11

The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization

Vladimra Dvokov


Vladimra Dvokov
University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic
E-mail: vladimira.dvorakova@vse.cz


Abstract

Since 1995 the term governance has expanded from the language of international
organizations, regional integration unions and policy/decision-makers to journalists, NGOs
and scientists. During this period the term became more specified and value oriented and the
concept of good governance has been coined. There are two basic goals of this paper. First, to
discuss the implementation of the term on different scales of societal organization
local/national, regional/global. Second, to make emphasis on the ambiguity of the impacts of
this concept. This ambiguity springs from the dichotomy between good governance and
democracy and also from the "imposition" of good governance from the regional/global
environment to the nation states. The author argues that when applied on democratic regimes
it can deepen democracy but in the case of hybrid or authoritarian regimes the principles of
good governance can strengthen the legitimacy of the regime and can enable the long-term
survival of the regime in a liberalized form without pressure for further democratization. On
the other hand, the implementation of good governance, although necessarily limited,
smoothes the transition and consolidation of democracy if the process starts. The author also
warns that the imposition of the principles of good governance can in some cases prevent
positive internal development and create a value vacuum in which the society will become
fragmented.

Key words: governance, globalization, democracy

Introduction
The term governance, that became the key word of many politicians and political
scientists, has gained greater currency (and misuse) since 1995 when the OECD published its
report Governance in Transition about public administration reforms. The European Union
used this term in 2001 when publishing the White Book written by N. Kinnock under the title
Governance in the European Union (the originally proposed title was Reforming the
Commission) (Tarschys 2010).
The birth of the term was very much associated with political practice and the necessity to
find criteria for legitimizing politics that could replace the term democracy (polyarchy),either
because the particular states that were objects of some international support could not be
characterized as democratic or because of democratic deficit in regional processes of
integration (i.e. EU). In fact, the idea brought nothing new, as it was largely based on the
Weberian understanding of legal-rational legitimacy of the modern states.
The meaning of the term has undergone significant changes and also has been differently
applied to diverse cultural environments and to diverse scales of societal organization. The
main stream of further scientific development went through a more detailed specification and
value orientation. Thus the concept of good governance has emerged, with an emphasis
Dvokov, Vladimra. The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization.
In The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century, 11-16. Ostrava: University of Ostrava, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-7368-963-6 http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ2011/11-16_Dvorakova.pdf.
12
placed on procedures. Put simply, good governance means that things are properly done
(about the concept see Vymtal 2007).
There are two main goals of this paper. First, to analyze how the concept of good
governance is or can be used on particular scales of societal organization (local/national,
regional/global). And second, to show the ambiguity of this term in the sense of possible
dichotomy between democracy and good governance and the ambiguity of impacts when
imposing the concept of good governance on member/client states from the regional/global
level.

Good governance and its implementation
For the purposes of this paper, it is not necessary to reproduce the discussion about the
term, we can take as granted that to a certain extent there is a consensus among the scholars
on eight basic principles of good governance (Vymtal 2008: 9-10):
transparency
participation
rule of law
accountability,
responsiveness
consensus oriented
equity and inclusion
effectiveness and efficiency
The hierarchy of these principles can be debated; however, we can agree that the most
important principles are the rule of law, accountability, and transparency. The hierarchy can
change according to the type of the regime, political culture, etc.

Local/national level
Discussing the implementation of the principles of good governance on the national or
local level (state and the decentralized units of the state) we have to take into consideration
the character of the regime. It is especially necessary to differentiate between democratic and
non-democratic states.
In case of democratic governments (polyarchies), application of the principles of good
governance can enhance the quality of the decision-making process and standards of state
administration on both local and national level. By implementing these principles the space
for corruption, clientelism, and nepotism is narrowed, thus, the democratic legitimacy and
trust are strengthened. These principles can also lower the transactional costs of the activities
of state administration ("cheap state").
1
The implementation of these principles is important
particularly in new democracies, where it enables an easier adaptation to democratic
principles of conflict resolution that are based on procedures. In old democracies, mainly the
principles of participation, inclusion, effectiveness, and efficiency are important for the
deepening of democracy.
In case of authoritarian or hybrid regimes, the application of the principles of good
governance can also narrow the space for corruption, clientelism, and nepotism and lower the
transactional costs of the activities of state administration. Nevertheless, the levels to which
the principles of participation, inclusion, and consensus oriented politics can be applied are
logically limited by the fact of limited pluralism in these regimes. The application of the

