Soemarman_Presentation - Review on Psychometric Measurement of Lafferty LSI
1 Democracy, “Good Governance” and (Sustainable) Development The Challenge of Matching Governing...
-
Upload
marvin-banks -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Democracy, “Good Governance” and (Sustainable) Development The Challenge of Matching Governing...
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)