Administração Pública - SciELO

Robert H. WilsonPhilips International Visiting Professor at the EAESP/FGV, Mike Hogg Professor of Urban Policy at LBJSchool of Public Affairs and Director of the UrbanIssues Program at the University of Texas at Austin.E-mail: [email protected]

UNDERSTANDING

LOCAL GOVERNANCE:

an international perspective

RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas • Abr./Jun. 2000São Paulo, v. 40 • n. 2 • p. 51-63

Administração Pública

51

RESUMOGrandes mudanças e inovações estão ocorrendo nas práticas governamentais no mundo todo. Governança local, particular-mente, tem sido uma preocupação em muitos países. Processos como redemocratização e descentralização e imposiçõesdas agências internacionais têm se concentrado no desenvolvimento de boas práticas de governança. Melhoria em governançalocal permanece uma alta prioridade na maior parte dos países, mas, a menos que a relação entre cidadãos e governo sejamais desenvolvida completamente, as ações do governo local não levarão, necessariamente, à melhoria nas condições devida das pessoas. Este artigo explora o conceito de governança e propõe um instrumento analítico para o estudo de governançalocal em um contexto internacional.Ele termina apresentando recomendações sobre as estratégias para melhorar os siste-mas de governança e o desempenho governamental.

ABSTRACTEnormous change and innovation in governmental practices are occurring throughout the world. Local governance, in particu-lar, has become a concern in many countries. Processes such as redemocratization and decentralization and imperatives ofinternational lending agencies have focused attention on developing good governance practices. Improvement in localgovernment remains a high priority in most countries, but unless the relationship between citizens and government is morefully developed the actions of local government will not necessarily lead to improvement in the conditions of people’s lives. Thispaper will explore the concept of governance and propose an analytical framework for the study of local governance in aninternational context. The article concludes with recommendations on strategies to improve governance systems and governmentperformance.

PALAVRAS-CHAVEDesempenho governamental, sociedade civil, decentralização, governança local, redemocratização.

KEY WORDSGovernment performance, civil society, decentralization, local governance, redemocratization.

52 RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000


©2000, RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas / EAESP / FGV, São Paulo, Brasil.

UNDERSTANDING LOCALGOVERNANCE: AN INTERNATIONALPERSPECTIVE

Enormous change and innovation ingovernmental practices are occurringthroughout the world. Local governance, inparticular, has become a concern in manycountries. Processes such as redemocratizationand decentralization and imperatives ofinternational lending agencies have focusedattention on developing good governancepractices. The interest in governance represents,in part, a response to the recognition thatimprovement in the capacity of government isnot, by i tself , sufficient to insure betteroutcomes from government actions.Improvement in local government remains ahigh priority in most countries, but unless therelationship between citizens and governmentis more fully developed the actions of localgovernment will not necessari ly lead toimprovement in the conditions of people’s lives.This paper will explore the concept ofgovernance and propose an analyticalframework for the study of local governance inan international context.

Governance has come to be used as anormative proposition, as will be discussedbelow. The characteristics associated with goodgovernance include free and open elections, therule of law with the protection of human rights,ci t izen part icipation, transparency andaccountability in government, among others.For those interested in government practice,these normative values and goals are helpful.In this paper, however, we will use the conceptof governance to structure a diagnosticframework for identifying and understandingthe causes of poor governance in particularcontexts.

The framework and discussion focus onissues of governance at the local level. Thislevel of analysis is chosen for two principalreasons. A process of poli t ical andadministrative decentralization is underway inmany countries of the world and this processinvariably places new responsibilities on localgovernment. In addition, the direct interactionamong citizens and government is most visibleat the local level.

This paper will first explore the emergenceof governance as a prominent question. A

definit ion and analytical framework forevaluating governance will be presented. Thetwo principal elements of the framework, civilsociety and government capacity, will bediscussed in detail. The paper then considersthe means by which citizens influence localgovernment. A discussion of the challenges toimproving local governance concludes thepaper.

