Understanding the Concept of Governance The World Bank defines governance as the manner in which power is exercised in

the management of a countrys economic and social resources. The World Bank has thus identified three distinct aspects of
governance namely: a) The form of political regime; b) The process by which authority is exercised in the management of the
countrys economic and social resources for development; and c) The capacity of government to design, formulate and
implement policies and discharge functions (World Bank , 2002).

On the other hand, UNDP views governance as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a
countrys affairs at all levels. UNDP posits that governance comprises mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which
citizens and groups articulate their obligations and mediate their differences (UNDP, 1995). From the OECD perspective,
governance denotes the use of political authority, and exercise of control in a society in relation to economic development
(OECD, 1995). Thus, all these definitions encompass the role of public authorities in establishing an environment in which
economic operators function and the nature of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. For instance, in South Africa
the tripartite Alliance of the African National Congress (ANC), South African Communist Party (SACP) and Congress of South
African Trade Unions (COSATU) exercise considerable influence over policy issues even though at times they differ substantially
as exemplified by the debate on nationalization of mineral resources.

Governance concepts mark a shift away from state control and state interventionist models of government to a minimalist state
that is only concerned with provision of basic goods and services such as defense, education and health (Mothusi & Dipholo,
2008). It is significant to note that in most Third World countries like South Africa, the ruling elite tends to assume absolute
power and authority in the governance process. Thus, dissenting views are often squashed. Domination by a single political
party has led to political elites staying in the governance seats for a considerable length of time. For instance, in Angola the
president has ruled for many decades in excess of generally accepted two terms of five years a term. In Namibia the former
President extended his two terms by another term after amending the constitution. Most of these leaders see themselves as
royals as opposed to elected officials and therefore want to govern for a lifetime resulting in failed states due to a combination
of factors such as outright failure to govern, corruption, complacency and so forth.

Perspectives on the emergence of governance can be traced at the country level to a disgruntlement with state domination
models of economic and social development so prevalent throughout the socialist bloc and much of third world in the 1950s,
1960s and 1970s. At the international level, global governance, can be traced to a growing dissatisfaction among streams of
international relations with the realist and liberalinstitutionalist theories that dominated the study of international
organization in the 1970s and 1980s.

Good Governance: The South African Perspective: Good governance is expected to propel economic growth and development.
From a critical perspective, South Africa is a middle income country with pockets of first world characteristics, such as
infrastructure and some extremely opulent segments of the population. On the other hand, the majority of people constituting
more than 85% of the countrys population who live in the rural areas are extremely poor. This situation is not likely to change
unless principles of good governance are practiced at all spheres of government and in all state institutions including its public
enterprises. Good governance entails competent management of state resources be they natural, physical and financial as well
as greater accountability by the government.

Through the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), the government of South Africa has built and distributed
many houses for the poor although the programme is dogged by institutional and systemic corruption in the actual construction
as well as the allocation of the RDP houses. Nepotism is also rampant and has negatively affected the judicious allocation of
RDP houses to the poor in provinces like Eastern Cape, Limpopo Mpumalanga and Kwazulu/Natal. The awarding of tenders for
government projects in South Africa has been heavily criticized by scholars for being corrupted by a few political elites for
personal benefits. South Africa has been criticized for corruption that is widely practiced in all spheres of government especially
during the postMandela era. When corruption, either institutional or systemic, is left unchecked by a country, the result is
poor governance.

4.1 Key elements of Good governance

4.1.1 Political Principles a) Good governance is based on the establishment of a representative and an accountable form of
government; b) Good governance requires a strong and pluralistic civil society, where there is freedom of expression and
association; c) Good governance requires good institutions sets of rules governing the actions of individuals and organizations
and the negotiation of differences between them; d) Good governance requires the primacy of the rule of law, maintained
through an impartial and effective legal system; and e) Good governance requires a high degree of transparency and
accountability in public and corporate processes (Downer, 2000).
4.1.2 Economic Principles

a) Good governance requires policies to promote broadbased economic growth, a dynamic private sector and social policies
that will lead to poverty reduction. Economic growth is best achieved in an efficient, open, market based economy; b)
Investment in people is high priority, through policies and institutions that improve access to quality education, health and
other services that underpin a countrys human resource base; c) Effective institutions and good corporate governance are
needed to support the development of a competitive private sector. In particular, for markets to function, social norms are
needed that respect contract and property rights; and d) Careful management of the national economy is vital in order to
maximize economic and social advancement (Downer, 2000).

Good governance differs from one country to the other. In the same way, good governance issues and priorities differ from
one political culture to the other.

Development administration: The term development administration came into use in the 1950s to represent
those aspects of public administration and those changes in public administration, which are needed to carry out
policies, projects, and programs to improve social and economic conditions.

New Public Administration: New Public Administration is an anti-positivist, anti-technical, and anti-hierarchical
reaction against traditional public administration. A practiced theory in response to the ever changing needs of the
public and how institutions and administrations go about solving them. Focus is on the role of government and how
they can provide these services to citizens in which are a part of public interest, by means, but not limited to public
policy.

Change: Client-centered, participatory, Decentralized, non-bureaucratic.

Towards Governance

World Bank publication Sub-Saharan Africa - from crisis to sustainable growth, 1989

Worsened economic performance in the region despite Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), Failure of public
institutions cited as reason for weak performance, Term governance first used to describe the need for institutional
reform and a better and more efficient public sector in Sub-Saharan countries, Defined governance as the exercise
of political power to manage a nations affairs affairs

Africa requires not just less government but better government

1989 study introduced Governance without explicitly referring to the connotation good
Introduction
This paper analyses the World Banks notion of good governance and how it has changed over the past 20 years,
focussing especially on the perception of human rights by the Bank. It is based on a PhD thesis in Public International Law in
progress.
The concept of good governance has been on the agenda of development institutions now for more than 20 years and it
has become indispensable in development co-operation. The term was introduced in the development discussion by a World Bank
study, which focussed on the role of the state in the development process. With this new view on the state and its overall
performance, various new topics became important for the work of development institutions as the World Bank, e.g. the negative
effects of corruption, the need for participation of the population and also the importance of human rights.
 The new focus on the performance of a state was combined under the term good governance. The contents of this
concept were adressing the way power is exercised in the management of a countrys affairs.
This paper analyses the evolution of the World Banks concept of good governance, with special regard to human rights
within the good governance agenda. The role the World Bank plays in the enforcement of human rights will be highlighted. Finally,
short reference will be made to the importance of international economic agreements for human rights.
The Banks notion of good governance
This section of the paper describes the origins of the debate on good governance and the evolution of the concept since
its emergence more than 20 years ago. Special attention is put on the contents of good governance and the expansion of the concept
to principles as the fight against corruption and participation. The role of human rights within the good governance agenda will be
discussed separately in the third section of the paper.

Origins of the concept

The concept of good governance emerged at the end of the 1980s, at a time of unprecedented political changes. The
collapse of the Berlin wall on 9th November 1989 set off the desintegration of the Soviet Union which as a consequence thereof
also led to the decay of the political and economic alliances of the Eastern bloc. These political changes created the breeding ground
and gave way for a serious discussion on how a state has to be designed in order to achieve (economic) development, i.e. a
discussion on good governance.
The 1989 World Bank Study Sub-Saharan Africa from Crisis to Sustainable Growth analysed the development
problems in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the 1980s, the economic performance of the countries in the region had worsened despite the
implementation of the Banks structural adjustment programs (SAPs). The SAPs introduced conditionality on a marcoeconomic
level into the Banks lending activities. At the same time, the Bank changed its lending policy from project financing to program
financing.1
In the 1989 study the term governance was first used to describe the need for institutional reform and a better and more
efficient public sector in Sub-Saharan countries. The former president of Senegal, Abdou Diouf summarised these findings: Africa
requires not just less government but better government.2
The Africa-study defined governance as the exercise of political power to manage a nations affairs. The concept of
governance was further developed in the Banks 1992 publication Governance and Development. In this publication, governance
was defined as the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a countrys economic and social resources for
development.3 Two years later, the Bank substantiated this definition:
Governance is epitomized by predictable, open, and enlightened policymaking (that is, transparent processes); a
bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; an executive arm of government accountable for its actions; and a strong
civil society participating in public affairs; and all behaving under the rule of law. 4
More than 20 years later, these definitions still represent the basis of the Banks perception of good governance.
The 1989 study on Sub-Saharan Africa introduced governance without explicitly referring to the connotation good. It
was only in the foreword, that former World Bank president Conable used the term good governance, referring to it as a public
service that is efficient, a judicial system that is reliable, and an administration that is accountable to its public. 5 In following

1
This change was critical because the World Banks articles of agreement only provide for project financing, see
art. III sec. 4 (vii): Loans made or guaranteed by the Bank shall, except in special circumstances, be for the purpose
of specific projects of reconstruction or development. The permissability of program financing is explained by
Shihata 1991, pp. 25 et seq.
2
World Bank 1989, p. 55.
3
World Bank 1992, p. 1.
4
World Bank 1994, p. vii.
5
World Bank 1989, p. xii.
publications the Bank firstly avoided the frequent use of the word good in connection with governance. According to Frischtak6
a reason for this reluctance could have been that the use of the adjective good referred to a subjective view on the performance
of a state and that interpretation of the meaning of good governance could vary. 7 Nevertheless, the Bank started using the term
good governance more and more frequently.
Contents of good governance
Public sector management, accountability, a legal framework for development and transparency and information have
been initially identified as core elements of governance. While the topic of public sector management (PSM) had already been on
the agenda of the World Bank before, the other elements of governance had to be filled with content. Furthermore they had to be
reconciled with the prohibition of political activities laid down in the Banks Articles of Agreement (see below).
Public sector management
The issue of public sector management referred to the classical field of work of the Bank, i.e. public expenditure
management, civil service reform and public enterprises, to sum things up: improvement in efficiency of public institutions. Special
attention within the topic of public expenditure management was put on public investments, budget planning concerning operation
and maintenance, and on strengthening the budgeting process. Civil service reform in context of the good governance agenda meant
in principle assistance to borrower countries in their efforts to redimension the state and help the affected borrower countries
manage less but manage better.8 Reform of public enterprises included privatisation of those public enterprises that were not
commercially viable, improving the market and competitive conditions, and the reform of co-operation mechanisms between public
enterprises and the governments in order to strengthen the management of public enterprises and so give less opportunity for
politically motivated influence.
This concept of public sector management reform are still relevant today. The Governance Indicators of the World Bank
Institute define government effectiveness as: measuring the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the
degree of independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation and the credibility of the
governments commitment to such policies.9
Accountability
Accountability, by contrast, constituted an innovation in the Banks sphere of action and has been described as being at
the heart of governance.10 In the beginning of the governance debate, accountability was described as holding public officials
responsible for their actions.11 Another description of the contents of Accountability was: Accountability (...) has to do with
holding governments responsible for their actions. At the political level it means making rulers accountable to the ruled, typically
through the contestability of political power.12
According to these definitions, accountability works in two directions: On one hand there is an internal effect within
public institutions regarding financial accountability and the creation of internal control mechanisms. This is very much related to
the topic of PSM as explained above. On the other hand, there is also an external effect of accountability which relates to
involvement of the population. The internal effect of accountability is referred to as horizontal accountability, the external effect
as vertical accountability.

6
Frischtak, p. 11 ref. 11.
7
See also van Dok who discusses the moral in the title in good governance.
8
World Bank 1991, p. 14.
9
Kaufmann et al. 2008, p.7.
10
World Bank 1994, p. 12.
11
World Bank 1992, p. 13.
12
World Bank 1994, p. 12.
 In principle, the Bank followed Hirschmanns concept of exit and voice, which had been further developed by Paul
who applied the concept on accountability. In this context, exit means the possibility of the public to gain access to other service-
suppliers in case the state does not provide for the services in a satisfactory way. Voice refers to the possibility of the public to
influence the quality and quantity of public services by e.g. improving access to information and involving non-governmental
organisations (NGOs). This meant that in contrast to the Banks policies in the era before good governance, the quality of a
government with regard to the performance in satisfying the needs of the population was put up for discussion, not only its economic
performance. Especially the voice-mechanisms gave way for a more participatory approach to development by focussing on
access to information and including NGOs as partners in the development process. This more participatory approach was pursued
from the very beginning of the governance debate and can be seen as the underlying principle of the Banks governance agenda:
The global trend is toward less authoritarian modes of exercising power.13
In the past 10 years, the debate on accountability concentrated very much on efforts to describe and concretise the content
of vertical accountability, i.e. the way how the population can be involved in decision-making processes. While in the beginning
of the 1990s the main focus of the Banks work on accountability was on providing access to information, in recent years the
importance of parliament as a major tool to enable citizens to participate in the political processes was stressed. Also, the double
function of parliament in the so called chain of accountability14 was highlighted: On one hand, parliaments strengthen horizontal
accountability within public institutions, especially by controlling the government; on the other hand, they also provide platforms
for citizens to address their representatives in a vertical way to denounce deficits. 15
A very import topic related to accountability is the fight against corruption. Since corruption has become an independent
issue within the debate on good governance it will be discussed separately below.

