Governance: Meaning, Issue, Challenges

What is Governance?

Governance, as a term, has also evoked controversies. It has been praised by some and blamed by many. For its proponents, this has been the best mechanism that provides a suitable handle to remedy the multifarious problems afflicting the governance systems in many poor countries.

For its opponents, nothing could be further from the truth.

Governance is a gimmick that incorporates old ideas and principles in a new package and claims that to be an innovation. It is a mode of control designed and perpetuated by the West.

The chapter is an attempt to analyze the nature of governance. In the process, some definitions of governance have been surveyed. The term “good governance” has also been discussed to delineate its key characteristics.

The role of international donors in the promotion of the term governance is now well-known. Four of the major international donors’ views have been presented in a skeletal manner. Some challenges of governance have also been analyzed.

Quest For The Meaning of Governance

In spite of recent interest in governance, the term is not new. Rather, it is an old term. It was utilized and defined in the fourteenth century. The definition of the term at that time had a number of usages (Halfani et al., 1994:3). In the first sense, it meant action, method, or function of government. In the second sense, it included action or manner of governing.

Defining Governance: A Challenge

There have been numerous attempts in recent years to define the term.

Still, there has not been any agreement on a particular definition. This becomes evident if one analyzes a number of definitions.

he Oxford Dictionary defines governance as “the act or manner of governing, of exercising control or authority over the actions of subjects; system of regulations” (quoted in Landell-Mills and Serageldin: 1991:304).

For Jahan, it “reflects a judgment on the quality of government” (Jahan, 1992:3). For Landell-Mills and Serageldin (1991:304), governance denotes “how people are ruled, how the affairs of the state are administered and regulated as well as a nation’s system of politics and how this functions in relation to public administration and law.

Varied Perspectives from Major Institutions

The World Bank provides two definitions of the term. In the first definition, the emphasis is exclusively on how “political power is exercised to manage a nation’s affairs” (World Bank, 1989:60).

The other definition, a broader one, focuses on the “use of power in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” (World Bank, 1992:1). The UNDP’s definition of governance is the same as that of the first definition of the World Bank (UNDP, 1995).

Broadening the Understanding of Governance

During the last couple of years, a few scholars made efforts to understand governance within a broader canvas.

For Halfani and his colleagues, governance refers to a “system of government concentrating on effective and accountable institutions, democratic principles and electoral process, representation and responsible structures of government, in order to ensure an open and legitimate relationship between civil society and the state” (Halfani et al., 1994:4).

It is imperative that for Halfani and his colleagues, the relationship between civil society and the state is crucial as this differentiates the study of governance from the study of government.

Emphasizing Normative Qualities of Governance

What is important in this definition is the nature of the relationship between civil society and the state. Central to this relationship is the key idea of the credibility of both politicians and governing institutions.

They believe that credibility and legitimacy of government can be achieved through accountability, transparency, responsiveness, real participation, and public consultation.

In a similar vein, the OECD definition of governance includes “public administration and the institutions, methods, and instruments of governing and also incorporates the relationship between government and citizen (including business and other citizen groupings) and the role of the state” (OECD, 1995:158).

Though the last two definitions have succeeded to some extent in broadening our understanding of the term governance, there is still a compelling need to concretize what is actually governance and, hence, the emphasis on normative qualities.

In other words, what is good governance, whether that is realizable, and under what conditions.

The Rise of Good Governance in Development Discourse

The entrance of good governance into the vocabulary of development in the 1980s has been credited to the “influence of powerful institutions like the World Bank … as conditionalities.”

Whatever may have been the reason for the term’s origination, its popularity remains high, as reflected by the attempts of many to delineate the principles and characteristics of good governance.

This tendency to ‘discover’ principles behind good governance and/or delineate its essential features has taken two forms.

Identifying Symptoms of Poor Governance

The first tendency has been to look for the symptoms of poor governance. These include:

• Failure to make a clear separation between what is public and what is private, hence a tendency to direct public resources for private gain.
• Failure to establish a predictable framework of law and government behavior conducive to development or arbitrariness in the application of rules and laws.
• Excessive rules, regulations, licensing requirements, and so forth impede the functioning of markets and encourage rent-seeking.
• Priorities inconsistent with development, resulting in a misallocation of resources.
• Excessively narrowly based or non-transparent decision-making (World Bank, 1992:9).

