Alan Hudson at ONE has been jogging my brain about governance indicators again. We have been trying to talk about the issue but connections are hard when everyone is moving around. So, I thought it might be best to re-ignite the conversation here in blog-space.
A while back I wrote a series of posts on indicators, and Alan and others engaged in the discussion. If you click on the category links you will see these engagements. I have been thinking a lot about the issue in recent days, particularly as various people note that some kind of indicator will probably be included in the post-MDG development indicators.
In offering some thoughts on this, let me start by defining what I understand as governance: the way authority is exercised in society/sector/organization. When we refer to this in a development sense we are usually thinking about democratic governance and/or administrative governance by governments.
Given these starting points, it is important to point out that any use of the term 'good governance' introduces a normative, value laden perspective into the discussion. And it is here that we need to start being really careful. Because we are developing indicators for a broad swathe of countries in very different situations and with different histories, we need to be clear that the norms we introduce are generally applicable and are useful to use in comparing different places.
Further, given that we hope to use indicators to push countries in specific directions, we need to ensure that we think all countries can go there and that it is a generally useful direction. In this sense I want to emphasize the distinction between form and function and the observations in recent work (see Looking Like a State) that indicator-based reform agendas foster changes in form that often do not equate with improved functionality. Indeed, "Looking Like a State" argues that indicator-based reforms often promote signaling that crowds out reforms promoting improved functionality.
So: What is there we can measure that relates to the way authority is exercised, by government, that is broadly relevant across highly different developing countries, that does not impose too rigid a 'form' based agenda, and may even promote more functionality and development?
Whew. That was a long sentence. And it is a tall order. I'm still not convinced we can get there, and worry that any measure will promote signaling, be biased against some places, and impose some set of not-so-useful norms on some countries.
But here are some starting ideas:
- Outcomes: First thing anyone who has read my work will know is that I think governance is best assessed on the basis of outcomes. The Vietnamese government has done something right in ensuring that more children live past age five than was the case a few decades back. I call this improved governance, given that the improved outcome suggests that a system of players has taken the authority given to them and organized social abilities and political influence to perform better. If people feel safer in Kenya in a decade I will say that authority is being better used to deliver a key public good. Note that I am not focusing on the processes by which these outcomes occur, partly because I think there are many ways to govern and produce results and relevant solutions depend on contextual realities.
- The challenge here is thinking about which outcomes we might say are generally relevant in development...and which ones are about form and not function...and which ones are not already in the MDGs. The question I ask in answering this is simple: What are the major problems that hinder development that are about the way authorizing structures function and that don't yet feature in the MDGs?
- Also, it is important to think about the potential that one or other outcome focus might produce incentives to adopt particularly heinous processes (I don't think we should focus on processes in these indicators but I don't think all processes are equal or that good ends justify all means).
- Key outputs: We can't always measure outcomes given timing issues and other factors. But we can measure outputs with more certainty. Outputs can have some of the functional characteristics of an outcome as well (where processes are more like form). The key thing is to think about the outputs we measure and ensure that they relate to the outcomes we care about.
Some specific ideas, where I will betray my normative views on development (and depending on your response, you should think about your own biases as well):
- I propose looking at outcomes that speak to social, political and economic participation. I am sold on the idea that development demands adaptive change in response to complex problems. I am also convinced that one of the reasons this adaptation is not observed enough (and hence developing countries are struggling to survive) is that the states are not fostering enough engagement in the face of the complexity they face. I thus believe that any 'good governance' is one in which authority mechanisms are used to foster interaction and engagement across society, that pushes for creative problem solving, and that supports participation.
- I will propose a few measures of this, without going into the drawbacks or details of each here (as I only have a few more minutes to write...we can argue about the ideas as they emerge): Labor force participation and employment (assuming that the more people who participate, the better); Civic engagement in political processes; Child survival rates (the more there are, the more to engage); Some measures of social mobility (people moving around the country and people moving in and out of the country); new products emerging (or new exports produced).
- I propose looking at outputs that also speak to social, political and economic participation. Some of these outcome measures are not available, but we can look at outputs that lead to the outcomes. My argument is that countries producing these outputs have a beetrr chance of fostering interactions that generate creative responses to complex problems.
- Here are a few measures of this, again without going into the drawbacks or details of each here: Measures of public and private sector transparency (arguing that information sharing fosters interaction, which fosters creativity and complexity); Birth registration stats (given that social, political and economic engagement is undermined where people are not registered); Measures of complexity in public and private sector governing structures (variation in composition of boards, cabinets, etc.); Education participation by girls and minorities (assuming that more girls and minorities leads to more variation). More to be added.
Note my bias toards creative governance, as opposed to a defensive stance that promotes 'accountability' promoting processes. I don't think many of the 'accountability enhancing' processes in current indicators actually promote accountability in many developing countries (because they are regulative interventions without normative and cultural-cognitive foundations...which are required to make icebergs stand...see former posts). I also think social, political and economic accountability mechanisms need to develop endogenously as the society emerges. The key is to foster emergence and adaptation, which requires shifting authorizing mechansims (aka governance structures) towards fostering open engagement.
I realize this has its own normative problems in some places, where the idea of openness and participation and engagement is difficult because societies are closed and/or participation is limited by culture or other factors. I would argue that these countries are equally affected by the implications of fitness, and that the failure to promote complexity will undermine fitness and harm survival of these countries. So, I understand that there are some places where this idea may be met uncomfortably...but I don't think it is not broadly applicable to all countries.
I would, however, suggest that we should be aware of where countries start in measuring these things: For instance, instead of measuring Ethiopia's birth registration rate...let's ask about the improvement in the rate relative to a starting point or relative to an equivalent country (accepting that the idea of 'equivalent' is also variable). Let's make the indicators sensitive to the iterative nature of change; if a country is still at a low level but it is improving gradually, that surely is good governance?
I also realize that the assumption here is that governments can promote complexity, in all contexts. I think this is a fine assumption, in that I think governments control many rules that impact how people interact politically, economically and socially. I am hesitant to prescribe which rules would be good ones to change, however, as I think the space for change is different in different places.
These are my thoughts on what I think is a really tough topic. I want to emphasize that this kind of approach to governance indicators would, I think, be really different to that of the past. I also want to emphasize that the discussion is intended to provoke response...not as any prescription.
Thanks for re-engaging on this topic Matt.
To betray my own normative biases, I worry that some of your output measures (minority participation in boards, e.g.) would lend themselves to signaling and to quotas. I would reallocate the composition of participation to an outcome measure, and focus output measures more on the pathways or channels for participation being viewed as available by broad and diverse swathes of people. This might also turn attention toward some process indicators of participation, which has its own signaling issues unless it is triangulated with survey data - less the existence of participatory mechanisms than the sense of participation.
I also think that joint consultation over problems and consensus-building processes are major achievements, especially in more fragile or cleaved societies, and would suggest that the notion of change in consensus (around challenges/problems and around who is "in" in the state) might suggest other indicators.
Posted by: David Jacobstein | 11/15/2012 at 06:32 AM