Legal framework for development

The legal framework for development represents the Banks rule of law approach in governance. Schlemmer-Schulte
described the relation between the rule of law and good governance as follows: The rule of law represents the legal dimension of
good governance by a country.16 For the Bank an economic environment where business risks may be rationally assessed and the
cost of transactions are lowered requires stability and predictability. 17 Both aims will only be achieved in an appropriate legal
system. Also, the Bank stressed that the law could make an important contribution to an equitable and just society and thus to
prospects for social development and poverty alleviation.18
Within governance, the Bank distinguished between two dimensions of the rule of law: an instrumental one referring to
the formal basis of the system of law, and a substantive dimension which included the contents of laws and legal concepts such as
justice, fairness and liberty.19
In the first years after the introduction of good governance, the Bank focussed very much on the creation of laws, their
implementation and application especially with regard to their impact on private sector development -, and the communication
of rules to the public. This focus changed in the following years as the World Bank began to work more in the field of dispute
settlement mechanisms.20 The Bank also started to concentrate more on the individual rights of the citizens.

13
World Bank 1994, p. 13.
14
Stapenhurst/ OBrien, p. 1.
15
Stapenhurst/ OBrien, p. 2.
16
Schlemmer-Schulte, p. 697.
17
World Bank 1994, p. 23.
18
World Bank 1994, p. 23.
19
World Bank 1992, p. 30.
20
See World Bank 2004, p. 3.
 Summing up, judicial reform within good governance is now being understood as a comprehensive approach that
encompasses the improvement of the judicial system including dispute settlement mechanisms -, legislative reforms, and the
improvement of legal education and training. It is noteworthy that the Banks engagement in judicial reform - as far as substantive
law is concerned - for a long time ignored the whole sector of criminal law. Even after former World Bank president Wolfowitz -
together with the United Nations- initiated the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative in 2007, criminal law reform has not been
put high on the agenda, but it is mentioned as only one means along many others to fight corruption.21
The judicial reform approach of the World Bank was not only further expanded as regards content; the use of terminology
also started to change around 2004. Since then, instead of judicial reform the Bank is using more and more the term rule of
law.

Transparency and information

The issue of transparency and information within good governance took account of the fact, that a competitive market
economy requires that economic actors have access to relevant, timely, and reliable information. 22 According to the World Bank,
transparency and information would be beneficial especially regarding three areas: economic efficiency, prevention of corruption,
and in the analysis, articulation and acceptance of governmental policy choices.
Economic efficiency was particularly understood as the access to information on governmental economic policies and as
transparency of the decision processes in this regard. It was foremost the private sector who would benefit from this understanding
of economic efficiency. But the Bank also stressed that the population should be given the possibility to influence the decision-
making processes. Looking at the financial crisis we have to face actually, it is noteworthy that the Bank already at that time
highlighted the need for improved transparency and information of the financial markets at the very beginning of the debate on
governance.23
With regard to corruption the Bank pointed out that the main weapon against corruption was to reduce the opportunities
for it to a minimum. Although the Bank referred to the issue of corruption in this context without mentioning possible problems
arising from addressing this issues with regard to its mandate, it can not be ignored that corruption has been a very delicate issue
for the Bank until the late 1990s. Corruption until then was perceived as a highly political issue that could not be tackled because
of the Banks articles of agreement. According to the Bank, the challenge to improve the interaction between government and the
public in terms of rendering more transparency in the decision-making processes had to be addressed not only by the state
concerned; a very important role in this process was rather given to civil society institutions as e.g. labour unions, universities and,
with a special focus, the media. For the Bank the freedom of the press was an essential condition for enabling the public debate.
Thus, in principle, the Banks approach to transparency and information was highly oriented towards the development of
the private sector, i.e. it was in particular economically oriented. But the Banks approach in this regard also encompassed from
the very beginning the issues of corruption and freedom of the press, which broke new grounds in the Banks work. The approach
also paved the way for the introduction of these issues - which where until then perceived as too political for the Bank - into the
Banks agenda.
Communitarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community.
Although the community might be a family unit, communitarianism usually is understood, in the wider, philosophical
sense, as a collection of interactions, among a community of people in a given place (geographical location), or

21
Cf. World Bank 2004, p. 9, listing 60 areas of law for Bank engagement without mentioning any section of
criminal law.
22
World Bank 1992, p. 39.
23
World Bank 1992, p. 40.
among a community who share an interest or who share a history. [1] Communitarian philosophy is based upon the
belief that a person's social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationships : with a smaller
degree of development being placed on individualism.

The philosophy of communitarianism originated in the 20th century, but the term communitarian was coined in 1841,
by John Goodwyn Barmby, a leader of the British Chartistmovement, who used it in referring to utopian socialists,
and other idealists, who experimented with communal styles of life. However, it was not until the 1980s that the term
communitarianism gained currency through association with the work of a small group of political philosophers,
mostly American. Their application of the label communitarian was controversial, even among communitarians,
because, in the West, the term communitarian evokes associations with the ideologies of socialism and collectivism;
so, public leadersand some of the academics who champion this school of thoughtusually avoid the term
communitarian, while still advocating and advancing the ideas of communitarianism.

The term is primarily used in two senses:

Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to

be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism,
which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes
the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of
community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.

COMMUNITARIANISM focuses on the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of
the community as whole. In other words, people are individual members of communities with shared values, ideals,
and goals. So individual ideas of the good cannot be separated from the community as a whole. So what is good for
the individual is a reflection of the common good of the community as a whole. So questions about right or wrong of
actions/policies should always be raised for the betterment of the community as a whole.

Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship, where the importance of enabling people to relate to
each other in any collective structure is set out in the three principles of mutual responsibility, cooperative
enquiry,and citizen participation.

1. Communitarianism
The governance status quo is represented by communitarianism which emerges as political philosophy and
a set of more practical recommendation about how to manage publicproblems (Etzioni 1995, cited in Pierre
& Peters 2000) The basic tenet of communitarianism is that large-scale society and government have
outlined much of their utility and they need to be replaced by smaller units of governing. The more
appropriate basis for governing is considered to be the community, although this term itself is open to some
interpretation. In this view some of the basic mechanisms of governance by political means are not incorrect;
the difficulty is with the scale on which those devices are being implemented. Large-scale decision making, it
is argued, forces the same sort of individualism associated with economic models of policy; individuals need
to have their self-interested modulated by less selfish commitments to community (Pierre & Peters
2000,pp.139). Communitarianism based on building social capital, using localized decision making. Robert
Putnam (2000) defines social capital as connections among individuals social networks andthe norms of
reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. He emphasized that norms, trust, and networks could
enhance the efficiency in society. Communitarism can be understood as a movement in opposition to the
neoliberalism of greed (Beck, 1998)

STRENGHTS
Decentralizing government as far as possible and making smaller communities for more aspect of public
policy. Public policy making based on community values. A shift from individualism to a more collective
sense of governing. Creating mechanism that would enhance participation and facilitate the development of
meaning in government
WEAKNESSES
Human nature is not sustainable(Assumption of people participation and investing a great deal of time and
efforts in governing). The heteregenous / multicultural society and big size area of a state make it more
difficult to deliver public policies across communities. In reality, the important problems maynot be solvable
in a very small unit, due to some external indicators such as economic, social, and environmental.

Decentered Theory of Governance:

A decentered approach highlights the importance of dilemmas, traditions, and political contests for the study of
governance. Any existing pattern of government will have some failings although different people typically ascribe different

content to these failings since they are not simply given by experience but rather constructed from interpretations of

experience infused with traditions. When peoples perception of a failing is such that it stands at odds with their existing

beliefs, it poses a dilemma that pushes them to reconsider their beliefs and so the tradition that informs these beliefs. Because

people confront these dilemmas within diverse traditions, there arises a political contest over what constitutes the nature of the

failings and so what should be done about them. Exponents of rival political positions or traditions seek to promote their

particular sets of theories and policies in the context of certain laws and norms that prescribe how they legitimately might do

so. This political contest leads to a reform of government a reform that thus stands as the contingent product of a contest

over meanings whose content reflects different traditions and dilemmas.

The pattern of government established by this complex process will exhibit new failings, pose new dilemmas, and be

the subject of competing proposals for reform. There thus arises a further contest over meanings, a contest in which the

dilemmas are often significantly different, a contest in which the traditions usually have been modified as a result of

accommodating the previous dilemmas, and a contest in which the relevant laws and norms sometimes have been changed as a

result of simultaneous political contests over their content and appropriateness. Moreover, while we can thus distinguish

analytically between a pattern of government and a political contest over its reform, we rarely can do so temporally: rather, the

activity of governing continues during most political contests, and most contests occur partly within local practices of governing.

What we have, therefore, is a complex and continuous process of interpretation, conflict, and activity that generates an ever-

changing pattern of government. We can begin to explain a mode of governance by taking an abstract snapshot of this process

and relating it to the varied dilemmas and traditions that inform it.

(Insert Figure Three about here)

A decentered analysis of governance would thus shift the emphasis of our attempts to understand governance at the

global, national, and local levels. We might begin, for example, by examining how diverse state traditions have led to different

interpretations and practices of governance. Here we might ask whether the Danish emphasis on local government and popular

participation had highlighted therein efforts to keep changing, and perhaps multiplying, markets and networks under democratic

control. Similarly, we could see whether the Germanic tradition, with its emphasis on the importance of a legal framework to

official action, had encouraged particular ways of controlling markets and networks at one level while remaining highly tolerant

of their diversity at other levels. When we found continuities of the sort here suggested, moreover, we would not assume we

could explain them by some vague appeal to institutional patterns within the relevant state. Instead, we would recognise the

importance of unpacking them by reference to political conflicts and compromises between groups inspired by diverse beliefs. In

the German case, for example, we might explore the alternative interpretations of the countrys post-war development offered by,

say, a liberal tradition, a tradition of social-partnership, and a radical democratic and

environmentalist tradition.

4. Questions and Answers

A decentered analysis of governance departs from both the neoliberal narrative and that of governance as networks

especially in their positivist forms. It encourages us to understand governance in terms of a political contest resting on competing

webs of belief and to explain these beliefs by reference to traditions and dilemmas. In shifting attention to such things, moreover,

a decentered approach points us towards novel perspectives on many of the questions that recur in discussions of governance,

especially among political scientists interested in governance as networks. Thus, we can expand on our decentered analysis by

bringing it to bear on these questions is governance new? Is governance a vague metaphor? Is governance uniform? How does

governance change? Is governance failure inevitable?

Is governance new?

Positivist political scientists sometimes suggest the emergence of markets or networks in the public sector is a new

phenomenon characterizing a new epoch. Their skeptical critics, in contrast, have argued that markets and networks are not new,

and even that governance is no different from government. In reply to such skeptics, proponents of governance are inclined to

allow that neither markets nor networks are new while still insisting that both of them are now noticeably more common than

they used to

be.33 The difficulty with current approaches to this question, of course, is that the issue of continuity gets reduced to the facile,

scholastic, and probably impossible task of counting markets and networks in the past and in the present.

A decentered approach to governance casts a new light on this rather facile debate. For a start, it encourages us to

treat hierarchies, markets, and networks alike as meaningful practices created and then constantly recreated through contingent

actions informed by particular webs of belief. Governance is not new, then, in that it is an integral part of social and political

life. We find the main characteristics of networks in hierarchies and markets as well as in governance. For example, the rules

and commands of a bureaucracy do not have a fixed form but rather are constantly interpreted and made afresh through the

creative activity and interactions of individuals as they come across always slightly novel circumstances. Likewise, the

operation of competition in markets depends on the contingent beliefs and interactions of interdependent producers and

consumers who rely on trust and diplomacy, as well as on economic rationality, to make all sorts of decisions. Once we stop

reifying hierarchies and markets, we thus will find that many of the characteristics allegedly associated with networks are in

fact almost ubiquitous aspects of political practices. In addition, however, a decentered approach encourages a shift of focus

from reified networks, now recognised as an integral part of political life, to the beliefs held by political actors and the stories

told by political scientists. Governance is new, then, in that it marks and inspires a significant change in these beliefs and

stories. Governance as decentered networks provides a different story to both the Weberian account of bureaucratic rationality

and the neoliberal one of economic rationality.

Is governance a vague metaphor?

Skeptics who say governance is nothing new often go on to denounce the concept as uninformative and inelegant. Peter
Riddell has said, for example, every time I see the word governance I have to think again what it means and how it is
not the same as government. He complains, terms such as core executive, differentiated polity and hollowed out
executive have become almost a private patois of political science. 34

Presumably we should defend concepts on the grounds that they provide a more accurate and fruitful way of discussing

the world, and we should do so irrespective of whether we restrict their range to the contemporary world or extend them back to

older patterns of government. Here the justification of our concepts resides in empirical studies combined with theoretical

explication such as that contained in our analysis of a decentered theory. Riddle, however, appears to reject the language of

governance not because he thinks it inaccurate but because it lacks clarity. To respond to such concerns, we have to ask what

gives clarity to a concept? From the perspective of the semantic holism that inspires many interpretative approaches to political

science, a concept derives

its meaning in large part from its place in a body of concepts. 35 All concepts are thus vague when taken on their own. Just as the

concept of governance gains clarity only by being filled out through ideas such as networks, the hollow state, and the core

executive, so the elder concepts associated with the Westminster system gained clarity only in relation to others such as the

unitary state and cabinet government. No doubt people who are unfamiliar with concepts such as the hollow state will benefit

from having them explicitly related to processes such as the erosion of state authority by new regional and international links.

