral forums for dialogue and consultation with relevant stakeholders and affected citizens

Sectoral strategies for change, with basic principles, goals, targets and timetables Sectoral action plans with specified tactics for achieving goals with target-group related policy instruments

Green budgets for highlighting, prioritizing and implementing action plans Monitoring programs for evaluating implementation and revising strategies and action plans

Model for “good public management” for SD:Vertical and Horizontal Environmental Policy Integration (EPI)

15

Benchmarks for horizontal policy integration (HEPI): The responsibility of governments

Status Norway

A “constitutive” mandate providing provisions for the special status of environmental/sustainable-development rights and goals. An over-arching strategy for the sectoral domain, with clearly enunciated goals and operational principles, and a political mandate with direct backing from the chief executive authority.

A national action plan with both over-arching and sectoral targets, indicators and time-tables. A responsible executive body with designated responsibility (and powers) for the overall coordination, implementation and supervision of the integration process.

A communications plan stipulating sectoral responsibility for achieving overarching goals, and outlining how intra-sectoral communications are to be structured and made transparent.

An independent auditor with responsibility for monitoring and assessing implementation at both governmental and sectoral levels, and for proposing revisions in subsequent generations of strategies and action plans

A board of petition and redress for resolving conflicts of interest between environmental and other societal objectives, interests and actors

Model for “good public management” for SD:Vertical and Horizontal Environmental Policy Integration (EPI)