Why governance?Governance has gained great currency during

the last decade. The concept emerged in aspecific historical context but is now utilized fora multitude of purposes. The evolution in theapproach to development among the majorinternational organizations set the context inwhich governance would become prominent. Acommonly accepted focus on institutionaldevelopment gave way to managementdevelopment in the 1980s. This view continuedto rely on a largely state-led strategy ofdevelopment, but the concern with themanagement of governmental organizationsrepresented an important change in view.Discussions of broader issues of managementmeant that the political and social context of stateled development received attention. In additionthe confluence of decentralization, as oneelement of structural adjustment policies, and ofdemands for redemocratization in many countriesforced a shift in focus from government itself tothe means by which government manages andutilizes resources.

A clear articulation of this significant shiftcan be found in the World Bank’s analysis ofthe lack of progress in Africa (World Bank,1989, 1994). Various weaknesses ingovernmental institutions, including corruption,lack of accountability, and denial of humanrights, created conditions which prevented orimpeded development. Improvement ingovernance, therefore, was viewed as anenabling condition for successful development.The World Bank offered a definit ion ofgovernance as the exercise of political powerin the management of a country’s affairs. In alater publication, the emphasis on the termgovernance continued to be placed on themanagement of a country’s economic and socialresources for purposes of development (WorldBank, 1992, p. 3). The Bank’s mandate preventsinvolvement in country poli t ics. But the

Understanding local governance: an international perspective

RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000 53

political dimension of governance could beaddressed through a focus on the process bywhich authority is exercised and on capacity ofinstitutions.

The World Bank’s definit ion drewsubstantial criticism (Leftwich, 1993; Hyden,1992). Some argued that it was no more thanan attempt to impose a Western l iberaldemocratic model on the developing countries.Others argued that it poorly disguised a neo-liberal view of the public sector that essentiallyargues for leaner and more efficient governmentand one consistent with the needs for capitalistdevelopment.

In spite of the World Bank’s managementorientation, by placing a high priority ongovernance issues, the Bank invited attentionon the nongovernmental dimensions of effectivegovernmental action. The concept shiftedattention from an exclusive focus on state-leaddevelopment and provided a clear justificationto examine democratic practices, needs ofexcluded populations, and other neglectedissues. These differing conceptions ofgovernance generated substantial debate and aconsensus on a definition has yet to emerge.

In addition to competing conceptions ofgovernance, the formation of a consensus facesthe challenge that the term does not fare wellin translation. No suitable translation ofgovernance exists in Spanish and Portuguese(Ziccardi, 1995). The closest approximation,“governability,” is concerned with the exerciseof public power in governmental action butincorporates various conditions necessary forefficient action. These conditions include thelegitimacy of government and society’s supportof it. In democratic regimes, legitimacy isfundamentally dependent on fair, free, andcontested elections but elections, however, arenot sufficient for creating legit imacy ofgovernmental action.1

The difficulty of reaching a satisfactory andoperational definition of governance has led toan emphasis on the normative dimension of theconcept and the identif ication of thecharacteristics of good governance (McCarney,1996). Although likely to be culturally basedand thus vary among countries, thesecharacterist ics include transparent andaccountable government, respect for humanrights, democracy, rule of law, fair andaccessible judicial systems, and independent

news media, among others. In some countries,decentralization of central authority to localgovernmental insti tutions is viewed as acondition for good, or improved, governance.By focusing on the normative dimension ofgovernance and identifying characteristics ofgood governance, strategies or methods forimproving governance emerge.

This r ich l i terature demonstrates theelasticity of governance as a concept. One maywish to embrace this elasticity or declare theconcept of governance too ambiguous to be ofpractical value. In any case, the debate hasclearly encouraged policymakers to lookbeyond government itself for evaluating theefficiency and appropriateness of governmentalaction.