Equally, however, people who are unfamiliar with the concept of a unitary state might benefit from having it explicitly related to

the fusion of a single transnational authority or to the contrast provided by federal systems. Although the

concepts of governance can sound like metaphors, this too need not worry us. After all, they are metaphorical only in that they

apply novel names, such as the hollow state, to processes and practices we can unpack in more literal terms, such as the erosion

of the authority of the state. What is more, all concepts begin as metaphors in just this sense: they begin as novel names, such as

loyal opposition, that we apply to more literal processes and practices, and only later do they acquire a familiarity such that they

no longer have the unsettling effect they once did. One day, the now unfamiliar language of governance might have become as

much a part of our everyday political discourse as are many of the concepts that define the Westminster system.

Is governance uniform?

Neoliberals portray governance as composed of policies, such as marketization and the new public management that

are allegedly the inevitable outcomes of global economic pressures. Institutionalists argue that these neoliberal policies do not

have uniform consequences but rather effects that vary across states according to the content and strength of their established

practices. A decentered analysis suggests, in addition, that the pressures are not given as brute facts, but rather constructed as

somewhat different dilemmas from within various traditions. Hence, it suggests also that the policies a state adopts are not

necessary responses to given pressure, but rather a set of perceived solutions to one particular conception of them. The

adoption of a set of solutions stands here, moreover, as a contingent outcome of a political contest.
 A decentered approach would have us concern ourselves with the processes through which patterns of governance

are created, instead of postulating an inevitable

process that renders such a concern otiose. Our emphasis should no longer fall upon an abstract model of natural selection in the

context of capital mobility and competition between states. On the contrary, we should highlight the political contests, complete

with the coercion contained therein, that surround the selection and implementation of policy. This shift of emphasis would alter

the research agenda in ways often foreshadowed by institutionalists. For example, we should replace the straightforward

neoliberal assumption of convergence between states with recognition of the possibility of continuing diversity. Neoliberals

typically downplay variations in styles of governance on the grounds that they are far less important than the shared

characteristics imposed by global economic forces. In contrast, institutionalists typically emphasize the diverse outputs that

accompany similar sets of policies, while a decentered approach prompts us also to ask whether similar diversity does not appear

in the inputs and policies.

By raising the possibility of continuing diversity of inputs and policies as well as of outputs, a decentered approach

might even prompt us to wonder again about the value of the concept of governance. Governance typically refers to a set of

shared inputs, policies, and outputs tied to economic and technological developments since about 1970. Once we challenge the

necessity, and so commonality, of not only the outputs, as do the institutionalists, but also the inputs and policies, then we should

be wary not only of any straightforward dichotomy between governance and government, but also of any attempt to use the

abstract idea of governance to account for more particular developments within various states. The relevance of a concept of

governance will depend upon empirical studies that explore the ways in which different states have constructed their public

sectors. How similar have been their conceptions of the relevant dilemmas, the policieshey have adopted, and the consequences

of these policies? How far have different state traditions fed through into diverse inputs, policies, and outputs?

How does governance change?

The question of how governance changes is far more difficult for network theorists to answer than it is for neoliberals.

Neoliberals can unpack change in terms of the economic self-interest of the key actors. Network theorists, in contrast, often

deploy an institutionalism that remains ambiguous about the nature of change. In order to avoid the need to interpret beliefs and

desires institutionalists often reduce individual behaviour to a matter of following the rules or norms that govern the institution

and the role of the relevant individual therein but, of course, if individuals merely follow rules, they can not be the causes of

change. In order to explain change, therefore, institutionalists often appeal to external factors that might appear to avoid the need

to unpack the beliefs and desires of individuals but, of course, external factors will bring about changes in an institution only if

they lead individuals to modify established patterns of behaviour, where we can understand how individuals do this only by

interpreting their beliefs and desires.

Anyway, network theorists, like institutionalists more generally, typically try to explain change by reference to
external causes. David Marsh and Rod Rhodes, for example, effectively dismiss the way in which individuals constantly create

and recreate the networks of which they are a part by emphasising that networks create routines for

policy-making.37 They identify four categories of change economic, ideological, knowledge, and institutional all of

which they define as external to the network. A

decentered analysis, in contrast, draws our attention to the fact that such external factors influence networks and governance

only through the ways in which they are understood by the relevant actors. Although change can be of varying magnitude, a

decentered analysis portrays it as continuous in the sense of being built into the very nature of political life. Change occurs as

individuals interpret their environment in ways that lead them constantly to modify their actions or even to act in dramatically

new ways. We can explain change, then, as was suggested earlier, by reference to the contingent responses of individuals to

dilemmas, many of which will be produced by new circumstances such as those created by the actions of others.

Because we cannot read-off the beliefs and actions of individuals from objective social facts about them, we can

explain how their beliefs, actions, and practices change only by exploring the ways in which they think about, and respond to,

dilemmas. Thus, an analysis of changes in governance must take place through a study of the relevant dilemmas and the

diverse, contingent ways in which people have conceived of them and responded to them from within various traditions.

Is governance failure inevitable?

The neoliberal narrative of governance relies heavily on the idea that hierarchy has failed: the problems of

inefficiency and overload within the state justify calls for the new public management and marketization. Likewise, the

narrative of governance as networks relies on the idea that the neoliberal reforms have failed: the reforms ignored the need for

trust, diplomacy, and accountability in the public sector. Some advocates of governance as networks present networks as the

solution to the failings of bureaucracy

and markets.38 Other political scientists, however, argue that networks typically create problems of their own: they are, for

example closed to outsiders, unrepresentative, and relatively unaccountable, and, in addition, they can serve private interests,

they are difficult to steer, and they can be inefficient as they often require co-operation which can

be too long in the making.39 The implication of such analyses would seem to be that no governing structure works for all

services in all conditions. Governance failure whether

of hierarchies, markets, networks, or a mix thereof might be said to be inevitable. 40

A decentered analysis both compliments and challenges aspects of this emerging account of governance failure. A

focus on contingent meanings provides us with one way of understanding why all ways of providing public services fail. The

workings of any policy or institution depend on the ways in which all sorts of actors interpret and respond to the relevant

directives. Because these responses are inherently diverse and contingent, depending on the traditions and agency of the relevant

individuals, the centre cannot be sure of having adequate prior knowledge of the way in which any policy or institution will

operate. Hence, the unexpected pervades political life: all policies are subject to unintended consequences that prevent them
from perfectly fulfilling their alleged purpose even on those remarkably rare occasions in which their initiators share a common

purpose.

A decentered approach also draws our attention to the diverse beliefs and preferences of actors within a network. By

doing so, it should make us aware of the way in which positivist debates on governance failure blithely take government

intentions as their yardstick. Positivist studies typically aim to improve the chances of a policys success in terms defined by the

state. Yet civil servants and citizens can deliberately

attempt to prevent policies having the effects the state intends. From their standpoint, policy failure might thus be a success.

5. Implications for Policy and Democracy

Once we take seriously the implications of rejecting positivism, we will move toward the need to decenter governance;

we will start to interpret and explain its possibly diverse forms by reference to political contests understood in relation to

meanings, beliefs, and desires. While our focus so far has been on the study of governance, this decentered theory also has

implications for how we might think about the formulation of policy and the reform of democracy. Thus, if we open-up the study

of governance in this way, we might hope to succeed in making a political point as well as an academic one. By resisting the

teleological accounts of neoliberals, and to a lesser extent the apolitical ones of institutionalists, we create a space within which

to think creativity about different ways of understanding our contemporary situation and so different ways of responding to it

we encourage political imagination, perhaps even new visions of governance.

Most of the policy-orientated work on governance seeks to improve the ability of the state to manage the markets,

quasi-markets, and networks that have flourished since the 1980s. Typically this work exhibits a positivist tendency in that it

treats networks as more or less objectified structures that governments can manipulate using appropriate tools and techniques.

There appear to be three main approaches to the issue of how the state can manage networks and governance in general the

instrumental, the interactive,

and the institutional.41 The instrumental approach adopts a top-down stance toward the management of governance. Its

exponents recognize the existence of new restrictions on

the states ability to steer markets and networks, while still proposing it to do so using fairly traditional strategies. Government

departments are seen as the focal organization within many of the new quasi-markets and networks. As such, they are still

supposed to be able unilaterally to alter the structure of incentives and thereby promote efficiency, effectiveness, and desirable

outcomes. The state can still devise and impose tools to integrate new patterns of governance and thus realize its objectives. The

interaction approach to the management of governance focuses on the importance of organizations developing shared and

appropriate goals and strategies through processes of mutual learning. The state is thus advised to manage by means of

negotiation and diplomacy; it should promote a mutual understanding of the various objectives that groups bring to networks,

and it should encourage relationships of trust within networks. Finally, the institutional approach to the management of
governance concentrates on the formal and informal context of laws, rules, and norms within which governing structures operate.

Its exponents encourage the state to concentrate on changing things such as the relationships between actors, the distribution of

resources, and the rules of the game. The techniques most relevant to modifying and controlling governance and its outcomes

thus include the creation of new funding arrangements or new agencies.

When looking at rational choice theory and institutionalism, we found that they were not monolithic and inherently

positivist in nature; rather, the more reflective they became about the failings of positivism, the more they moved towards an

interpretative, decentered analysis. Similarly, the instrumental, interactive, and institutional approaches to the management of

governance are not totally awry; rather, they expose various ways in which state actors can attempt to promote their goals but

they fail to unpack the

relevant techniques and tools in relation to the meanings or beliefs that are central to a decentered approach to governance. Here

our decentered analysis suggests a compatible but rather different way of thinking about the management of governance.

Crucially, it does not portray hierarchies, markets, or networks as objectified structures. All patterns of organisation are

represented, rather, as the products of the contingent actions of the various participants. This view pushes us, moreover, to reject

the notion that there is a set of techniques or strategies for managing governance: if governance is constructed differently,

contingently, and continuously, there can be no tool kit for managing it. Instead of looking for fixed techniques or strategies,

then, a decentered approach encourages us to learn by telling and listening to stories. While statistics, models, and claims to

expertise all have a place within such stories, we should not become too pre-occupied with them. On the contrary, we should

recognise that they too are narratives or guesses about how people have acted or will react given their beliefs and desires, where

we can try to gauge their beliefs and desires only from their actions and utterances. No matter what rigour or expertise we bring

to bear, all we can do is tell a story and judge what the future might bring. One important lesson of taking this view of expertise

derives from the diversity and contingency of traditions.42 The fate of policies depends on the ways in which civil servants,

citizens, and others understand them and respond to them from within all sorts of traditions. If policy-makers kept this firmly in

mind, they still would not be able to predict the consequences of their policies but they might at least forestall some of their

unintended consequences. More generally, they might allow that the management of networks is in large part about trying to

understand, and respond suitably to, the beliefs, traditions, and practices of those they hope to influence. To recognise how

providers and customers of services impact upon policies is also to suggest a shift of focus away from the state. Positivist

discussions of the management of governance typically focus on the problems confronted by managers, rather than lower level

civil servants or citizens. In contrast, a decentered analysis reminds us that there are various participants in markets and

networks, all of whom can seek to manage them for diverse purposes. By reminding us of the significance of political

participation in this way, a decentered theory of governance also raises issues about democracy. Whereas positivist accounts of

governance often concentrate on the problem of steering as in the instrumental, interactive, and institutional approaches to the
management of governance, a decentered theory locates this problem in the context of democratic participation and

accountability. As we have seen, to emphasise the extent to which we make our patterns of governance through political contests

is to encourage us to think creatively about how we might conceive of and respond to the relevant issues, and whilst one aspect

of this creative thinking is the impetus given to policy makers to reflect on their activity, another is the opportunity it provides us

to reimagine democracy.

A greater interest in markets and networks, it appears to me, suggests we might reflect on how we can best steer a

course between, on the one hand, diverse forms of devolution and participation and, on the other, central control and formal

accountability. Although it would be presumptuous to suppose we can resolve the tension between these different demands, we

might perhaps indicate how they appear from the view of a

decentered theory of governance.43 A number of political scientists and theorists have complained that representative democracy

allows only limited forms of participation and so relatively little direct public influence on the decision-making process.44

While we should acknowledge that there existed alternative avenues of political influence prior to the neoliberal reforms of the

public sector, it appears that markets and networks allow for forms of participation that had a less prominent place in

hierarchies.45

Markets and networks might enable citizens to express more nuanced preferences in a more continuous way than they

can when restricted to electing representatives. It is in this way that governance opens up new possibilities for devolution and

participation within democracy. Because positivist accounts of governance reduce the actions of the people involved to an

objective rationality or the objective characteristics of a network, they typically neglect these possibilities. A decentered theory,

in contrast, emphasises agency, and so the fact that people are expressing their particular and contingent beliefs

and preferences through their activity.46 An emphasis on agency suggests that while the central state legitimately might seek to

influence the operation of markets and networks, we should typically be wary of its attempting to impose outcomes upon them.

