Good Enough
Governance Revisited
Summary of Merilee Grindle’s
contribution to the Governance TSP
review.
Africa Governance Retreat May 2005
The Good Governance Agenda:
Too Long, Too General
Items related to good governance in
World Development Reports
1997
45
1998
78
1999/2000
66
2000/2001
106
2001/2002
100
2002/2003
116
2
Good Enough Governance
The concept of good enough
governance provides a platform for
questioning the long menu of
institutional changes and public
capacity building initiatives that
are currently deemed important
(or essential) for development.
3
The Good Governance Agenda
Does not discriminate among:
• What’s essential and what’s not
• What should come first and what
should follow
• What is feasible and what is not
• What can be achieved in the shortterm vs. longer-term
4
Good Enough Governance

Governance interventions need to be
focused on the minimal conditions
necessary for development to go
forward

Interventions need to be made
relevant to the conditions of
individual countries
5
Research on Good Governance
Little consensus on:
• Definition
• Measurement
• Indicators
• Inferences about causality: do
institutions drive growth or vice
versa?
6
The Dilemma for Practitioners
Getting on with good enough
governance in a context of
ambiguity about what can
be done where
7
Moving toward Priorities for
Action
Tools to analyze:


The context of the country
The content of the reform intervention
To identify a limited range of important
interventions that don’t overwhelm the
capacity of the country
8
The Country Context
Strengths and weaknesses of the state.
States differ significantly in their
capacities and in the interest of their
political leaders in governance
reforms.
9
Regimes and Capacities
(adapted from M.Moore 2001)
Types of
political
systems
Characteristics
Institutional
stability of the
state
Organizational
capacity of the
state
Degree of state
legitimacy
Types of
policies in
place
Collapsed
states
No effective
central
government
Extremely low
Extremely low
Low to nonexistent
No policies
Personal rule
Personalities
and personal
connections
Dependent on
personal control
of power
Low
Low
Unstable
Minimally
institutionalize
d states
Personalities
and some
impersonal
institutions
Basic rules of
the game
established, but
function poorly
Low/modest
Low/modest
Basic public
services and
policies
Institutionalize
d noncompetitive
states
Stable and
legitimate
institutions, no
open
competition
Clear rules of
the game,
centralization,
authoritarianism
Modest
Modest
Wide range of
basic services
and policies,
little input by
citizens
Institutionalize
d competitive
states
Stable and
legitimate
institutions,
competition
Clear rules of
the game, not
subject to
significant
change
High
High
Wide range of
basic services
and policies,
citizen
engagement
10
Governance
characteristics
Personal safety
ensured
Basic conflict
resolution systems
Basic rules of the
game agreed to
Basic administrative
tasks possible
Basic services to
most
Collapsed states
Personal rule
Minimally
institutionalized
states
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Institutionalized
competitive states
P
P
P
P
Open decision
making and
implementation
P
P
Government
responsive to inputs
from citizens
P
P
Equality/fairness in
justice and services
Government fully
accountable
P
Institutionalized noncompetitive states
P
11
A Hierarchy of Governance
Priorities?
Governance
characteristics
Personal safety
ensured
Basic conflict
resolution systems
Basic rules of the
game agreed to
Basic administrative
tasks possible
Basic services to
most
Collapsed states
Personal rule
Minimally
institutionalized
states
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Institutionalized
competitive states
P
P
P
P
Open decision
making and
implementation
P
P
Government
responsive to inputs
from citizens
P
P
Equality/fairness in
justice and services
Government fully
accountable
P
Institutionalized noncompetitive states
P
12
Strategic Analysis of
Opportunities for Change
Example
Opportunities for Change
Constraints on Change
Social, political,
economic, institutions
issues supportive of
change?
Incentives of actors to
support change?
Role, power, influence of
domestic actors?
Role, power, influence of
external actors?
Payoffs to poverty
reduction?
How is intervention
operationalized?
13
The Content of Governance
Reform Interventions
Some reforms create more conflict,
and are more complex and
therefore harder to implement
than others.
Need to analyze the sources of
support and opposition embedded
in the political economy.
14
Ease/Difficulty of Governance
Interventions
Intervention
Degree of
conflict
likely
Time required
for institutionalization
Organizational
complexity
XXX
Hi
Medium
Low
Logistical
complexity
Budgetary
requirements
Amount of
behavioral change
required
15
Is There Room to Maneuver?
To make reform more feasible:
• Can you adjust the context?
• Can you adjust the content?
• Can you adjust the context and
the content?
16
Back to Priorities




Does the intervention have a significant
impact on poverty reduction?
Does the intervention advance DFID’s
core capabilities objectives?
Is the intervention reasonable, given
the context of the country and the
content of the intervention?
What are the risks associated with the
intervention and/or risks that might
cause the intervention to be
abandoned?
17
A Hierarchy of Governance
Priorities
Governance
characteristics
Collapsed states
Personal rule
Minimally
institutionalized
states
Institutionalized
non-competitive
states
Institutionalized
competitive states
Personal safety
ensured
Basic conflict
resolution systems
Basic rules of the
game agreed to
Basic administrative
tasks possible
Basic services to
most
Equality/fairness in
justice and services
Open decision
making and
implementation
Government
responsive to inputs
from citizens
Government fully
accountable
18
Prioritisation Matrix
GOOD ENOUGH GOVERNANCE PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK
STATE
CATEGORY
DRIVERS OF
CHANGE/POLITICAL
ECONOMY ANALYSIS
What are the major threats to
the state's ability to reduce
poverty?
GOVERNANCE
GOVERNANCE
RESPONSES
INTERVENTIONS
What are the sensible
On the basis of the evidence,
governance (policy and
what are the sensible governance
institutional) responses to the
interventions for donors?
percieved threats?
(Will be country specific)
PRIORITISED
INTERVENTIONS
· WEAK WEAK where both political
will and to sustain a
development
partnership with the
international
community
· STRONG BUT
UNRESPONSIVE states that may be
repressive
· WEAK BUT
WILLING - states
with limited capacity
· GOOD
PERFORMER - with
capa
19