Following the suggestion of Halfani et al.,this paper will work with a concept ofgovernance that places emphasis on the natureof the relationship between rulers and the ruled,the state and the society, the government andthe governed (McCarney, Halfani andRodriguez, 1995). Governance, according tothis usage, refers to the interaction between civilsociety and government in determininggovernmental action. By civil society, we referto those organized segments of society outsidethe public sector, including the civilassociations, community organizations, socialmovements, trade unions, religiousorganizations, among others. Governmentalaction is broadly construed to include publicsector investments, implementation of socialand economic development programs,operations of governmental institutions, andoperations of judicial systems; in sum, actionstaken by public sector institutions. Althoughgovernment or government-designated actors

53

Governance refers

to the interaction

between civil society

and government

in determining

governmental action.

54 RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000


are undertaking the actions, decisionsconcerning which actions to take result fromthe interaction of government and civil society.

The concept of governance used here givesemphasis to the relation or interaction betweencivil society and government. The wide varietyof specific types of interaction can be classifiedin two broad categories: formal and informalrelationships. Formal relationships refer to legaland insti tutional processes including theprotection of human rights, rule of law, electionsystems, and formal mechanisms ofaccountability. The taxation system constitutesone type of formal link between civil societyand government. The existence of these typesof formal relationships may guarantee theexistence of a procedural democracy but onethat may not effectively incorporate allsegments of the population (Dahl, 1989).Informal mechanisms of interaction includepolitical culture, political parties, the media,openness in government operations, venues fordiscussion of common issues and the formationof informed opinion.

The existence of various types of formal andinformal relationships does not themselvesguarantee good governance. The press may notbe independent of government influence,political parties may not serve as a vehicle forthe articulation of public interest, and electionsmay not be free or fair. The nature and qualityof interaction will depend not only on theexistence of formal and informal relationships,but also on conditions in civil society and onthe capacity of government to perform. Withregard to civil society, the degree oforganization in a society, the so-called level ofsocial capital, conditions governance. Weaklyorganized civil societies face difficulties inarticulating social priorities and demands andwill l ikely lack the means to influencegovernment action. With regard to government,the lack of capacity to act effectively reducesthe quality of governance regardless of thedegree of organization in civil society. Aweakly organized society or an incapablegovernment can constrain the interactionbetween the two, and thus lead to ineffectivegovernment action.

This definition and conception of governanceencounters at least one serious shortcoming. Inwhat sense can one realistically separate civilsociety and government? Our discussion here

distinguishes between institutions in the publicsector and organizations outside the publicsector. This boundary, however, is problematicfor theoretical and operational reasons. In Plato’sconception, the republic was the embodiment ofcivil society, not in tension with it. Even thoughlater liberal theorists, such as Hobbes and Locke,became concerned with the coercive power ofthe state and mechanisms to constrain it,government was still a creation of society.Members of government are also members ofsociety. A citizen that assumes a function ingovernment does not lose his or her role in civilsociety or civil organizations. Elected officialsare members of governmental institutions, butthey may also remain members of a variety ofcivil organizations. In addition, these electedofficials may be representing the interests of civilsociety in their elected capacities. This issuebecomes particularly acute when examining localgovernance, especially in relatively smallcommunities where governmental officials mayhave a greater loyalty to local communities thanto governmental institutions. The institutionaldemarcation of government and civil society mayappear quite distinct, but in contexts whereinstitutions are relatively weak and citizenaffiliations multifaceted, the demarcation may bequite fuzzy.

Our proposed conception of governancefollows the common practice of usinggovernment rather than the concept of the state.Given the overlap of these two concepts, thejustification for using government needs to beexplored. In recent years, the renewed interestand use of the concept of state in academicresearch have reflected a move from thepreviously prevailing society-centered studies(Skcopol, 1985). Building on the Weberiantradition of the concept, Peter Evans writes:“The state must be considered more thant h e ‘government’. I t is the continuousadministrative, legal, bureaucratic and coercivesystems that attempt not only to structure therelationships between civil society and publicauthority in a polity but also to structure manycrucial relationships within civil society aswell” (Stepan, 1978).