1
Discussing the problems of some of the EU states dealing with the current financial crisis and deficits of
national budgets very often the "misuse" of social welfare benefits is emphasized; in fact, many problems arise
from bad governance. Corruption, clientelism, and nepotism bring very high transactional costs, the state is
expensive and both effectiveness and efficiency are very low.
Dvokov, Vladimra. The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization.
In The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century, 11-16. Ostrava: University of Ostrava, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-7368-963-6 http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ2011/11-16_Dvorakova.pdf.
13
principle of accountability can also be problematic, mainly in regards to the highest rank
politicians, but it can be sometimes applied to middle-rank politicians and officials.
2


Regional/global level
Good governance is a very useful concept in the processes of regional integration because
it can form rational legal legitimacy to substitute limited democratic principles and/or fill the
democratic deficit. Of course, it depends on the level and type of integration. The European
Union can be a good example of such an approach. The reason why it is easier to implement
"good governance" than "democracy" is rooted in the form of this international regional
organisation. Without the framework of the state it is difficult to separate the public and
political spheres and so democracy cannot be fully implemented.
Good governance can also be very useful at the global level to legitimize some of the
international organisations. Organisations with their own policy such as the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OECD, and the UNO can strongly influence the policies
and politics of particular states both democratic and non-democratic. The implementation of
the principles of good governance inside these organizations forms part of their legitimacy.
However, even more important than the internal principles of good governance in these
regional/global organisations is the fact that there can be top-down effects some standards
of good governance are often asked from member/client states. Membership or financial aid
can be conditioned by the implementation of the basic principles. And this top-down effect
raises serious questions.

Ambigous impacts of good governance

Good governance vs.democracy?
A very important question is the relation between good governance and democracy. Are
these concepts compatible or incompatible, are they complementary and/ or are they
contradictory? It is legitimate to ask these questions but it is impossible to answer them in this
paper. Having them in our minds we can simplify our position by working with this
hypothesis: Good governance does not need democracy it is a technocratic answer to the
problems of the organisation of society.
Is there anything the two concepts have in common? Sure, they overlap at some points.
Both democracy and good governance are based on the acceptance of procedures; that "things
are properly done "in good governance means, that rules and principles are given and the
results are derived from them. This is also the basic feature of democracy, which has "certain
rules and uncertain the results".
Nevertheless, good governance does not include other features that democracy/polyarchy
is based on. None of the famous seven features of polyarchy described by Robert Dahl are
present in the concept of good governance.
3
There are no doubts that the implementation of
good governance both in new and old democracies has mostly positive effects, and that good
governance is, in fact, complementary to democracy. But in non-democratic regimes the
situation is different, and the impact of good governance can be really ambiguous. So, what
are the advantages and disadvantages if authoritarian or hybrid regimes start to implement the
principles of good governance?

2
Some level of implementation of such principles can be seen for example in China. On the other hand, in
these regimes the processes that can look like the results of accountability (the investigation of corruption, the
criticism published in the media) can be, in fact, a part of the power conflict between the elites.
3
These features include elected officials, inclusive suffrage, right to run for office, free,
fair and competitive elections, freedom of expression, associational autonomy, and access to
alternative information (Dahl 1989).
Dvokov, Vladimra. The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization.
In The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century, 11-16. Ostrava: University of Ostrava, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-7368-963-6 http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ2011/11-16_Dvorakova.pdf.
14
The main advantages are:
A better access to international funding, investments, ranking. This can start structural
changes, modernization, inclusion of new social groups into the system, etc.
The development of a professional non-politicized state apparatus that can be used even
after a regime change.
A positive change in political culture (rule of law, transparency), diminishing the
probability of using violence for conflict resolution, smoother transition.

The main disadvantages are:
The broadening of the social base and the strengthening of legitimacy can prevent
democratization of the country in the long-run perspective and the regime can be
institutionalized in some form of liberalized authoritarianism.
The basic principles of good governance can be accepted only in a formal way, without
informal acceptance. This challenge leads us to the other important question and hypothesis
that is connected with the role the regional/global actors can play in the processes of the
implementation of good governance.