The state might attempt to persuade citizens to act in a particular manner, but it must then allow them to reflect on the relevant

arguments with a greater or lesser degree of conscious concentration and choose to do as they decide. Equally, however, we

should remain aware of the ways in which markets, and especially networks, can attempt to impose identities upon people in a

way that then might require the state to act as a guarantor of agency and difference. Still, we might look to a time when states

will be less concerned to control through laws and regulations and more concerned to persuade through all sorts of interactions

with groups and individuals. Such a shift toward persuasion, of course, would fit well alongside an understanding of policy-

making that highlights contingency and diversity telling stories and listening to them rather than certainty and expertise

devising rules designed to have a definite outcome.

Governance might provide more active and continuous opportunities for political involvement to citizens. Yet, as many

political scientists have pointed out, the forms of devolution and participation offered by markets and networks raise special

problems of political control and accountability. As we have seen, an emphasis on agency might lead the state to rely more on
influence than imposition. In a similar fashion, the state might seek to steer markets and networks more by looking toward setting

a framework for their conduct than by relying on rigid rules. The relative power of the state might even make us wary of the

danger that its attempts to influence will be so heavy handed they will in effect undermine participation and agency. Equally,

however, we should not forget that markets and networks respond primarily to levels of wealth and organisation in ways that can

undermine the equality and fellowship characteristic of a democratic community. A growth in the use of markets and networks to

manage and deliver public services surely should be accompanied, therefore, by the development of suitable lines of political

accountability. Still, we might look to a time when the state will rely less on moral rules that impose requirements and

restrictions and more on an ethic of conduct that constitutes a practice through which citizens negotiate their own relationships to

such requirements and restrictions. Once again, of course, an emphasis on conduct would fit well alongside an understanding of

policy-making that highlights contingency and diversity a sensitivity to agency informed by various traditions rather than

certainty and expertise rules that require or prohibit certain behavior .A decentered theory of governance thus highlights not

only the difficulties managers face in controlling markets and networks but also the possibilities and dangers markets and

networks pose for democracy. It encourages us to treat governance as an opportunity to redefine democracy; it prompts us to

search for patterns of devolution, participation, control, and accountability that better reflect our capacity for agency, the

contingency of our identities, the importance of moral conduct as well as moral rules, and an aspiration toward an open

community.
Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers",
leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a
radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for
profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the
concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.
 Why Socialism?

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the

means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is

a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active,

rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their

own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on

the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a

political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

What about individual liberty?

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for
workers to fraternize and organize democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force.
Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and
therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow
workers and not permitted to organize against his or her own exploitation... the state is the force which permits this lack of
freedom to continue.

Libertarian Socialists see humankind divided in a struggle between different social classes: the property-owning class, and the
working class. Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and capitalist, and do not seek to regulate human
behaviors by way of the state, including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexual conduct between consenting
individuals, and related issues.

Libertarian Socialists see such things as gun control, "speech codes", drug, alcohol, pornography and prostitution prohibition as a
waste of time, and an unnecessary violation of individual choice. Most of humanities woes arise from the inherently coercive,
undemocratic and un-libertine capitalist and state systems which human society is currently forced to follow. The answer is not
regulation or limitation, but organization and education with a working-class emphasis. Libertarian Socialists reject the "social
democratic" solution of keeping the state & military apparatus around but raising taxes to support social programs. These are
merely "band-aids" for problems which under capitalism will never go away, and always threaten to get worse. World problems
will not be solved by "professionals", free-market entrepreneurs, the ruling capitalist class, politicians or stateist bureaucrats.
Only the people, organized and educated, can solve their own problems.

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist

libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as
state ownership or command of the means of production [6] within a more general criticism of the state form
itself[7][8] as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace.[9] Instead it emphasizes workers' self
management of the workplace[10] and decentralized structures of political government[11]asserting that a society based
on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of
production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[12] Libertarian socialists
generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct
democracy and federal or confederal associations[13] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade
unions, and workers' councils.[14][15] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[16] and voluntary
human relationships[17] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all
aspects of human life
Libertarian socialism is a Western philosophy with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can
be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents generally advocate a worker-oriented system of production and
organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of
democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism).[33] They propose that this
economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize theliberty of individuals and
minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the
state in favor of anarchism.[34] Adherents propose achieving this through decentralization of political and economic
power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale private property and enterprise (while retaining respect
for personal property). Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant
private property, viewing capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual
freedom.[
 Institutionalism

New institutionalism or neo-institutionalism is a theory that focuses on developing a sociological view

of institutions the way they interact and the way they affect society. It provides a way of viewing institutions outside

of the traditional views of economics by explaining why and how institutions emerge in a certain way within a given

context. One of the institutional views that has emerged has argued that institutions have developed to become

similar (showing an isomorphism) across organizations even though they evolved in different ways, and has studied

how institutions shape the behavior of agents (i.e. people, organizations, governments)

New institutionalism recognizes that institutions operate in an environment consisting of other institutions,

called the institutional environment. Every institution is influenced by the broader environment (or in simpler terms

institutional peer pressure). In this environment, the main goal of organizations is to survive. In order to do so, they

need to do more than succeed economically, they need to establish legitimacy within the world of institutions.

Sub-fields of the new institutionalism

New institutionalism can take different focuses and can draw its inspiration from different disciplines. Here are some
types of new institutional study:
Normative institutionalism
Normative institutionalism is sometimes seen as the "original" new institutionalism; much of the introduction of this
article relates to a normative view of institutionalism. Asociological interpretation of institutions, normative
institutionalism holds that a "logic of appropriateness" guides the behavior of actors within an institution. The norms
and formal rules of institutions will shape the actions of those acting within them. According to March (1994, 57-
58),[3] the logic of appropriateness means that actions are "matched to situations by means of rules organized into
identities." Thus according to normative institutionalism, much of the behavior of institutional actors is based on the
recognized situation the actors encounter, the identity of the actors in the situation, and the analysis by the actor of
the rules that generally govern behavior for that actor in that particular situation.

This approach can be readily contrasted with rational choice institutionalism: rather than a series of calculated actions
designed to maximise perceived benefit, any given actor within an institution will feel to some extent constrained and
obligated by the norms and rules of the institution.
Rational choice institutionalism
Rational choice institutionalism draws heavily from rational choice theory, but is not identical to it.
Proponents of this theory argue that political actors' rational choices are constrained ("bounded rationality").
But, individuals realize their goals can be best achieved through institutions. In other words, institutions are
systems of rules and inducements to behavior in which individuals attempt to maximize their own utilities.

Historical institutionalism

As the name suggests, this version of institutionalism states that "history matters." Paths chosen or designed early on
in the existence of an institution tend to be followed throughout the institution's development. Institutions will have an
inherent agenda based on the pattern of development, both informal (the way things are generally done) and formal
(laws, rule sets and institutional interaction.)

A key concept is path dependency: the historical track of a given institution or polity will result in almost inevitable
occurrences. In some institutions, this may be a self-perpetuating cycle: actions of one type beget further actions of
this type.
Constructivist institutionalism

Recently, a number of authors have used the term "constructivist institutionalism" [5] or "discursive namic approach to
institutional change than the older three new institutionalisms". [6] Sociological institutionalists assert that political,
social, or policy discourses can perform communicative functions, in which actors publicly expressing ideas can lead
to social change, or coordinating functions, in which ideas and meaning provides a mechanism for multiple actors to
achieve consensus on norms and values and thus create social change. [7] This is increasingly moving beyond
Political Science and in international relations theory and foreign policy analysis
Feminist institutionalism is a new institutionalist approach that looks at "how gender norms operate within

institutions and how institutional processes construct and maintain gender power dynamics.

Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns the way in which institutions

create meaning for individuals, providing important theoretical building blocks for normative institutionalism within

political science.
 Ideas presented over 20 years ago in The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life (March and

Olsen 1984).

Institutionalism, as that term is used here, connotes a general approach to the study of political institutions, a set of

theoretical ideas and hypotheses concerning the relations between institutional characteristics and political agency,

performance and change. Institutionalism emphasizes the endogenous nature and social construction of political institutions.

Institutions are not simply equilibrium contracts among self-seeking, calculating individual actors or arenas for contending

social forces. They are collections of structures, rules and standard operating procedures that have a partly autonomous role in

political life.

Institutional theory adopts a sociological perspective to explain organizational structures and behaviour. It draws

attention to the social and cultural factors that influence organizational decision-making (Scott, 2001), and in particular how

rationalized meanings or myths are adopted by organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). These myths become taken for granted

and so are followed in a rule-like fashion when making decisions. They become the institutionalized logic that guides

organizational behaviour.

Definition of New Institutionalism Interplay of the different institutions within society, and how their dynamics, rules
and norms determine the behavior and actions of individiduals Comes from (old) institutionalism, which is focused
on state/government and their various laws and practices which are applied to citizens.
 1. March and Olsen(1984): new institutionalism stresses the relative autonomy of political institutions.
Institutions are neither a mirror of society (the behavioural critique), nor merely the site for individual
strategies (as in the rational actor paradigm). Institutions give meaning to interactions and provide the
context within which interactions take place.
2. Assumptions Three main approaches emerge from the terminological morass: the logic of
appropriateness a concern with the weight of past decisions and processes of automatic government the
attempt to marry methodological individualism and institutional design

Old institutionalism

In order to understand new institutionalism it is necessary to explain the old institutionalism upon which the newer version is
built which reflects some features and characteristics of the older approach in understanding politics. However, there are
significant variations from the older institutionalism. Old institutionalists developed an important body of literature that was
the foundation for development of new institutionalism as well as for the other schools of thought that emerged in parallel.
Although it has been much criticised for its descriptive richness and methodology that was mainly based on observations and
descriptions (Peters, 1999), old institutionalism gave a good impetus for the further research of political institutions and
political life.

The main concern of old institutionalists was to analyse the nature of governing institutions that were capable of structure the
behaviour of individuals towards better ends and collective purposes (Peters, 1999). The most famous school of old
institutionalists was the school of the Progressive Movement in the United States, which consider political science as the study
of the State and an exercise in formal-legal analysis, and that constituted the basis of political science research for much of the
late nineteenth and first half of twentieth centuries (Peters, 1999).

Peters characterises old institutionalism as normative, structuralist, historicist, legalist, and holistic (Peters, 1998:11).
Legalism emerges from its concern with law and the central role of the law in governing. According to old institutionalists law
constitutes both the framework of the public sector itself and a major way in which government can affect the behaviour of its
citizens. Therefore, to be concerned with political institutions was and is to be concerned with law. Structuralism is the second
dominant assumption of old institutionalism. The assumption that structures determine behaviour was the main point of the
critique by behaviourists later because they consider that structuralism does not leave room for the impact of individuals.
Holism represents the comparative nature of old institutionalists. They had a strategy of comparing the whole systems, rather
than to examine individual institutions such as legislatures. The main critique of this approach is that it tended towards
generalisation and consequently, made theory construction more difficult. Historicism is another feature of old institutionalism.
Old institutionalists were concerned with how contemporary political systems were embedded in their historical development
as well as in their socioeconomic and cultural present. For them, individual behaviour, especially of political elite, was a function
of their collective history and of their understanding of the meaning of their politics as influenced by history (Peters, 1999).
However, for the contemporary, more individualistic approaches, the deep-rooted conception of history is not that relevant
(Bates, 1998). Finally, the older institutionalists tended to have a strong normative component in their analysis. They often
affiliated their descriptive statements about politics with a concern for good government (Peters, 1999), which was
consequently criticized as not scientific (Storing, 1962). Old institutionalism was focused upon formal rules and organizations
rather than informal conventions, and upon official structures of government rather than broader institutional constraints on
governance (in public, private and civil spheres). It has been criticised for its descriptive method and disdain for theory. New
institutionalism has emerged from old and from vulgar institutionalisms that were a sad and misleading caricature of
institutionalism today (Lowndes, 2001). However, the development of new institutionalism was preceded by Behaviourist and
Rational Choice theories.