The other symptoms of poor governance are: “excessive costs, poor service to the public, and failure to achieve the aims of the policy” (The British Council, 1991).

The Key Features of Good Governance

However, the overwhelming tendency has been to portray the key features of good governance. Some of these include:

• The promotion of democracy and open, pluralistic societies.
• The strengthening of transparent, accountable, efficient, and effective national and local government.
• The promotion of respect for human rights.
• The reinforcement of the rule of law, including fair and accessible legal and judicial systems.
• The promotion of independent media and the dissemination of information.
• Anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to reduce excessive military expenditure (OECD, 1992).

The Conditions for Achieving Good Governance

Sir Kenneth Stowe, a retired British permanent secretary, maintains that good governance is possible when six variables are present.

These are;

1. political freedom, including free speech and a freely elected parliament, assembly, or legislature;
2. constitutional and judicial protection for the rights of the individual;
3. the maintenance of stable currency, the essential underpinning of economic and social development;
4. maintenance of the rule of law by an independent judiciary;
5. development of society as a whole through education and health care, and
6. executive accountability to a freely-elected legislature.

Broadening the Horizon of Good Governance

Good governance has also been viewed in terms of its benefits to a particular country. But this way of looking at governance broadens its horizon further makes the term more unwieldy, and consequently limits its utility.

From this perspective, good governance offers everything under the sun.

As it is claimed: Good governance ensures good vision and pragmatic direction for the economy, creates an enabling environment for investment opportunities, guarantees rational allocation of resources and their proper use, and maintains a political commitment to and a sense of urgency about economic development and poverty alleviation.

Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Civil Society

From the discussion above, several issues and variables pertaining to governance can be discerned.

First, the exercise of authority and the manner and process through which such authority is exercised have an important bearing on governance.

Second, authority is invariably related to legitimacy. But legitimacy cannot be expected to be in place automatically.

Rather, legitimacy can be achieved through the use of such mechanisms as accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and meaningful participation. All the variables are intimately intertwined.

Third, the legitimacy of authority is also linked with crucial variables like political freedom, multi-party systems, free elections, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and protection of the rights of the individual.

Fourth, good governance is premised on a number of positive values like democracy, probity, and fairness.

Finally, the relationship between civil society, i.e., private sector, civil associations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), social movements, and the state is indeed crucial and needs to be understood in all its ramifications.

Ethical Considerations in Good Governance

It needs to be pointed out that the notion of good governance is still developing in terms of its definition, its ethical connotations, and its usefulness.

The ethical question has emanated from the concerns with the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies and their impact in many developing countries, including those in Africa.

The issue is whether imposing “political conditionality is a violation of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations.”

International Donors and Governance

Governance is on the agenda of international donors. Though in this arena, the leadership role of the World Bank is well known, still other donors like UNDP, USAID, and ODA are also quite active. In recent years, some scholars and researchers have attempted to analyze the role of international donors in governance (Guha Thakurata and Karim, 1998).

The World Bank’s Governance Initiatives

The World Bank’s mandate also coincides with the important dimensions of governance, i.e., public sector management, accountability, legal framework, and information and transparency.

As mentioned earlier, the World Bank’s definition of governance and, more specifically, its delineation of the symptoms of poor governance have set the stage for the specific attributes of good governance.

The governance initiative of the World Bank is premised on twin principles of downsizing the government and the promotion of an open and free competitive market economy.

UNDP’s Approach to Governance

The UNDP’s thinking on governance is very much related to that of the World Bank.

The emphasis is on such attributes as

• legitimacy,
• freedom of association and participation,
• legal frameworks,
• bureaucratic accountability,
• transparency,
• availability and validity of information,
• and effective and efficient public sector management.

As one can see, the only difference is UNDP’s focus on cultural differences among countries and, by inference, emphasizing the futility of universal prescriptions.