Good governance by implementation (imposition)?
As the starting point for our deliberation we can take this hypothesis: Good governance
implementation by regional and global organisations makes globalisation easier to work, but
at the same time it can limit the internal development of the society, weaken or even destroy
internal values on which the society is based, and, as a consequence, fragment the society.
The implementation of good governance at the regional/global level creates more
transparent and predictable processes in less developed countries, thus forming a more stable
environment for investments, increasing the chance of receiving international aid for projects
and using them effectively. At the regional level the implementation of principles of good
governance is often part of accession agreements and strictly defined criteria play an
important role in forming the space for shared rules and values that are the basis for
integration into the regional/global market.
Nevertheless, the effects can be sometimes totally different than was originally expected.
In cases when the principles were only formally accepted and not internalized the effect can
be limited or even opposite. Just now we can witness these problems in the European Union
in which Greece is the most visible case. But we do not need to move so far, the problems
with corruption and clientelism that Czech Republic is facing are very much connected with
only a formal acceptance of some principles that in fact do not work at all. The most visible
case is that of the civil service law that was passed in the Czech Republic in 2002, because it
was a condition for joining the European Union. The law is still not in force. The cases of
Greece or the Czech Republic reveal the difference between the formal and the informal
acceptance of the principles, but they do not go against the implementation of good
governance; we can even argue that these cases are the results of "bad" governance and that
perhaps more pressure and control from "above" can have a positive impact.
Many critics argue that as part of good governance different Eurocentric cultural patterns
are imposed on non-European countries which enable their economic inclusion into the world
market but which also destroy the original values and cultural patterns without a real
identification with the new ones. Foreign aid mostly reflects the donor countrys domestic (or
"global") liberal agenda, the content of which can be very far and sometimes hostile to the
traditional values of the society. NGOs, and especially international NGOs, play a very
important role in the implementation of some principles of good governance. Which is more,
the activities of local (grassroots) organisations are often influenced by financial sources from
abroad. The result is some form of hypocrisy on the part of the elites that use the opportunity
Dvokov, Vladimra. The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization.
In The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century, 11-16. Ostrava: University of Ostrava, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-7368-963-6 http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ2011/11-16_Dvorakova.pdf.
15
to get support from the outside not by a real implementation of the good principles but by
learning how to use the language of good governance to legitimize their demands (even
political) for support.
We can use here an example that is near to our scholarly environment. Chris Hann
described the case of post-communist Russia which is very similar to the situation in other
post-communist countries and in many countries of the Third World: "A decade after the
collapse of socialism, I found that no academics in Moscow took the notion of civil society
seriously. It was simply a magical phrase that it was always desirable to include in any foreign
grant applications, just as a phrase about Russia's cultural or spiritual renaissance was
obligatory for grant applications within the country" (Hann in Glasius, Lewin and
Seckinelgin 2004: 44).
In fact, the principles are implemented but no one expects them to work. The other
important problem is that foreign aid to local/national organisations as well as many local
branches of INGOs mostly understand the public in particular countries as an "object" that is
to be "liberated" and/or "educated", not as the subject of the changes, the "driving force"
reflecting the concrete problems of particular societies. Sometimes foreign aid can even
hinder the internal development of grassroots organisations. The activities organized mostly
from above can deepen the gap between the society and politics because the society cannot
use the traditional channels of communication with politicians through civil society
organizations or social movements.

Conclusion
The concept of good governance is an instrument that can deepen democracy in
democratic regimes and can start modernization processes in less developed and non-
democratic countries. At the same time, it can stabilize and legitimize some authoritarian or
hybrid regimes and stabilize them in the long-run perspective.
Good governance is an instrument that helps global capitalism to expand more easily
because of the spread of some basic standards, principles and sometimes even values all over
the world. On the other hand, the imposition of the concept, mainly in the case when the basic
principles are not informally accepted, can hinder the internal development of the society. The
imposition of good governance can become part of the power conflict and can destroy the
value system of particular organisations. This can eve lead to the fragmentation of the society.
We can conclude that good governance is a good servant but a bad master.

Acknowledgement
This paper was prepared as a part of the project of the Faculty of International Relations,
University of Economics, Prague, Governance in Context of Globalised Economy and
Society MSM 6138439909.

References

Dahl, R. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. 1994. A democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness versus Citizen Participation.
Political Science Quaterly 109(1): 23-34.

Dvokov, V. a kol. 2010. Evropeizace veejn sfry. Praha: C.H. Beck.

Dvokov, Vladimra. The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization.
In The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century, 11-16. Ostrava: University of Ostrava, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-7368-963-6 http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ2011/11-16_Dvorakova.pdf.
16
Hann, Ch. 2004. In the Church of Civil Society. In: Glasius, M., Lewin, D. and
Seckinelgin, H., eds. Exploring Civil Society. Political and Cultural Contexts. New York:
Routledge.

Kaldor, M. 2003. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Tarchys, D. 2010. Government, Governance, Governmentality: Political Scientists in
Search of Discipline. Participation, 34(1) May.

Vymtal, P. 2007. Defining the concept. Working Papers No. 1. Praha: Vysok kola
ekonomick v Praze, Fakulta mezinrodnch vztah.

Vymtal, P. 2008. What is the Good Governance About? The Roots and the Key Elements
of the Concept. Working Papers, No. 11. Praha: Vysok kola ekonomick v Praze, Fakulta
mezinrodnch vztah.


Dvokov, Vladimra. The Metamorphosis of Governance in the Era of Globalization.
In The Scale of Globalization. Think Globally, Act Locally, Change Individually in the 21st Century, 11-16. Ostrava: University of Ostrava, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-7368-963-6 http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ2011/11-16_Dvorakova.pdf.