BEHAVIOURISTS AND RATIONAL CHOICE THEORISTS

These preceding approaches were the most influential at the development of new institutionalism. Although different from
one another in some respects, they share some common features including a concern with theory and methodology, anti-
normative bias, assumptions of individualism and imputism (Peters, 1999). The focus of inquiry of individual behaviourism is
often individual, whether as a voter, as a holder of opinions, or as a member of the political elite. For rational choice analysis
the assumptions of individual utility maximization tends to drive the whole approach. According to behaviourists, social
collectivities such as political parties, interest groups and legislatures do not make decisions but people within those
collectivities do. What matters is not what people are supposed to do, but what they actually do (Goodin, 1996: 13). The
institutionalists answer on those theories is that the same people would make different choices depending upon the nature of
the institution within which they are operating at the time (Peters, 1999: 14). Old institutionalism concentrates on the formal
institutions of government and the Constitutions which produce those structures. The behavioural revolution in political science
concentrates completely on the reverse process and analyses the inputs from society into the political system (Easton, 1953).
Although institutionalism excluded many interesting and important features of political mass behaviour, the behavioural
revolution went to the other extreme and denied the importance of formal institutions in determining the outputs of
government. It was the behaviour, not the performance of government that was the principal concern (Peters, 1999: 14).

Furthermore, only the economy and society was considered to influence politics and political institutions. Institutionalism, both
old and new, argues that causation goes in both directions and that institutions shape social and economic life. Rational choice
theory does admit the that institutions do possess some influence over participants because institutional rules establish the
parameters for individual behaviour (Buchanan and Tullock, in Peters, 1999:15) but still deny their significance in shaping the
preferences of the participants (Peters, 1999). The perfect generality of their applicability has been greatly exaggerated
(Goodin, 1996). The behaviourists focus usefully serves to fix attention upon agency, upon individuals and groupings of
individuals whose behaviour it is. But those individuals are shaped by, and in their collective enterprises act, thorough
structures and organisations and institutions. What people want to do, and what they can do, depends importantly upon what
organizational technology is available or can be made readily available to them for giving effect to their individual and collective
volitions (Goodin, 1996:13). Another critique from Goodin is related to organizational technology and governance explanation.
Governance is nothing less than the steering of society by officials in control of what are organisationally the commanding
heights of society (Goodin, 1996: 13). However there are limits to the sorts of commands that might effectively issued from
those commanding heights, and managers of the states face various constraints, both in what others will let them do and in
what others will help them to do. Therefore they are constrained both in their relative autonomy and in their power to
command. Behaviourists were insufficiently sensitive to those constraints, and consequently the state has returned as a key
focus in order to complement their theories (Goodin, 1996).

The initial advocates of the new institutionalism, James March and Johan Olsen, who named the movement in 1984, reasserted
some of the features of the old institutionalism, and they also argued that behavioural and rational choice analyses were
characterized by: Contextualism, Reductionism, Utilitarianism, Functionalism, and Instrumentalism (March and Olsen, 1984).
Contextualism means that instead of the central role that was given to the State, political science depends upon society (March
and Olsen, 1984). Reductionism refers to the tendency of both behavioural and rational choice analysis to reduce collective
behavior to individual behaviour. Utilitarianism represents the tendency to value decisions for what they produce for the
individual, rather than as representing some intrinsic value of their own and it is more linked to rational choice than to
behavioural theory (March and Olsen, 1984). Functionalism represents a critique of the way in which the behavioural and
rational choice approaches had dealt with history. Institutionalists tend to assume much less functionality in history than
behaviourists and rational choice theorists. And finally, March and Olsen argued that contemporary political science was
characterized by instrumentalism, or the domination of outcomes over process, identity, and other important socio-political
values (1984). In other words, they criticized contemporary theorists in that they analyzed political life as simply something
done it through the public sector rather than as a complex interaction of symbols, values, and even the emotive aspects of the
political process (March and Olsen, 1984).

On the basis of these criticism of political science of the time March and Olsen (1984) argued for the creation of new
institutionalism, and they offered a replacement for the five prevailing characteristics of political science with a focus on
collective action for the understanding of political life. Furthermore, the relationship between political collectivities and their
socioeconomic environment should be more reciprocal in order to explain complex political life.

NEW INSTITUTIONALIST APPROACH The new institutionalism which emerged in the 1980s was a reaction to the dominance of
under socialised accounts of social, economic and political behaviour. Both behaviourists and rational choice theorists had
regarded institutions as epiphenomenal or as the aggregation of individual actions (Lowndes, 2001:1950). In the first case,
institutions were regarded as a result of individual roles, and in the second as an accumulation of individual choices based upon
utility maximising preferences (Shepsle, 1989). In political science, March and Olsen, argued the organisation of political life
makes a difference and asserted a more autonomous role for institutions in shaping political behaviour (March and Olsen,
1984). Contrary to the descriptive and theoretical style of the earlier institutional theories, new institutionalism developed a
more sophisticated definition of their subject matter, operating through explicit theoretical frameworks.

The new institutionalists concern themselves with informal conventions as well as formal rules and structures, they pay
attention to the way in which institutions embody values and power relationships, and they study not just the impact of
institutions upon behaviour, but interaction between individuals and institutions (Lowndes, 2001:1953).
Where there is a creation of new type of institutions, new institutionalism can provide powerful tools for understanding change
inside local government bureaucracies and for conceptualising the strength of weak ties (Granovetter in Lowndes, 2001).
Lowndes (2001) also distinguishes organizations from institutions and outlines regards weak ties to be as important as formal
constitutions.

Lowndes presented differences between new and vulgar or old institutionalism in terms of movement along six analytical
points:

From a focus on organizations to a focus on rules; From formal to an informal conception of institutions; From a static to a
dynamic conception of institutions; From sub emerged values to a value critical stance; From a holistic to a disaggregated
conception of institutions; and From independence to embeddedness (Lowndes, 2001).

Political institutions should not be equated with political organizations, rather they are the sets of rules that guide and
constrain actors behaviour. Institutions provide the rule of the game, while organizations and individuals are players within
that game. As Goodin states, institutions are differentiated in the sense that they embody, preserve, and impart differential
power resources with respect to different individuals and groups (Goodin 1996). That means that institutions embody power
relations by privileging certain courses of actions over others and by including certain actors and excluding others. Institutional
rules may produce variation and deviation as well as conformity and standardisation. They evolve in unpredictable ways as
actors seek to make sense of new or ambiguous situations, ignore or even contravene existing rules, or try to adapt them to
favour their own interests (Lowndes, 2001:1960).

Due to its complexity and the wealth of literature on the subject, there is a problem with defining of new institutionalism.
Therefore it is crucial to see what criteria should be used for defining whether an approach is really institutional or not. Peters
attempted to define a common core that binds all approaches together. The most important element of institutionalism,
according to Peters, is that institutions are a structural feature of a society and/or polity. That structure may be formal like a
legislature, an agency in the public bureaucracy, or a legal framework, or may be informal like the set of shared norms or a
network of interacting organisations. Another feature is the existence of stability over time. A third feature is that it must affect
individual behaviour or in some way constrain the behaviour of its members. There should be some sense of shared values and
meaning among the members of institutions. Those constraints may be formal or informal but they must be constraints if there
is to be an institution in place (Peters, 1998).

According to Peters, the first of six different approaches in new institutionalism is Normative institutionalism advanced by
March and Olsen in their works 1984 and 1989. The strong accent is on the norms of institutions as means of understanding
how they function and how they determine individual behaviour. They put an accent on the logic of appropriateness as a tool
for shaping the behaviour of the members of institutions. The most different to normative institutionalism is Rational Choice
Institutionalism. Instead of values and norms, those scholars argue that behaviours are functions of rules and incentives.
According to them, institutions are systems of rules and inducements to behaviour in which individuals attempt to maximise
their own utilities (Weingast, 1996). The third approach is Historical Institutionalism which, represents the view that choices
which are made early in the history of any policy or any governmental systems. As those scholars argued policies are path
dependant and once launched on that path they continue along until some sufficiently strong political force deflects them from
it (Peters, 1998: 19). Empirical institutionalism is the closest to old institutionalist and argues that that the structure of
government makes a difference in the way in which policies are processed and which choices which will be made by
governments. Peters also differentiates those scholars into two groups. First, scholars who use conventional categories such as
the difference between presidential and parliamentary government like Weaver and Rockman (1993) and second, those who
use more analytic categories such as decision points, like Immergut.
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can
best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework
characterised by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.

Policy

Important practical tools for making these things work included separation of powers, the idea that those enforcing
the law and those making it should be separate, to prevent the lawmakers from pursuing short-term
ends[105] and constitutionalism, the idea that lawmakers should be legally bound about the laws they could
pass,[100] thereby preventing absolute rule by the majority.
Economic neoliberalism

The next important form of neoliberalism is economic neoliberalism. Economic neoliberalism stems out of the
historical rift between classical liberalism and economic liberalism, and developed when the economically liberal
minded co-opted the language and ideas of classical neoliberalism to place economic freedom at its heart, making it
a right-wingideology.[citation needed] Essentially, economic neoliberalism can be derived by taking the classical neoliberal
definition above and taking the protected personal sphere to solely refer to property rights and contract. The liberal
opposite of economic neoliberalism is modern liberalism, the corresponding left-wing ideology.[citation needed] The best
known proponent of economic neoliberalism is Milton Friedman.[citation needed]

Economic neoliberalism is the most common form of neoliberalism, and is what is usually meant when a system is
described as neoliberal.[108] According to Tayab Mahmud, quoting terminology from Anthony Carty

The neoliberal project is to turn the "nation-state" into a "market-state," one with the primary agenda of facilitating
global capital accumulation unburdened from any legal regulations aimed at assuring welfare of citizens. In summary,
neoliberalism seeks unbridled accumulation of capital through a rollback of the state, and limits its functions to
minimal security and maintenance of law, fiscal and monetary discipline, flexible labor markets, and liberalization of
trade and capital flows.[109]

Economic neoliberalism is distinct from classical neoliberalism for many reasons. Hayek believed that certain
elements that now make up modern economic neoliberal thought are too rationalist, relying on preconceived notions
of human behaviour, such as the idea of homo economicus.[110] Paul Treanor points out that it is too utopian, and
therefore illiberal.[111] David Harvey points out that economic neoliberalism is "theory of economic political practices",
rather than a complete ideology, and therefore, no correlation or connection needs to exist between a favourable
assessment of neoliberal economic practises and a commitment to liberalism proper. [112] Likewise Anna-Maria
Blomgren views neoliberalism as a continuum ranging from classical to economic liberalism. [113] A broad and, it is
hoped, clearer restatement of the above is to point out that classic liberals must be economic liberals, but economic
liberals do not have to be classically liberal, and it is the latter group that makes up the "new liberalism" of economic
neoliberalism.

Criticism

The rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s as a practical system of government saw it implemented in various forms
across the world. In some cases, the result was not anything that could be identified as neoliberalism, often with
catastrophic results for the poor. This has resulted in many on the left claiming that this is a deliberate goal of
neoliberalism,[117]while those on the right defend the original goals of neoliberalism and insist otherwise, an argument
that rages to this day. Nevertheless, neoliberalism has come under attack not only from the political left (social
democrats), but also elements of the right (cultural nationalists) and myriad activists and academics.[31] This section
attempts to provide an unbiased overview of this discussion, focusing on all the forms of neoliberalism that are not in
any way neoliberal, but which have come to be associated with it, as well as the reasons for why this has happened.

One of the best and least controversial examples of "neoliberal" reform is in Russia, whose reforms in 1989 were
justified under neoliberal economic policy but which lacked any of the basic features of a neoliberal state (e.g. the rule
of law, free press) which could have justified the reforms

Policy implications

Neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector, [148] rationalized by the
narative that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation. [149] The
definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's
"Washington Consensus."[150] The Washington Consensus is a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained
consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank).[151] Williamson's list included ten points:

Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such
deficits can have only a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead
to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional
stabilization purposes.

Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and
other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services
like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment
 Tax reform broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and
efficiency;

Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

Floating exchange rates;

Trade liberalization liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions
(licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging
competition and long term growth

Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to
invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country

Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government
cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers
promotes choice and competition.

Deregulation abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified
on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;

Legal security for property rights;

Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding
and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] The basic premise of rational choice theory is that
aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual
decisions. The theory therefore focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (methodological individualism).

Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that
allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always
say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option
A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The rational agent is
assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in
determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action.

Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analyses and
appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of
modern political science,[2]sociology,[3] and philosophy. A particular version of rationality is instrumental rationality,
which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness
of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.

The concept of rationality used in rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of
the word. Colloquially, "rational" behaviour typically means "sensible", "predictable", or "in a thoughtful, clear-headed
manner." Rational choice theory uses a narrower definition of rationality. At its most basic level, behavior is rational if
it is goal-oriented, reflective (evaluative), and consistent (across time and different choice situations). This contrasts
with behavior that is random, impulsive, conditioned, or adopted by (unevaluated) imitation.
 Early neoclassical economists writing about rational choice, including William Stanley Jevons, assumed that agents
make consumption choices so as to maximize their happiness, or utility. Contemporary theory bases rational choice
on a set of choice axioms that need to be satisfied, and typically does not specify where the goal (preferences,
desires) comes from. It mandates just a consistent ranking of the alternatives. [6]:501 Individuals choose the best action
according to their personal preferences and the constraints facing them. E.g., there is nothing irrational in preferring
fish to meat the first time, but there is something irrational in preferring fish to meat in one instant and preferring meat
to fish in another, without anything else having changed.