USAID’s Focus on Governance and Democracy

The USAID’s interest in governance has not been as explicit as that of either the World Bank or the UNDP. The USAID’s interest in the maintenance of democratic politics in recent years has been seen in the strengthening of its democracy-related projects and other activities.

Here, the belief is that democracy can be sustained if there is a strong elite commitment, appropriate accountability mechanisms for both elected and appointed public officials and a suitable environment for pluralist competition.

ODA’s Perspective on Good Government

The Overseas Development Authority (ODA), UK’s thinking on governance has been influenced by the principles contained in the Citizen’s Charter as well as its own experience in developing countries.

The Citizen’s Charter, prepared in 1991 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was intended to raise the standard of public service in the UK.

The ODA uses the terminology good government for good governance. But in terms of content, there is not much dissimilarity between what other donors call good governance and what ODA terms as good government.

The Essential Elements of Good Governance

The emphasis is on familiar variables like;

• the legitimacy of the government,
• accountability mechanisms for public officials,
• efficiency of the government in formulating appropriate policies and ensuring their effective implementation,
• efficiency in the delivery of services, and
• respect for human rights.

But then, without proper checks and balances to limit the power of public officials and the existence of effective and efficient public organizations, good government will not be possible.

Globalization’s Influence on Modern Governance

There is an increasing realization that globalization is the most dominant force in the world economy, affecting society, politics, and administration in almost all countries to varying degrees.

The rapid internationalization of economic activity, growth of market penetration, and moves towards further deregulation and privatization, along with the breakneck speed of new innovation in information and communication technology, clearly manifest not only the overarching reach of globalization but also the need for a new way of conceptualizing governance.

Viewing governance from a global perspective demands a clear understanding of the changed role of the state. It is felt that a collaborative relationship must evolve between the state, market, and civil society premised on interdependence, steering, and networking.

Sharing power with other actors and shrinking the zone of the sphere appear to be characteristics of the modern state. The concept of a minimalist state has gained increasing familiarity in the literature.

The Retreat of the State

The retreat of the state has been the result of a number of developments. Tremendous advancements in modern technology have encouraged “states to join together into blocks whose territory is larger than that of individual members” (Creveld, 1999:385).

Besides regional blocks, technology has created the need for the formation of intergovernmental bodies, the number of which reached 395 in 1984 from 123 in 1951 (Held, 1988). It is also claimed that the unprecedented progress of electronic information services appears to signal the retreat of the state (Wriston, 1992).

The revolution in the communication of information has brought into being what is termed a “global village” and has enabled more people to obtain more information than at any other time in human history (Feather, 1998:11-12). Trading organizations located in the private sector in different countries perform better than states in the arena of international trade, as reflected in the doubling of world export products between 1965 and 1990 (Mulhearn as quoted in Creveld 1999: 389).

The globalization of the economy and the growing importance of transnational political institutions like the European Union (EU), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) also point to the inadequacies of the nation-state (Pierre, 2000:5).

Moreover, states are unable to meet the increasing demands of their citizens. There is also a feeling among many that modern states are demanding more and offering less (Creveld, 1999: 410).

In the face of the inability of states to satisfactorily meet citizens’ demands, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Grassroots Organizations (GROs), along with markets and private enterprises, have come to play a significant role as trendsetters in development. NGOs are in a better position vis-à-vis public organizations in a number of areas.

They have the capacity to experiment, innovate, and adapt; to facilitate local resource mobilization and ensure local development; to act quickly and work flexibly with other organizations; and to effectively promote and advocate important issues, ideas, and programs (Brown and Korten, 1991; Kozlowski, 1983; Wilson, 1983; World Bank, 1995; Begum, 2000).

The shrinking of the state has led to the emergence of the present governance paradigm. It is believed that instead of government, a governance framework better represents the reality of today’s fast-changing and interdependent world.

Governance in the Modern World

Governance as a term is now widely known and popular among academics and practitioners interested in understanding and analyzing the limited role of government.

