Democracy, “Good Governance” and (Sustainable)
Development
The Challenge of Matching Governing Form to Developmental Function
William M. Lafferty
Programme for Research and Documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus)
Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM), University of Oslo
and
Centre for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy (CSTM)
University of Twente
Lecture SUM 4000, Spring semester, 8 February 2007
1
Program for Research and Documentation for a
Sustainable Society
Program for forskning og utredning
for et bærekraftig samfunn
One of four research areas:
Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM)
University of Oslo
Funded by the Research Council of Norway (RCN)
Division for Strategic Priorities,
Område
for miljø og
Department
forutvikling
Environmental Issues, Energy and
Norges
forskningsråd
Sustainable
Development
2
The ProSus mandate:
 Documentation and evaluation of Norway’s follow-up of the Rio
accords and the guidelines from the UN Commission on Sustainable
development. Increasing emphasis on the European, Nordic and
Norwegian strategies and action plans for sustainable development.
 Strategic research on the barriers and potential facilitators for a
more rational and effective realization of strategies and action plans for
sustainable development.
 Information and dissemination of the project’s evaluations and
research results, and the promotion of public debate on alternative
strategies, scenarios and ”normative futures”.
www.sum.uio.no\prosus
3
What is “Sustainable Development”?
The Brundtland definition – complete!
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
It contains within it two key concepts:
- the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which
overriding priority should be given; and
- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”
Three crucial additional principles:
- “Differentiated responsibility” – Between “highly developed” and “less developed” member
states – the issue of “over development” vs. “under development”
- “Environmental policy integration” – Integrating competing economic, social, and
environmental concerns – the crucial issue of “equal balance” vs “principled priority”
- “Precautionary principle” – Protecting the sustainability of natural life-support systems in
the face of uncertainty as to probable negative impacts from any given economic or socialwelfare initiative
4
The political mandate for sustainable development:
A normative programme for change with high moral-political
legitimacy (in Europe)

UN: Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, Climate Convention, Biodiversity Convention,
Declaration on “Implementation of Agenda 21” from Rio +5 (New York, 1997),
“Millennium Goals” from WSSD (Johannesburg, 2002), the “Global Compact”,
etc, etc;

EU: Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice; the 5th EAP – “Towards
Sustainability”; the Gothenburg “Strategy for Sustainable Development”; the
“Cardiff Process”; numerous directives and lesser agreements (including several
directives and action plans on “Renewable Energy Systems (RES)).

Nordic Council: Strategy for “A Sustainable Nordic Region”, with indicators and
targets for SD – evaluated and revised in 2005