Rational choice theorists do not claim that the theory describes the choice process, but rather that it predicts the
outcome and pattern of choices. An assumption often added to the rational choice paradigm is that individual
preferences are self-interested, in which case the individual can be referred to as a homo economics. Such an
individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal
advantage.[7] Proponents of such models, particularly those associated with the Chicago school of economics, do not
claim that a model's assumptions are an accurate description of reality, only that they help formulate clear and
falsifiable hypotheses.[citation needed] In this view, the only way to judge the success of a hypothesis is empirical
tests.[7] To use an example from Milton Friedman, if a theory that says that the behavior of the leaves of a tree is
explained by their rationality passes the empirical test, it is seen as successful.

What is Governance?
Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is
exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the
capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of
citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.
The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project reports aggregate and individual
governance indicators for 215 economies over the period 19962013, for six dimensions of
governance:
Voice and Accountability
Political Stability and Absence of Violence
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
These aggregate indicators combine the views of a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert
survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. They are based on 32 individual data
sources produced by a variety of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations,
international organizations, and private sector firms.

GOOD GOVERNANCE IN PAKISTAN PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED SOLUTION.

Executive Summary

In the past decade of the 20th century, the idea of governance has developed from virtual dimness to take place in the modern
debates in the field of social sciences. The basis of better governance lies on the guidelines of freedom of thoughts, freedom of
speech, all masses acquire equitable rights, absence of discrimination, justice to all, honesty, transparency and responsibility.

Philosophical groups as well as religious texts are replicated with the definitions and examples of governance (with both good
and evil). This idea of governance is not developed from outside humans experience throughout the ages. This is primarily laid
on the lessons from historical backgrounds which recorded both the collapse of different nations that was resulted from the bad
governance and also lessons on how distinct nations raised to greater heights as a result of good governance. Recently, the idea of
governance is evolving from, as reflected by some authors and the confined definition employed by the World Bank as the
manner in which power is exercised in the management of a countrys economic and social resources, to the broader definition
adopted by the commission on global governance as the sum of the many ways in which individuals and institution, public and
private, manage their common affairs.

Good governance in the context of South Asia as well as in Pakistani context must go well beyond good politics or even the
development of a decent society. It should facilitate the government, civil society as well as the private sectors to improve their
both social developments an economical growth to make them the means of greater human progression and improved levels of
human well being. In order to understand the deficiencies in the Pakistani governance, one should search for the reasons behind
the vulnerabilities in our political tolerances and identity. According to analytical results, there are apparent groups of rationally
autonomous and long lasting perceptions and values within Pakistan that have significant outcomes in the society and of course
in the political boundaries. The expectation of authority specifically those who has been given the right to govern, should be
understood and preferably be changed in order to bring a system with sustainable democracy. Provision of legal rights and access
to public offices are significant but progression in developing civil virtues and enthusiasm must also be encouraged. In the
nonexistence of such kind of culture dissenting anarchy and authoritarian rule will remain prosperous. Generally, the chances for
an unambiguous governance, true democracy and civil society in Pakistan may only prosper when democratic activities are
permitted to dominate under the preeminence of the unaltered constitution. The frequently repetition of dismissal or depose of
elected regimes, amendments in the constitution that are more appropriate to the current ruler, leaves no optimistic memory and
give little opportunity to institutes to adopt and support virtues to root. Although the elections often are contaminated by design
or overenthusiastic officials, the regular elections will eventually prove democratic exercises to the opponent in whom losers
admit conquest and winners are generous in victory, the higher the opportunity for electoral procedures able to survive under
probable challenges. The ineffective and incompetent politicians may continue to contribute and strive for acquiring power but
the masses of Pakistan will also come to learn and understand healthy democratic virtues and accountabilities with the passage of
time.

Background: Governance in Pakistan: Reasons for Failure and Strategy Ahead

In Pakistani state, democracy, openness of economy, size of the population, peace periods, rate of unemployment, exchange rates,
budget deficits, expected human life and levels of education are all considered to be the key macroeconomic parameters of
impartial governance. The government of the state requires to make sure the provision of fundamental social services involving
infrastructure (i.e. energy and water supply, construction of roads and sewerages), poverty reduction programmes, provision of
fundamental education to its masses, easy access to health care, protection of environment from pollution and dangerous
chemicals as well as security of its public masses. The government is not supposed to ensure the provision of all these services by
itself. However, in certain circumstances, for example promotion of education and health care, it might be more relevant that
government must boost competition among the private firms. Whereas, governments role is more critical in marinating and
developing economic policies, escalating and intensifying judiciary systems, enhancing bureaucracy, offering transparency and
providing access to public affairs, sustaining public responsibility, intensifying the political party systems, offering reliable basis
for education structure and devising and implementing various economic reforms. This study is an attempt to demonstrate the
causes for the failure of good governance in Pakistani state. This study is followed by a thorough analysis, its influence on the
Pakistani population and formulation of future strategies.

Introduction: Governance

The governance is related to the procedures and structures by which an organization or a society works. To administer such
procedures and structures, governments are tending to established more frequently. The word governance is derived from the
Latin word i.e. Cybern that means to guide; it acquires the similar roots as cybernetics which illustrates the science of
control. Thus, governance can be described as the capacity of government to make and implement policy in other words to steer
society. Governance can also be defined as the procedure of making decisions and the procedures by which those decisions are
implemented, public institutions carry out public affairs, manage public resources and take accountability of the security of
human right. Additionally, the word Bank is also described as an exercise of political authority which can utilize the institutional
resources to help maintaining societys issues and affairs.

History of Governance in Pakistan

In order to have a clear understanding of the problems in Pakistani governance, one must need to search for the vulnerabilities in
its Governance, Politics and state political tolerance and identity. Logically, there are various combinations of sensible
autonomous and long lasting perceptions and virtues within the state that have significant outcomes in both the societal as well as
political dimensions. It is seen that political culture of Pakistan has roots from its historical backgrounds since from the pre
partitioned British rule. The Pakistani politicians (or leaders) has adopted the so called vice regal system from this inheritance
and which has created very little or no awareness or involvement popularity. This type of system is supposed to govern the
masses and intended to maintain order and collect huge amounts of taxes.

However, there was often a contradiction emerges between the British philosophies of governance and their practices. The ideal
representatives of government and equalitarianism before law were considered imperfect transformations. The territorial
problems and border clashes with India, the dissimilarities in socio cultural environment within the state, efforts for distributing
power between the two countries (i.e. India and Pakistan) and the early demise of the Pakistans founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah,
are some of those real aspects that not only contributed in politicizing the policy makers and their eagerness to introduce
impartial governance and democratic processes but it also stimulated non democratic rudiments involving the armed forces
(particularly army) Similarly, even after half of the century since from the inception of Pakistan, the state could not be able to
clean itself from the systems of feudalism, tribalism, and Punchayat systems by leaving behind amateur sectarian segregation
and public. The state of Pakistan was remained informal without a written constitution till 1956. The myths pertaining to
democracy that often sustain the system were vulnerably implanted and standards were created in such a way that destabilized
some of the parliamentary and democratic values that could be drawn upon.

In prior years, non-party prime ministers were usually selected by the president of the country instead of by those who appealed
for elections. The massive involvement of population in politics, if described by rallies and time to time chance to vote,
eventually increased by the years. Street demonstrations were supposed to bring down governments, particularly Ayubs in 1977.
However, such activities helped in strengthening the feelings of efficiency but none of these can be easily equaled with the
democratic procedures. Whatever was the shape of the government, the state however has been ruled in a greatly centralized
manner. The last constitution of the state was finally devised and implemented in 1973 which developed the similar system in the
state. There had been important alterations since then because Pakistani constitutions have been reformed several times in order
to benefit its rulers. The country had undergone deterioration due its misrules. The state is weakened from inside. The situation
has become very compelling. When the era of democracy of Pakistani civilian government failed, the economic and public
matters have gone worse by the time. Today Pakistani state is out of order mainly because of weak impartial governance and
certainly people of Pakistan are suffering because of inadequacy in the political structure. Along with the shortcomings of public
affairs and efficient public opinions, the political structure has given wide birth to ruthless and fraudulent political governors. It is
seen that rather than including citizen masses in the political procedures, authority was only confined to the hands of elite
bureaucrats and over determined militants. The system developed by the semi feudal systems and its hierarchy also offered the
same uncongenial soil for building the democratic system. The customary power brokers and the elite and well off feudal lords
were always ready to form alliance with those who promised to secure their materialistic interests and ways of living. The
civilian government on the other hand surrendered to military rulers that attempted to deal with the public through attacks on the
democratic ideals and political institutions in the prospect of leaving them in disgraced and perished situation. In spite of the
renewal of the democratic situation from passage of time, it is still unsurprisingly held in wariness. The doctrines of the civil
society, the idea of a justifiable opposition party, originally won small acceptance among all the competing political elites or
within greater public, such expressions have identified a collapse in law and order system and above all highlighted the absence
of trust among the authorities. These kinds of unstable movements have proclaimed demands for good presentation but within
themselves there seemed more signs of frustration and agony than in a more diversified forbearing political systems.

Characteristics of Good Governance

Governance is said to be the procedure whereby public institutes carry out affairs pertaining to the public, maintain public
resources as well as assure the security of human rights. Impartial and rational governance can achieve this while substantially
free from maltreatment and fraudulent and that dealt with the rules and regulations under the law. The actual test for good
governance is the extent to which it offers and fulfills the promises regarding human rights including social, economic, cultural
and political privileges. Impartial and rational governance of the state can be demonstrated as a combination of eight key
attributes. These are participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient,
equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. These attributes attempt to guarantee that corruption could be reduced to a
minimal level, the opinions of minorities could also be considered and also the voices of the most weakened present in the society
could also be heard while making decisions. These are also receptive to both present and future societal requirements. The
explanations of the aforementioned attributes are presented as below:

1- Participation Contribution of both males and females is one of the key attributes for impartial governance. The
fundamental idea of contribution can be derived from an acceptance that people are willing to make developments.
They are not only considered as the eventual recipients of the developments but they are also the agents for bringing
developments. They can participate as groups or associations (such as trade unions, chambers of commerce, NGOs and
other political parties etc) and can act as individuals as well (such as those participating in voting). As developments
are for and by individuals, they must have the access to those institutions that encourage it (for instance representative
bureaucracies). Such participation requires to be acknowledged and ordered. This reflects liberty of association and
representation on one hand and an efficiently organized society on the other hand.
2- Rule of Law Superior quality governance is required to have an impartial legitimate structure that is supposed to be
enforced fairly. This also needs to have full security of human rights, specifically those for minorities in the state. Fair
implementation of laws needs autonomous judiciary and unbiased and imperishable police force.

3- Transparency Transparency is described as decisions that are considered and their implementation must be done in a
way that obeys rules and regulations under the law. This also demonstrates that information can be easily available and
directly accessible to those who will be influenced by such decisions and by their implementations. This also reflects
that sufficient information is being provided and which is provided by using simple explicable forms and media.

4- Responsiveness Impartial and rational governance also needs that institutes and procedures must strive to work for all
the stakeholders within their appropriate time duration.

5- Consensus Oriented There exist numerous view point in a society regarding governance. Impartial governance needs
conciliation of distinct interests of the society to accomplish a wide consensus and decide the aspects that are in the best
interest of the entire community as well as how this can be accomplished. This also needs wide and long lasting
perspectives which are needed to sustain human developments and the achievement of those developments. This can
only stems from the demonstration of historical, cultural and societal contexts of a present community.

6- Equity and inclusiveness The wellbeing of the society can be ensured when every member of the society perceives that
he/she belongs to that society and do not feel isolated or excluded from the mainstream of that community. This also
needs the participation of all the class groups specifically the vulnerable ones to acquire the opportunities to enhance
their well being.

7- Effectiveness and Efficiency Fair governance also means that procedures and the institutions that produce outcomes
must fulfill the requirements of the society by making the full utilization of the resources at their disposal. The idea of
efficacy in case of impartial governance also protects the sustainable utilization of resources as well as the fortification
of the environment.

8- Acceptability Responsibility (or accountability) is considered to be another essential need of the fair governance. It is
seen that not only government institutes but also private firms and civil society firms must show their accountability
towards public and their institutions stakeholders. Who will be responsible for who varies mainly depending on
whether decisions or actions availed are either internal or external to that sector or organization. Generally, an institute
or an organization is responsible to those who will be influenced by those actions and/or decisions. Such accountability
cannot be implemented in the absence of transparency and the rule of law.

Governance Institution and Development

Since form the period of its inception, Pakistan is going through several challenges pertaining to insecurity in provinces,
sectarian ferocity, political ambiguity in provinces, vulnerable law and order system, weak access to judicial system, tribal
system feudal system and several other hidden Ism Mafiz. The current situation of weak Pakistani governance can be
characterized by the factors demonstrated in the following paragraphs.