Still, the term has not as yet acquired a meaning that is universally accepted. That is why the term has been labeled as confusing (Pierre and Peters, 2000:14); not clear (Smouts, 1998: 81); and not precise (Senarclens, 1998:92). This does not mean that there is a paucity of definitions of governance; rather, there are too many of them.

The Commission on Global Governance states that global-level governance … [is seen] primarily as an inter-governmental relationship … also involving NGOs, citizens’ movements, multi-national corporations, and the global capital market. Interacting with these are global mass media of dramatically enlarged influence.

Stoker further clarifies the term by presenting five propositions of governance. These propositions are intended not only to further clarify the term but also to broaden its domain as well.

The propositions are;

• Governance as a complex set of institutions and actors drawn from, but also beyond, government
• Governance recognizes the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues
• Governance identifies power dependence involved in relationships between institutions engaged in collective action
• Governance is about autonomous self-governing networks of actors
• Governance recognizes that the capacity to get things done does not solely rest on the power of the government to command or use its authority
• Governance sees government as able to use new tools and technologies to steer and guide

These propositions point to a number of important dimensions of governance and the “need for collaborative action involving the state, market, and civil society.”

It is now firmly held that governance is inevitably an interactive process as no single actor, whether public or private, possesses the knowledge and the capacity to tackle problems unilaterally and single-handedly. The idea of collaboration is the most critical feature of governance in modern times. The role of respective components of governance is important to further probe into its nature and process. The transnational mobility of corporations, capital, and technology as a result of globalization permits the private sector in the most favorable climate, eluding a national state’s jurisdiction.

At the same time, the overarching reach of technology through such media as the internet considerably restricts the degrees of freedom and effectiveness of government intervention (Valaskakis, 1999:155).

Transnational corporations, special interest groups, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs have been termed as the rising stars on the world stage, while nation-state governments and sub-national governments are labeled as falling stars (Valaskakis, 1999:155-156).

Nation-states, though still dominant, are constrained in their actions by the simultaneous functioning of the global market in which large corporations and private financial interests exercise enormous power (de Alcantara, 1998:111). The task of government in governance has consequently changed.

According to one interpretation, it centers around [de]composition and coordination; calibration and steering; and integration and regulation. This way of looking at the role of the government emphasizes on the critical contribution of markets, networks, and civil society in governance.

As has been discussed above, the term governance can be viewed from a number of perspectives. In the context of this chapter, governance is looked at from two perspectives — New Public Management (NPM) strategies and networks, partnerships, and deliberative forums.

From the perspectives of the public sector in general and public administration in particular, the growth of NPM strategies has two policy implications.

The first issue emanates from the privatization of publicly owned industries and public services and the consequent need for regulating service providers to ensure service quality and compliance with contractual terms

The second issue surfaces with the introduction of commercial and management styles within the public sector, devolving overall policy guidelines and targets.

Networks, partnerships, and deliberative forums embrace a diverse range of actors, including NGOs, local government representatives, and community groups (Hirst, 2000:18) and focus on coordination and self-governance (Rhodes, 1997).

It has been claimed that networks bring together dissimilar individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions together for purposes that are acceptable both to those immediately involved and to the consumers or users of goods and services being delivered (Thynne, 1998:231).

Then, it is natural as well as logical that in governance, such terms as partnerships, stakeholders, participation, and sharing of power are deliberated intensively to achieve efficiency, economy, and effectiveness in the public sector’s performance as reflected in service delivery.

Reforming Public Management in the Asia-Pacific Region

Reforming public management has been an ongoing process in many countries of the Asia-Pacific region for one to two decades. The impulse for such reforms came as a result of a combination of a number of factors.

These included market determination, public dissatisfaction with service delivery, growing demand for citizen participation in decision-making, and disillusion with the standard of public sector resource management (Hunn, 1998:59-60).

Other concerns like cost-effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, focus on results, contestability of advice and services, better performance management, and decentralization of service delivery also contributed significantly to create pressure for change and reform.

The economic crisis that started in mid-1997 in Thailand severely affected economies in many countries in East and Southeast Asia, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

The crisis jolted the extraordinary economic progress of these countries over three decades.

