Abstract
The governance of a society should ideally lead to its sustainability. This chapter sets out to shed light on the notions of good governance and sustainability that are, though often described as problematically vague, generally accepted goals of development. Good governance, by definition, proposes to be a guide towards the better execution and exercise of authority, power and rule making. Through an analysis of the most prominent uses of good governance in international development, an argument is given for the appreciation of the normative dimension of good governance: of what the good is. An assessment of critique levelled against the concept of good governance establishes that it suffers from vagueness and contestation. It will be argued that these problems are, at least minimally, due to the lack of normative foundation and overly economic outlook. A normative dimension should provide fundamental values that governance should adhere to for it to be called good. Furthermore, the argument is put forward that the concept of good governance is best grounded in the fundamental values underlying international legal human rights and the concept of social sustainability. The convergence of the values of status-egalitarianism, well-being and futurity establish the normative goal of good governance: to respect, protect and further status-egalitarianism and well-being into the indefinite future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Critique voiced from various sources did exist long before.
- 2.
- 3.
As was the experience in the West in those years.
- 4.
This is commonly referred to as the unjustifiable borrowing privilege of authoritarian leaders. See Pogge (2008).
- 5.
Conception of governance along these lines are found in the academic fields of constitutional economics, social sciences, political science. For an overview and interpretations of these concepts in constitutional economics see Williamson (1979, 1985). Within social sciences see De Alcántara (1998) and within political science Bevir (2010, 2011) and Rhodes (1997).
- 6.
Within political sciences concerning the wider notion of governance, this is often depicted with reference to the notion of output-legitimacy.
- 7.
The World Bank, UN, IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gov.htm and http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/govern/govindex.htm) and European Union (for the most elaborate statement by the EU see the White Paper on Governance: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/l10109_en.htm) all work with similar definitions of good governance.
- 8.
- 9.
To a great extent, this can be explained by the area in which the Bretton Woods institutions can issue prescriptions. These cannot be political, and thus the governance indicators can be seen as an attempt to depoliticize a political concept. See also: Doornbos (2001, 95).
- 10.
For an excellent overview of definitions and the role Human Rights play in definitions compare Table 2 and Table 3 of Gisselquist (2012, 23–27).
- 11.
See: www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx (last visited on 22-9-2014).
- 12.
For instance, the UNDP (2002, 3) uses an intriguingly circular argument stating that human rights and democracy promote development because “enjoying political freedom and participating in the decisions that shape one’s life are fundamental human rights”. In this statement, there is no argument explaining either why these are fundamental rights or how democratic governance promotes development.
- 13.
The term international legal human rights is borrowed from Allen Buchanan (2013). In his work, it functions as an argument against the mirroring view of human rights which sees codified human rights as the legal mirror of an antecedent moral right. Differentiating between moral and legal human rights in this paper enables circumventing the discussion regarding the moral foundations of human rights because a mirroring view is neither a sufficient nor necessary conditions for the practice of international legal human rights to exist and continue to exist. Though I am sympathetic to Buchanan’s argument regarding the status of theories which seek to justify human rights through reference to underlying moral rights the argument presented here is fully compatible with a mirroring view. See Footnote 12.
- 14.
For a prominent advocate of this view see: Griffin (2008) in which he argues that only moral human rights can ground legal human rights.
- 15.
This does not necessarily say anything about their legitimacy since the factual situation that something is never settles the question whether it ought to be. Here I will, however, remain silent regarding the question whether corresponding moral rights are required to legitimize the existing legal rights since it is beyond the scope of this chapter. Thus the view that ‘legal human rights’ simply acknowledge the ‘moral human rights’ we have in virtue of our humanity is still wholly plausible within the argument put forward in this chapter.
- 16.
Within international legal human rights states are specified as duty-bearer. Moreover, the duties specified by legal human rights are perfect duties, otherwise no right exists. The concept of sustainability, on the other hand, functions well with imperfect duties that apply to a much broader range of actors than the perfect human rights duties falling on states alone.
- 17.
The present argument is thus not one replacing the ‘old’ framework for a ‘new’ one but argues for supplementing the current framework with a normative dimension.
- 18.
Here Buchanan’s (2013) interpretation of the functions of our system of international legal human rights is followed.
- 19.
- 20.
Moral nor legal.
- 21.
It is conceded that an instrumental evaluation in terms of economic prosperity is an essential component since economic growth is crucial to development.
- 22.
- 23.
For a more elaborate statement on this legitimizing function of human rights see Buchanan (2013, 263–267).
- 24.
This is impossible because of the wide-range of actors that have to agree upon such a definition and undesirable due to closing the opportunity to appeal to a wide-range of actors.
References
Andrews, M. (2008). The good governance agenda: Beyond indicators without theory. Oxford Development Studies, 36(4), 379–407.
Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of governance. Thousands Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Buchanan, A. (2013). The heart of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Alcántara, C. H. (1998). Uses and abuses of the concept of governance. Internatioanl Social Science Journal, 50(155), 105–113.
Doornbos, M. (2001). ”Good governance”: The rise and decline of a policy metaphor? The Journal of Development Studies, 37(6), 93–108.
Finklestein, L. S. (1995). What is global governance? Global Governance, 1(3), 367–372.
Gisselquist, R. M. (2012). Good governance as a concept, and why this matters for development policy. WIDER Working Paper 2012/30. http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/81039/1/688432662.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2015.
Greenaway, D., & Morrissey, O. (1993). Structural adjustment and liberalization in developing countries: What lessons have we learned. Kyklos, 46(2), 241–261.
Griffin, J. (2008). On human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), 533–574.
Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), 525–548.
Human Rights Council of Australia. (1995). The rights way to development—A human rights approach to development assistance. Sydney: HRCA.
Human Rights Watch. (2011). Working effectively in fragile and conflict-affected states; DRC, Rwanda and Burundi. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/2011_05%20IDC%20HRW%20Submission.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2015.
Kaufmann, D., de Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2007). The worldwide governance indicators project: Answering the critics. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4149. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/1740479-1149112210081/2604389-1167941884942/Answering_Critics.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2015.
Kurtz, M. J., & Schrank, A. (2007). Growth and governance: Models, measures, and mechanisms. The Journal of Politics, 69(2), 538–554.
Langbein, L., & Knack, S. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Six, one, or none. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(2), 350–370.
Nickel, J. W. (1987). Making sense of human rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pogge, T. (2008). World poverty and human rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Maidenhaid: Open University Press.
Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384.
Schatz, S. P. (1994). Structural adjustment in Africa: A failing grade so far. Journal of Modern African Studies, 32(4), 679–692.
Shue, H. (1980). Basic rights: Subsistence, affluence and U.S. foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Simon, H. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67.
UNDP. (2002). Human development report 2002: Deepening democracy in a fragmented world. New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. 217 A (III).
Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.
World Bank. (2002). World development report 2002. Building Institutions for Markets. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
World Bank. (1994). Governance—The world bank’s experience. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hazenberg, J.L.J. (2016). Good Governance Contested: Exploring Human Rights and Sustainability as Normative Goals. In: Holzhacker, R., Wittek, R., Woltjer, J. (eds) Decentralization and Governance in Indonesia. Development and Governance, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22434-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22434-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22433-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22434-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)