Democratic Instability Democracy is said to be based on two fundamental principles i.e. participation and accountability.
Thus, in the light of the aforementioned comments when there is less or certainly no democratic pervasiveness in nation, this
reflects that there are ambiguities present in the governance as well. Thus, the scientific principle lie as no democracy no
governance. Regrettably, six decades of Pakistans history is depressed from both of the prompt implementation of
accountability and the contribution of the peoples authorization by their selected representatives even after the due share of
both the military government as well as democratically elected government. One way or another, both of these golden
principles of democracy are enjoying entirely complete absentia in Pakistani states. It is evidenced form the historical
background of Pakistan that democracy, impartial and fair governance, economic affairs as well as social sectors are in some
way irreconcilable. The government of the state is still confronting many aspects in order to be coherent in developing and
sustaining democratic parliamentary system in the state. Neither opposition nor government is taking place in accordance to
their mandate. It is exhibited as It is not the gun but it is the man behind the gun that matter. Similar is the case with the
political structure of Pakistan when the people who are operating the system are not sincere, how a system must function, it
will eventually become unsuccessful. This is a real cause of the failure of Pakistani political structure.

Broken Judicial system Judiciary is also considered to be one of the three pillars of the country. However, in Pakistani
context, corruption has already scrambled deep into its judiciary system. Appointing or hiring judges rather than lawyers, is
considered something plaintiff try for. Additionally, the existence of sociopolitical differences makes justice even harder to
achieve. This is obvious from the fact that in spite of the constitutional assurance for it, the scales of justice always lean
towards the favor of the state if there is a conflicting situation between that of the state and a common citizen. The
executives have led to a deteriorated situations and the common citizen in the street has mislaid his/her trust and faith from
the judicial institutions. It is an obvious fact that Pakistan, in spite of a written constitution, has never acquired an
independent, impartial and daring judiciary to implement the basic rights of the countrys citizens that are preserved in its
1973 constitution. Justice still continues to be indefinable for a common citizen. Only talking for justice and equalitarianism
before law are not enough, Pakistan is still miles away from what one should imagine in a civilized community. Justice is
considered to be more expensive and increasingly tardy, which as a result, people who cant be able to afford to pay greater
costs or wait for a long period in order to get justice provided to them are compelled either to take the law by their own
selves or relinquish their fundamental right to be provided impartial treatment in the law. The Pakistani masses have
extremely gone through various challenges and still continued to be suffering particularly as the judiciary is not playing its
constitutional role and is not considering the suo motu notice of the unconstitutional policies followed or actions simply
adopted by the military and civil governments over the last sixty five years. Governments always tried to have a tame and
passive judiciary. Renowned legal authorities offered their services to dictatorial regimes to restrain the judiciary by causing
immense damage to Pakistani state.

Economic inequality The most troublesome facet of the poverty condition in Pakistan is due to the growing economic
disparities in the country. The Pakistan economic Survey 2009 - 2010 highlights that the gap between the elite and the poor
in the state has been broadened in the periods of 2005 and 2008. The shove towards the privatization of facilities in various
social sectors, particularly, education and health care, has created such services even more expensive and less affordable for
the common citizen; people however are now forced to spend more to fulfill their basic necessities. The governments own
survey exhibited that the poor are now making 14.6% spending on health (comparatively to 2005) as well as they are
spending 50% and 11% more on transport and food respectively.
Inconsistent Micro-Economy Along with the political supremacy in Pakistan, the enhanced macro-economic sustainability
has not yet stabilized the infrastructure for poor masses in rural areas. Though numerous economic reforms have been
designed in order to economically authorize or to bring opulence towards the lower decrepit classes of the society, yet the
outcomes are not that productive. Opportunities for the employment, FDI, investment oriented environment is moving from
steady pace and in case if political predicament condition will remain the economy might not achieve the prosperity at large.
Since good economics is said to be good politics and in situations when there is a weak and deteriorated politics is involved,
the problem of good governance automatically and critically takes place instead of further uplifting the spirit of establishing
fair and impartial governance.

Lack of Transparency The vulnerable state of Pakistani government is due to lack of significant transparency and access to
information in public matters, which ultimately confines the capability of its common citizens, civil societal groups and
public representatives to efficiently observe the productivity and performance of the public institutes. This shortage of
transparency is more likely to lead it to ambiguous and non-participatory decision making, incompetent project
implementation and uncontrolled financial corruption of the public bodies. The shortage of transparency and access to
information also participates in sustaining increasing bureaucratic controls and nonfunctioning of democratic institutes. By
the passage of time, this non-transparent, non-participatory and unique structure of governance has become a focus of
growing censure, since it is viewed as entirely incompetent of responding to the requirements and ambitions of the citizens
in the community.

Ineffective civil services The civil forces have established an excessively centralized organizational framework which is
sluggish, not very effective and uninspired. Discipline is almost negligent and regulations are not evenly imposed
effectively. The internal responsibility processes have become vulnerable over time, similarly the external responsibility via
legal systems have also become weak. By the time professionalism in civil services has battered. Political influence in civil
services has damaged the efficiency of state machinery. The bureaucracy has simply not kept with the contemporary trends
in other developed nations. Pakistan is going through a vulnerable state capacity and ineffective management of public
sector. There is a deliberate need to enhance Pakistans administrative efficacy and effectiveness. Issues with its
administration involve vulnerable planning, inefficient management, inefficacy and the nonexistence of work ethics.
Intersections of legal authority as well as the nonexistence of unambiguous authority demarcations and control of
administration have caused devastation with the performance of the Pakistani government. The distance between making of
policies and their execution is very wide, particularly because of the political interferences and bureaucracy and commonly
due to the low quality of states personnel. The efforts for restructuring of the state have been too chaotic and poorly
planned.

Scourge of corruption Vulnerable governance can lead to any sort of enhancement in corruption in various ways, for
example it can be encouraged through inducements (mainly bribes) and blackmail (or threats), discrimination (nepotism)
and deception and cheating (embezzlement). These acts generally decrease the efficacy on which the economy is dependent
and by enhancing the costs of investments, this will encourage to lose the potential returns. This also decreases the states
resources and thus its capacity to investment comparatively to other south Asian nations. Corruption issue in Pakistan is
considered unique in a sense that it occurs at the top state management, it acquires wings which motivates reduction in
capital instead of wheels that motivates reinvestment and it frequently offers rewards instead of punishes because the legal
procedures to combat with corruption are vulnerable in themselves and judiciary is willing to free the accused if the price is
high and agreeable. The scourge of corruption has been determined at the time of Pakistans inception by no less a person
than Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah who said. One of the biggest curse from which the country is suffering is
bribery and corruption. We must put it down with iron hand. Unfortunately, the warning has not been combated during the
last sixty three years. Corruption has damaged each and every dimension of Pakistans administration, politics, economy and
social activities. All of the efforts in order to fight with nuisance were not effectively made but all the endeavors were
unenthusiastic and involved lacking of political determination. Transparency International has listed Pakistan as 142nd out
of 163 nations on its list of corrupted nations, which indicates that corruption in Pakistan has enhanced since 1999 military
conquest, where Pakistan was ranked 87th. Pakistan is continued to remain amongst the concentration of so called failed
nations at the bottom of the ranking list, mentioned in a report which was released on the day of anti-corruption. Thus, after
devoting hundreds of millions of rupees from the taxpayers money on NAB, the Pakistani government is still failed to
minimize the corruption in the country and it is found that white collar crimes are continued to booming.

Flawed Educational System The development of educational sector is always been overlooked which is a consequence of
not achieving stability in our political and economic sectors. However, there is a potential in educated population who can
lead to political responsibility, its stability, economical developments, effective use and progression of technology as well as
enhancement of household management and the overall states solidarity. It is said that any nation can only achieve
prosperity and progress when it offers a nourishing and beneficial education system to its masses which must be liberated
from all kinds of restrictions. However, unluckily this situation is quite distinct in the context of Pakistani economic
structure since no realistic approaches have been executed or adopted for the past six years. Thus, as a consequence, the
local people suffered frequently and are still deprived of beneficial education framework. Numerous reasons are actually
taking part as key factors for this failure system. Among these include, confused attitude of the governments personnel,
meaningless and worthless educational policies, deficiency in research work, unqualified teachers, a wide gap between
students and teachers relationships, poor quality text books and most of all abandoned education system are key hindrances
in the way of promoting education in Pakistan.

The Police Department The police station is considered as the key center of corrupted activities as wide range of powers has
been devoted to officer-in-charge of police stations or Station House Officers by the law. No single job is done by the police
without charging a certain amount of fee. There firs are commonly refused, exaggerated and falsely created just for the want
of some money. Another reason of not writing any fir is that it requires to do lot of work.

Proposed Approach

Pakistan suffers from crises of governance. The efficiency and effectiveness of government departments are getting worse
not better, with very few exceptions. The need for re-engineering the system of governance is being felt by many in
Pakistan.

Democratic Governance Good governance and a corruption-free society require a system which is based on the rule of law.
Specifically, this means democracy. No doubt, democracy itself is imperfect because it is run by humans. Democracy can
only be authentic when there is real separation of powers and when all institutions of the state abide by the roles assigned to
them by the constitution. In the case of third world countries beset with poverty and illiteracy, democracy will take time to
mature and strike root. Also, democracy does not have a built in mechanism to keep the corrupt out. The corrupt will be
there if society is porn to it. But ultimately it is democracy and it accountability that cleanses the system and moves towards
such perfection as is humanly possible. Whether it is war on corruption or creating a society wedded to honesty,
answerability and responsible conduct, it is the people who can achieve these ends through and inter play of democratic
forces. Moreover, improving the quality of democratic institutions and processes, and managing the changing roles of the
state and civil society in and increasingly globalized world can be instrumental in poverty reduction, sustaining the
environment, and promoting human development. The overarching goal of the Democratic Governance in Pakistan is the
creation of an enabling environment within which the people of Pakistan can influence the direction and c conduct of their
governing institutions. Government must strengthen Pakistans capacity in areas governing institutions. Government must
strengthen Pakistans capacity in areas such as democratic processes, policy development, development management
strengthen of civil society, and public private linkages. In all areas, special emphasis is placed on provincial and local
processes and on community empowerment.

Strengthen Judiciary System Effective enforcement and protection of basic rights by the superior judiciary can mitigate the
sufferings of the people and can lead to the protection of life, liberty, honor and property of the citizens for a peaceful and
civilized life. The government also needs to increase the equality and effectiveness of our judicial system. The quality of
judgments cans only be improved by the recruitment of quality judge. We cannot have quality judgments by mediocre
judges. This is most important at the highest level. The government is also considering major reforms in the subordinate
judiciary. A report by Asian Development Bank on the subject, plus proposals submitted provincial law ministries and bar
councils, combined in a final document 10 .Contains the following proposals:-

1. The bifurcation of the judiciary and the executive should be enhanced. For a proper functioning of the judiciary, it
must be separated from the executive and not be dominated by it. Otherwise, the cause of justice cannot b serve.

2. Tighten entry requirements for civil judges. Only advocates with a minimum of 2-4 years of experience should be
eligible for appointments as civil judges.

3. Improve the salaries and other benefits of the subordinates judiciary.

4. Recruitment and promotion is to be based only on merit. No other consideration is made, especially in the selection
of the higher judiciary.

5. The number of courts is inadequate to serve a growing population. Therefore a bigger court system should be
established.

6. Laws may be simplified gradually. A hotchpotch of laws: Islamic, British, and traditional cannot be effective,
especially if they cover the same subject matter.

7. Selection for higher judiciary positions should be made a more difficult and painstaking process rather than as it is at
present, similar to most developed countries. An elected public body may also be involved in the ratification of nominations
for higher judiciary positions cleared by both the executive and the higher judiciary itself. The intention is to get the best
people to be appointed as judges.
To Improve the Bureaucracy Bureaucracy is obviously and essential element in governance; the objective being to make it
less wasteful, more efficient, and honest. Numerous commissions and committees have studied the existing situation and
proposed improvements. But governance has deteriorated, no improved, over the years. The findings of these commissions
have been ignored. Previous regime had established the National Reconstruction Bureaucracy (NRB) to devise, and then
oversee, agencies and instruments for enhancing governmental effectiveness. It came up with a local government system
that incorporated elements of Ayub Khans basic democracies. The government has established another agency whose
mission appears to be similar to that of the NRB, called National commission for Government Reform (NGCR). It consists
of 11 members five of whom will be serving or retired civil servants three federal or provincial ministers, and two drawn
from the corporate sector. The commission will report once every three months to a steering committee, co chaired by
the president and prime minster and including the four provincial chief ministers. This committee will consult the central
and provincial cabinets, higher civil servants, politicians, and Nazims regarding the commissions recommendations.
Once it has approved them, they will be deemed to have been approved by governments at all levels. The NCGR aims to
make the bureaucracy both efficient and responsive. The quest for efficiency many require modernization of equipment,
change in methods and procedures, simplification of work flow skipping unnecessary stops on the way up or down),
delegation of authority and responsibility, and mitigation, if not elimination, of corruption are the more intractable problems.