A number of arguments have been put forward to explain why the crisis developed. The top-down nature of the Asian model that bred and encouraged complacency, cronyism, and corruption was blamed (Time, December 8, 1997).

The lack of transparency in markets was termed another cause of the crisis. Markets lacked adequate information about the true financial status of corporations and banks (Singh and Weisse, 1999:207). Massive capital flight, fallen domestic demand,

and a liquidity crisis in South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand in 1997 paved the way for the crisis to happen (Rasiah, 2000:951).

During the last decade, a number of significant reforms have been implemented in a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. There are differences in terms of the nature and scope of such reforms.

However, these planned policy measures are intended to bring about a marked change in governance in these countries. It will not be possible to discuss here at any great length all the reforms in these countries.

Rather, the focus below is on some significant reforms in some countries that have implications for governance.

Public-Private Interaction and Exchange Relations

There are many facets in public-private interaction and exchange relations. In both Australia and New Zealand, “marketization has been accepted as having general application to all parts of the public sector.”

Contractualism, competition, and contestability are now familiar mechanisms that allow the reduction of the scope of the public sector and increasing dependence on the private sector.

The reliance on the private sector is greater in New Zealand than Australia. In New Zealand, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) are to perform like corporations and “demonstrate comparable performance in terms of efficiency and productivity.”

This corporatization subsequently led to privatization involving the transfer of public assets to the private sector. Corporatization and privatization measures also resulted in the reformulation of the departmental structure by separating responsibilities for policy and delivery.

In Australia, the government has clearly preferred the private sector in reshaping the public service.

• Deregulated personnel system
• Restricting the public service to policy development
• Implementation of legislation
• Oversight of service delivery
• Contestability of delivery of services with increasing utilization of the private sector

In both Australia and New Zealand measures have been taken to reduce the permanency of public servants and replace them with a time-bound contract system.

Public servants are now employed in New Zealand by departmental chief executives on a basis similar to that of their private sector counterparts. In both countries, the emphasis is on rewards for performance with provisions for bonuses and dismissal for poor results. In New Zealand, contracts exist between ministers and top civil servants premised on the performance of the latter.

Reforms in Hong Kong led to the privatization of several government services, contracting out on a wider scale, promotion of divestiture where appropriate, and transformation of civil servants from administrators to better managers.

Malaysia Incorporated Policy (MIP) and privatization are two key elements in Malaysia’s reform initiative. MIP is based on the philosophy of close cooperation, collaboration, and joint action between government and industry (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1995:4).

MIP offers opportunities for dialogue at different levels between government agencies and the private sector to facilitate the latter’s increasing participation in the economy.

Privatization is intended to reduce the size of the public sector. A committee set up for this purpose has already introduced a number of measures to streamline the public sector.

In Japan, former Prime Minister Obuchi expressed his intention in August 1998 to streamline the bureaucracy effectively through deregulation and a revision of the roles of the government and the private sector.

Quality Service Delivery Initiatives

A number of reform initiatives have been implemented in some countries of the region to improve service delivery.

Performance Pledges (PPs) contain precisely what standards customers should expect from public services, how to judge whether those standards are met, and what to do when they are not. So PPs, in effect, are basic guarantees of minimum standards of public services.

To maintain the quality of service, a set of reform measures have already been implemented in Malaysia, including TQM, QCCs, PSN, and CSL.

Total Quality Management (TQM) is intended to mobilize all available resources in public sector agencies to meet customer requirements.

Quality Control Circles (QCCs) mobilize expertise, experience, and employee creativity in problem-solving. Public Service Network (PSN) and Civil Service Link (CSL) are mechanisms to deliver information and services and facilitate electronic commerce electronically.

Other measures like Counter Service and Client’s Charter are intended to provide customers guaranteed fast, accurate, continuous service. In Singapore, Public Service for the 21st Century (PS 21) initiative is aimed at nurturing an

attitude of service excellence in meeting the needs of the public with standards of quality and courtesy (Khan, 1998; Khan, 2000). In both Malaysia and Singapore, mechanisms are in place to provide one-stop access to information and services through computer networking.