Norway: Numerous parliamentary decisions, governmental White Papers,
“National Strategy for Sustainable Development” and the “National Agenda 21:
Action Plan for Sustainable Development” (currently being “updated”)
→ An integrated multi-level strategic programme for promoting SD
5
Democracy: “An idea in history”
I. The basic elements
Core definition: (Cohen: Democracy)
“A system of community government,
in which the members of the community,
participate, directly or indirectly,
in the making of decisions
which affect them all”
Instruments:
- Elections
- Representation
- Majority Rule
- Minority rights
- Legal enactment
- Judicial Review
- Referenda
Presuppositions:
- Community
- Rationality
Conditions:
- History
- Religion / values
- Technology / culture
- Economy / level of need satisfaction
- Education
- Constitutions ("power maps")
Outputs:
- Decisions
- Laws / regulations
- Policies
- Allocations
6
Democracy: “An idea in history”
II. “Democratization” – “form follows function”
Democracy for “sustainable development”
History
Democracy for “development”
Economic democracy
Industrial democracy
National democracy
Local democracy
Scope and function
7
Democratization, “good governance” and development –
Perspectives from Potter (Ch. 17, Allen & Thomas)
The “Washington consensus”:
“Essentially, the view was that a combination of liberal market capitalism in an
international context and liberal democracy and ‘good governance’ domestically
were mutually reinforcing (a ‘virtuous cycle’) and provided core elements of a
comprehensive strategy for development success equally valid for all types of
society”. (p. 375)
The opposing view:
“... if eliminating the continuing offence of poverty and misery is the real target,
then unlimited liberal democracy and unrestrained economic liberty may be the
last thing the developing world needs as it whirls towards the 21st century”
(Leftwich, 1993) (p. 376)
The key challenge:
“The contradiction is that ‘the rules and hence practices of stable democratic
politics will tend to restrict policy to incremental and accommodationist (hence
conservative) options’; whereas ‘developmental requirements (whether liberal or
radical) will be likely to pull policy in the direction of quite sharp change affecting
the economic and social structure of the society and hence important interests
within it.’” (p. 377)
8
“Good Governance” Procedural vs substantive views
The World Bank:
“Governance”: “the means in which power is exercised in the management of
a country’s economic and social resources for development” (p. 379)
“Good governance”: “synonymous with sound management in four areas”:
1. Public sector management
2. Accountability
3. The legal framework for development
4. Information and transparency
Note:
The World Bank criteria are highly procedural – no specific mention of
substantive developmental goals (“free markets”, “liberalization”, etc.), nor of
“competitive democracy”
Yet:
Demands for “good governance” have, in practice, almost exclusively been
connected to the liberalization/de-regulation of national developing economies
(“conditionality”) and competitive party politics
Hvorfor det???
9
A triad of models of democratic form, good
governance, and developmental goals”
The model of development:
Guiding principles, programmes,
policy instruments
The model of
democratic
decision-making:
To determine and
legitimate the
goals
The model of good
governance (public
management): To
effectively realize the
goals
10
The model for democratic decision-making
can be in conflict with
The model for development
Values and principles of liberal-pluralist
democracy (“polyarchy”) :
Goals and principles of sustainable
development:
Community within historical-geographical
domains
Community within ecological domains
Individual citizenship and direct
representation of interests
“Categorical citizenship” and “proxy
representation” of the interests of future
generations and (for some) other species
Core values of “personal preference” and
“common sense”
A strong need for science and expertise
Pluralistic representation, partisan
competition and majority governance
A need for holistic, integrated decisions
Debate, dialogue, compromise, reflection
and learning
Prompt, decisive and effective action
11
The Norwegian model for democratic decision-making
is in conflict with Norway’s commitments
to limit greenhouse-gas emissions
Noblesse oblige:
”Norway is one of the countries in the world that has benefited most from fossil fuels. This
gives us a special responsibility in the politics of climate change, especially with respect to
the poor countries”
Borge Brende, Minister of the Environment, 2001-2005
Yet Norway has consistently failed to act effectively (“good governance”) in relation to
both “external” and “internal” evaluation criteria (Hovden and Lindseth, compendium)
 Definitely not on target vis à vis Kyoto Protocol
 Openly abandoned own target from 1989
WHY?
WHY?
 Ongoing failure to stipulate how much of GHG reduction will be taken within Norway,
and how much will be purchased from other (mostly LDC) countries
WHY?
 Inability to seriously limit – or even stabilize – economic and social-welfare demands on
a petroleum-driven economy
WHY?
 Moving away from a nearly 100% renewable-based power system (hydro-electric)
towards gas-fuelled generation
WHY?
12
Conclusions for further discussion:
•
The notion of “democratization” must be adapted to the function/purpose of
the activity that is to be democratized
•
The Western model of “liberal pluralism” (“competitive democracy”,
“polyarchy”) is strongly conditioned by the parallel emergence and
consolidation of free-market capitalism
•
There are good reasons to separate the decision-making and management
functions of governing
•
Standards of “good governance” are first and foremost standards of effective
public management.
•
Some aspects of “development” are more democratically sanctioned
(globally) than others: e.g. human, civil and social rights (satisfying
“essential needs”) and long-term environmental sustainability
•
“Highly Developed Counties” have a moral obligation to do more to reduce
burdens on natural life-support systems and resources than do “Less
Developed Countries” – (Norway: noblesse oblige)
•
LDCs must nonetheless be held responsible for “good governance for
sustainable development”
13
Good luck – and Welcome to the
ProSus Reading Room
http://www.sum.uio/prosus
14