Devolution

The Government of Pakistan must have an ambitious and comprehensive program of governance reforms. Devolution of
power to local governments needs to be key features of this program. In the recent past, Pakistan has implemented a radical
restructuring of government, developing the main responsibility for the delivery of education, health, water and sanitation,
roads and transport, and agriculture services to district tehsil, and to some extent, union governments. For instance, the
Local Government (LG) Ordinance 2001 makes significant provisions for greater public participation in the functioning of
union, tehsil and district authorities16. The details of this ordinance are enumerated in Appendix III Devolution remains
mere window dressing until local governments get the authority to levy taxes and raise revenues to meet their normal
expense, without having to look to the provincial or the central government for grants- in aid. Local governments should
concern essentially with providing services for the local communities like municipal services, primary education and health
care, these services are obviously very essential and local governments are given elected councils so that the citizens can
have open access to them and get the services they desire. Local problems are best handled locally. The governments need to
apply the subsidiary principle in government. The principle simply advocates that decision making should happen at the
lowest level possible. It is argued that decentralization is a tried and tested method to solve acute governance problems in
developing countries like Pakistan. Transparency and Access to Information in Public Affairs In view of growing criticism
of the culture of secrecy and rampant corruption, the government of Pakistan has recently enacted certain laws with the aim
of promoting transparency and access to information in public institutions. However, these initiatives have not proven very
effective in terms of promoting transparency and access to information. It is important to carry out scientific research into
the causes and mechanisms of prevailing culture of secrecy at various tiers of governance in Pakistan and, on the basis of it,
make sound and realistic policy recommendations for reform. On the one hand, such a policy research would benefit the
government, or the elements in governance. On the other hand, it would serve as a good basis for public advocacy as well as
lobbying by the nongovernmental organization. The proposed research must focus on the federal level of governance in
Pakistan, including the executive, judicial and legislative branches.

Public Accountability Government must tackle the problem of corruption in Pakistan on a war footing. The stat should
identify a few big tax evaders, corrupt officers, and give them exemplary punishment. People think that corrupt individual,
including the corrupt military top brass and judiciary, should be hauled up in the accountability net. There should be no
exceptions whatsoever. The universal norm of justice and fair play demands it. In addition, Islam is adamant that all be
treated equally under the law and that every criminal, regardless of his position in society, be punished. The Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) declared that he would even punish his own daughter if she were to commit a crime. The
noble examples of justice set by Khulafa-iRahidun are also a part of the Muslim legacy. Under Islamic tradition, absolutely
no one can be spared of a punishment for a committed crime.

Strong Economy The latest IMF estimates place GDP growth at 207%for 2009-10 as compared to 2008/9 when the GDP
grew by 4.2%. While the Asian development bank (ADB) forecasted GDP growth at 3% this year. Until the economic crises
of 2008, Pakistan had enjoyed a relatively robust performance. Warning signs emerged in 2007 and early 2008, as inflation
began to rise and external imbalances arose. Conditions deteriorated in mid - 2008 with the sharp increase in international
food and fuel prices and worsening of the domestic security situation. The fiscal deficit widened, due in large part to rising
energy subsidies, financed by credit from the central bank. As a result, the rupee depreciated and foreign currency reserves
fell sharply. Inflation reached 25 percent in mind-2008, harm to vulnerable social groups. As the population is increasing,
one cannot govern Pakistan sitting in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar or Quetta. One has to devolve powers,
decentralize and delegate authority, provide resources to the local/district governments so that they can take decisions at
their own. Those decisions would be very much in accordance with the requirements and the needs of those communities.
Sitting in Islamabad one cannot visualize what need in Chagi or Loralai, but the people in Loralai and Chagi know exactly
whether they need water, fertilizers or fruit processing industry. Let us devolve powers to the people ate the grassroots level
and there would b much better allocation and utilization of resources. There must, however, be accountability of the local
governments by provincial governments and of provincial governments by the federal government but not interference of
usurpation of powers. If we do that, then a lot more can happen with same amount of resources which are being wasted
today, and the economy growth rate can be raise considerably.

Need to strengthen the Political party system The regime needs to revamps the political party system. We badly need strong
political parties that can deliver what they promise. It has been argued that political parties are weak simply because they are
never given a chance to take roots in Pakistani political soil. Pakistan has been ruled by the military for nearly half of its
history. The military has cast a long shadow on the political party system in Pakistan. Dysfunctional Public Services The
requirements of the contemporary era dictated the need for establishing and effective and efficient public administration. It
is important that the credibility of the service b restored. The background of many evils presents in the system lies in
improper incentives and controls. There is a need to develop the package proposals to improve the functioning of the public
sector. In the quest for excellence in the public service, the regime requires that a culture of innovation, creativity, and
efficiency be inculcated in all state agencies. These organizations are required to review and update procedures and
regulations that are obsolete and implement effective work systems to ensure that their outputs satisfy customers. The public
service must fully recognize the role played by a culture of excellence, creativity and innovation in the quality
improvements of service and towards increasing public satisfaction. At the same time, all ministries, departments and
statutory bodies, in their efforts to encourage their staff to strive towards excellence, should be continuously innovative and
creative, and establish their own individual systems of recognition. Only in this way can values of excellence be successfully
institutionalize in the culture of the public service.

Sound Basis of Education System There is need to revamp education system. Key features to include macro level reforms
in planning, procedures, resources mobilization and utilization, sector-wise approaches for reinforcement of linkages
between sub-sectors (primary/elementary /non formal, literacy, secondary/technical, and higher education and quality
assurance structures) a holistic basis for planning human resource development institutional reforms at all levels,
maximizing equal opportunities and reducing the gender gap literacy through education for all, delivery of quality education
and building a public private partnership to bring the educational system at par with international standards. We have been
spending very less on education in past, as compared to other developing countries of our region. The need is to think
expenditure on education as an investment rather as a burden. Moreover syllabus should be ideological and able to groom an
individual as a better citizen of the state.

Police Reforms Though police reforms are already in process, following among others area requiring change and/or re-
vamping must be included. There areas of jurisdiction of police stations may be reallocated/redistributed to make it more
practicable for exercise of authority and maintenance of law and order. The pays and allowances of the employees should be
substantially increased to pay handsome salaries to improve the quality of life, which they are at the moment managing
though all ill methods, prevailing in the department. The procedure of registering the FIR should be made simpler and more
transparent

Conclusion

It is now crystal clear that Pakistan which is a paradox of fast economic growth with vulnerable social indicators, poverty
and disparities can be demonstrated by having a glance at the government institutes of Pakistan. The entire government
framework through which social and economic procedures are intermediated has become putrefied and has blocked the
transmission of benefits to a large segment of its population. Beginning with moderately sound institutes of executives,
legislatives and judiciary, there have been a gradual corrosion in these institutes capacity that are accountable to deliver
goods and services to its public equitably. The seepages, wastage and corruption encouraged by the benefaction and
privileges being exercised by the elite classes have established a wide lodge in the way of distributing wealth and have
exerted different influences of growth on distinct groups (classes), regions and other various societal segments. Since most
of the institutes are under controlled of the elite classes who take advantage of their authorities and privileged statuses in
accumulating the benefits resulted from growth and the primary public services are limited by the access, the poor
community is comparatively at a greater disadvantage as they do not acquire such access. The outcome is thus obviously
resulted in the shape of poverty, disparities and vulnerable social indicators in spite of its swift economic growth. A
strengthened reform agenda is required to develop in order to reestablish and empowered these government institutes to
change the existent distributional framework.

Recommendations
 1. Responsibility and accountability throughout the board must be guaranteed in each institute involving civil services,
bureaucratic civil institutes, judiciary as well as politics and media.

2. Public institutes must be strengthened by hiring professional and competent individuals and devising predefined
rules and regulations and preventing any sort of political interference on their work.

3. There is a significant requirement of taking into consideration an internal security circumstances. The government
has already launched reforms in security services via newly established police ordinance. The accomplishment of recent
reforms is greatly dependent on the full execution of that new ordinance.

4. In the judicial framework, there is also a requirement of introducing reforms in order to address the sufficiency of
staff, the assurance required to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the accessibility and readiness of the
solutions for the public involving the need for an effective and well established subordinate judiciary.

5. Pakistani government must focus on intensification and amalgamation of the delegation process, must strengthen
oversight and regulatory procedures at its national and sub-national levels and enhance accessibility to judiciary and other
human rights.

6. Accountable institutes (such as Auditor Generals Office) should be intensified as they are considered to be the
constitutional ombudsman of the government revenues and expenditures.

7. The salary framework of the government employees should also be enhanced so that the crises of corruption can be
controlled. Furthermore, the corruption initiates in the individuals minds and its a mental attitude which requires to be
fixed as regulations alone cannot cope with this issue.

8. The government must also follow and execute civil reforms in all the aspects.

9. The foundation of the educational policies must be strengthened and initiated towards accomplishing targeted
objectives. Syllabus must be designed and implemented in order to establish great ethical fiber and the development of
critical thinking in the mass population.

10. Critical problems are making hindrances in the way of effective function of present local bodies which must also be
taken into consideration immediately by making them robust and unambiguous of any sort of political and/or bureaucratic in
Development economists and development experts agree that for economic progress to become sustainable ,

countries must go beyond the efficient use of factors of production, such as labour and capital. A few decades ago,

they began to include technological progress and human development in their growth equations. Later still, they

identified institutional development as an important contributor to economic development. Now there is

considerable focus on an input broadly defined as governance. In fact, good governance and quality of governance

came to be discussed as the reason why economic growth in Pakistan had stalled for the last six or so years. All

political parties mentioned governance as a priority area in the manifestoes they issued before the elections of May

2013.

This is not surprising since there was consensus in the country that the Pakistan Peoples Party government that

was in office for five years had failed on this score. There was also agreement that the quality of governance had to

improve before Pakistan could hope to leave behind the trajectory of slow growth it has been on in recent years and

climb on to a higher plane. Even though there is general consensus on these issues on the importance of good

governance and Pakistans failure to provide it the term is poorly understood. We need to answer the following

three questions: what is good governance? How is Pakistan faring in this area compared with other emerging

economies? What should policymakers do to improve it?

One way of understanding the governance challenges countries such as Pakistan face is through their impact on

effectiveness, efficiency, continuity and accountability. These criteria should be applied to the delivery of all

services expected of the government by the citizenry. I will take each of these by turn. Effectiveness refers to

performance: the ability of the state to deliver services that meet the needs of the people. For instance, if t he state

cannot provide security as is the case in most areas of Pakistan at this time, it is not being effective.

For efficiency, the work done by the World Bank has some interesting insights. In Pakistan: The Transformative Path,

a collection of essays by some of the economists familiar with the Pakistani scene, the World Bank has a good

explanation of what is implied by the governments efficiency. This refers to the manner in which the state
functions, specifically to its ability to mobilise revenue and its ability to use that money in a way that minimises

waste and corruption and maximises results. Pakistan has performed poorly on all these counts. It has one of

the worlds lowest tax-to-GDP ratio; the government does not have enough resources of its own even to pay for its

current expenditure let alone for financing development; in planning development, the projects government

finances are often brought on the books to hire vehicles for project managers and pay them additio nal allowances;

and the level of corruption has increased over the years. In other words, the governments development

programme does not maximise citizens welfare.

Lack of continuity has been a problem. There are several reasons for this. Among them, the lack of understanding

of the role the state should play in promoting economic development and managing the economy. The pendulum

has swung widely in the past between allowing the private sector a great deal of space to having a highly intrusive

state. The former was the case during the years when Muhammad Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf governed;

later Zulfikar Ali Bhutto brought much of large-scale industry and finance under the control of the state. The

swings of the pendulum meant that consistent signals were not sent out to potential investors to make long-term

commitment of their capital. Accountability, the fourth leg of the good governance stool, has been an issue in

Pakistan for decades. Of the several attempts made in the past to create an institutional infrastructure, none was

able to resist politicization. When the institutions created for the purpose were given a great deal of power and

authority, the governments that were in place found it difficult to resist the temptation not to use them to ach ieve

political ends. Fragmentation of the accountability system is also a problem. While much of the public attention is

focused on the National Accountability Bureau, there are several other institutions that make up the system. Other

public institutions are the Public Accounts Committee, the Judicial Commission, the Election Commission of

Pakistan, Ombudsman institutions, the Federal Investigation Agency and various provincial agencies. For

economic governance, there is another set of institutions: the State Bank of Pakistan, the Competition Commission

of Pakistan and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. The main problem with these institutions is

not only government interference but also absence of financial autonomy. Lack of transparency i s another issue in

the area of accountability. Given this definition of governance dividing its functions into effectiveness,

efficiency, continuity and accountability what are the public policy choices available to a government interested

in improving it? The agenda is vast and must cover a number of fronts. Three areas of action stand out. The first of

these is to bring government closer to the people. This will mean strengthening not only provincial governments

but also government at the local level. Second, information about what the government does should be readily

available. Third, there is urgent need to improve the human and financial capacity of the more critical parts of the

large institutional structure that already exists.