Both countries are committed to quality management by identifying and meeting customer requirements through such mechanisms as Work Improvement Teams (WITs) and ISO 900.

With the establishment of the Administrative Reform Council in 1996 in Japan, Prime Minister Hashimoto started a process to reorganize ministries and agencies.

Reform measures taken in the backdrop of scandals involving senior civil servants and failures in banking-related policy, concentrated on achieving four objectives, i.e. maintaining a simple and efficient administration, encouraging more initiatives by people, encouraging accountability, and quality of services (Furukawa 1999: 443).

Canada has been experimenting with a new model of service delivery. The model is premised on partnership with other sectors of society and that enabled it to institute one-stop access to information and services.

The improved service delivery has been possible due to the elimination of subsidies and regulations, privatization of service providers, and devolving responsibility for program provision to the levels of government as well as to the private and community sectors.

Decentralization and Citizen Participation

The interest in some countries for devolution of power and authority to lower tiers of government is the realization that national/central government overcrowding adversely affects its ability to effectively and efficiently perform and denies meaningful participation of citizens at the grassroots level.

Thailand’s new constitution, promulgated on 11 October 1997, provides greater transparency, accountability, and public participation.

In Japan, the Promotion of Decentralization Commission recommended that 60% of 561 agency-delegated functions be transferred to local governments. The Commission sought ideas on reform from all sections of the population.

Decentralization was intended to strengthen the administrative and fiscal capability of local governments. The most important recommendation of the Commission related to the abolition of central control of local elected officials by ministerial administrative hierarchies.

Future Perspectives on Governance

Both in the near and distant future, changes and innovations will characterize governance in many of the Asia-Pacific countries. Competition and flexibility will radically alter the character of the civil service.

More emphasis will be given to merit-based performance and pay; massive replacement of permanent by contract staff; entrance of a large number of individuals through appropriately designed merit-based tests and examinations in the public sector is to happen; and permanent tenure will be a thing of the past.

Increasing interaction, cooperation, and dependence of the public sector on the private sector, NGOs, and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) for service delivery will become more and more a regular practice.

Networking among different sectors, communities, and groups will increase both in frequency and intensity, as it will not be possible for the state to manage and satisfy on its own the multifarious and contradictory demands of knowledgeable citizens.

Greater use of information technology will become an indispensable component of future governance. The use of technology will further improve the quality of service and facilitate information sharing at different levels among groups and institutions.

The devolution of authority to elected local governmental bodies will give way to a top-heavy and highly centralized governmental system, enabling meaningful participation of local stakeholders in the governance process.

Conclusion: A New Approach to Governance

Improved governance results from an understanding and appreciation of a number of interrelated variables and developments. The most significant development of the present time is the increasing dependence of nation-states, organizations, and groups at the global level.

Globalization and information technology have already had a significant impact on trade, commerce, and national sovereignty. The movement of international capital has been hectic.

The role of international, regional, and specialized financial institutions has increased considerably. In the backdrop of all these, the governance systems of the Asia-Pacific region need to be reorganized on a different philosophical plane premised on two basic assumptions.

First, limiting the role of the state to provide basic civic facilities needs to be underscored.

Second, a congenial environment needs to be created where the public, private, and civil society sectors can collaborate and partner. Interdependence among the sectors will necessitate the harmonization of roles and the sharing of power among the different actors.

Under such a situation, governance will emerge as a unique way of managing the affairs of the state.

Challenges of Governance

In the future, governance, to be viable as a term and a notion, has to face several major challenges in keeping up with changes in the world’s socioeconomic scenario. These challenges are interrelated and presented below as questions.

Role of the State

There is continuous debate about the state’s role in citizens’ lives. International donors like the World Bank feel that it is time for the domain of the state to be significantly reduced and restricted to selected basic services that cannot be provided on a commercial basis by the private sector.

The state will intervene in the market only if the private sector fails. Consequently, there is a prescription to make the government market-friendly.

The citizens should be encouraged to be responsible for their income and welfare, expecting almost no assistance from the state.

Now, what all these mean is that a radical transformation should take place in the existing public sector culture in most developing countries, premised on monopolistic control over the state’s resources and institutional mechanisms.

Then what could be the possible implications of rightsizing government to the bone for governance?

It is usually assumed that governance would improve significantly if the domain of the state is reduced. Arguments behind such an assumption are that the private sector is efficient, effective, and responsible compared to the public sector.

So if the private sector is allowed unrestrained reign of the market, then citizens will get better service at a cheaper cost because of the market’s competitive nature.

At the same time, there is talk of regulating the market by formulating and enforcing laws and creating overseeing bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

• So how strong will the public sector remain if most of its functions and activities are divested to the private sector?
• Is there any possibility of attracting and retaining the best talent in the country in a weak and mostly discredited public sector?
• How can judicial institutions be transformed into competent and reliable bodies able to protect the citizens and the private sector from undue interference by the state and, at the same time, save ordinary individuals from the fraudulent practices of the private sector?
• How the scope of judicial review can be broadened?
• How can the government’s strategic and enabling capacities be enhanced?
• How can governments be motivated to reform existing structures and practices in view of the changing priorities and philosophy of governance?

Reorienting the Public Bureaucracy

Public services are still influenced by inherited institutions and practices. Deterioration in the standard of education in general and higher education in particular in many developing countries has adversely affected the caliber of public servants available at all levels.

The obvious solution is to develop a merit-based professional service capable of performing in a competent manner.

But how does one do that?

The present state of affairs is not desirable, but how can we overcome the problems and reorient the public bureaucracy to cope with the demands of a radically different future?

There is an increasing demand for timely and quality service from a vociferous and restive citizenry. Decision-making is still mostly non-transparent.

Accountability mechanisms are either not in place, or they do not work. They mostly exist on paper. Rules and regulations aggravate the sufferings of the public and protect the incompetence and high-handedness of the bureaucrats.

The political dimension of public service is least understood. There is in many cases a cozy relationship between politicians in power and higher civil servants that is mutually beneficial.

Civil service reforms are talked about for public consumption, but radical reforms are not implemented, as these would reduce the status and power of the bureaucracy.

Public sector union leaders continue to demand more and more facilities and benefits without emphasizing the duties and obligations of public servants towards citizens.

There appears to be little resolve on the part of governments to tackle the increasing militancy of unions and check the downhill trends in productivity and service.

• Under the existing scenario, what steps need to be taken to reorient the public service?
• Can changes be brought about in the habits, attitudes, and work ethic of public servants?
• Can equity be maintained in the pay and other benefits among public servants and those working in the private sector performing similar responsibilities?
• How can public service be opened up to enable competent, skilled, and experienced individuals from outside to join laterally at different levels?
• How can political support be mobilized in favor of a reformed and service-oriented bureaucracy?

Strengthening Civil Society

Separation of the state from civil society is now accepted. In the face of a discredited public sector and a growing private sector, the role of civil society becomes very significant. A strong and vibrant civil society can mediate between the state and the private sector.

It can also protect the interests of citizens, especially the weaker and the disadvantaged sections, by strongly lobbying for their cause.

But then, how to strengthen civil society?

How can we prevent the concentration of too much political, economic, and social power and the growth of vested interests as a result of the excessive strengthening of civil society?

Curbing Corruption

There is an increasing indication that corruption is rife in public dealings in many countries. When there is too much to gain and very little to lose then the temptation to be corrupt is too real.

Many factors, including low pay, weak oversight, and sheer greed, contribute to corruption in public service. The pervasive nature of corruption is indicated by the tendency of many public servants to be involved in massive corruption on a regular basis.

They stay in public service only to defraud the public exchequer. But like all other evils, corruption is also not costless.

Corruption ultimately hurts everybody if it is allowed to continue unchecked.

• But can corruption be checked?
• How can opportunities for corruption be reduced?
• Will simplification of rules and regulations help?
• What kind of penalties and punishments be meted out to those found guilty of corruption?
• What kind of changes need to be brought about in penal and court systems? What kind of political support will be required and how can that be ensured?
• Is there a need for emphasizing on ethical behavior and moral code of conduct?