The concept of the state joins governmentaland nongovernmental actors into systems thatserve various purposes. The concept of staterecognizes that individuals or narrow groups incivil society can exercise great control, through


RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000 55

systemic mechanisms, over governmentalaction. In spite of this important observation,our use of the more narrowly defined categoryof government allows an institutionally-basedfocus on government agencies as actors andproducers of outcomes. However, the processby which decisions on governmental action aremade will look toward actors and institutionsin government and in civil society. In otherwords, our framework is sufficiently flexibleto recognize that some elements of the civilsociety–government relationship will besystematic and can be used to exercise controlover segments of civil society.

In spite of these conceptual difficulties withboundaries and definitions, distinguishingbetween civil society and government andexamining the relation between the two providea rich analytical structure that has relevance formany different country settings. Although onemay tend to emphasize a one-way connectionbetween civil society and government – that isin democratic societies, societal needs anddemands are expected to induce governmentaction – the interaction is indeed two ways.Government action can impede or facilitate thearticulation of common demands and interestsin civil society. In other words, governmentalinstitutions may be able to shape or limit thedemands of public. In addition, the unintendedconsequences of past government action itselfmay create new needs in the society.

Even the approach taken in policy design andgovernment action can create the context fordefining the role of the citizen if not for definingcitizenship itself. For example, a public policyorientation that focuses on rights implies thatthe role of the citizen should be to promote theincorporation of rights in the law, in the firstinstance, but that once these rights areestablished, the role of the citizen becomes oneof a consumer of government services to protectthese rights. A deliberative policymakingapproach, by contrast, envisions citizens asactive participants in the policy process ratherthan consumers (Landy, 1993).

Historical studies have argued that pastgovernmental action can have a decisive impacton the way societies organized themselvespolitically (Skocpol, 1985, p. 25-27.). WesternEuropean countries with historically strongcentralized governmental institutions produceda class-based political culture. The highly

fragmented and territorial based governmentalstructure in the United States produced apolitical culture composed principally ofnarrowly based interests.

In discussing governance in an internationalcontext, the importance of the level of economicdevelopment as a conditioning factor, for both

civil society and government capacity, becomesevident. In many of Africa countries and in atleast some regions in all countries, widespreadand intensive poverty severely constrains thedegree of organization in civil society and limitsthe resources – financial, human, andinstitutional – available to the public sector,especially in local government. Even in morehighly developed countries, pockets of urban orrural poverty limit the opportunities for effectivelocal governance. Inadequate or unsatisfactorygovernance may be the result of extreme poverty.

Defining governance as an interaction andprocess creates measurement problems. Wecannot easily assess, especially in terms ofquanti tat ive measures, whether localgovernance in a particular country is strong orweak. Nevertheless, this definition does providea useful framework for considering theeffectiveness of local government and citizenparticipation in it. Unsatisfactory governance,according to this framework, can result fromweak organization in civil society, lack ofcapacity in government, or the interaction ofthe two. This conception of governanceprovides a framework for analyzing publicsector performance at the local level.

Organization in civil societyPeople associate for many different reasons.

Common concerns or interests can originate inreligion, tribe, race and ethnicity, geography,

With regard to civil

society, the degree

of organization in a

society, the so-called

level of social capital,

conditions governance.

55

56 RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000


and class, among others. Perhaps the mostprominent type of association for communalactivities are religious organizations, butindividuals participate in political parties,occupational associations, business groups,philanthropic and social organizations, athleticclubs, schools, neighborhood associations, andmany others. Regardless of the primarymotivation, such groups or associations canconnect an individual to the broader society byproviding the values and norms which helpindividuals understand and interpret society andact in it. Gatherings of individuals provide anopportunity for casual conversation concerningthe day’s events and fostering shared valuesabout a society. Through continual, face-to-faceinteractions, community problems are defined,solutions are proposed, and consensus isreached. In this sense, associations can serve amediating function, linking the individual tolarger society, and provide a mechanism bywhich individuals can engage in political life.

Traveling in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, the French observer, DeTocquevil le, found that the extensiveparticipation of Americans in a wide range ofassociations made a fundamental contributionto American democratic practice and its likelysurvival (Tocqueville, 1966). Even though hisobservation was inspired by a conservativephilosophical position, by which organizationsand associations constrain government andpromote stability, he found such organizationsan important vehicle for political expression.The recent redemocratization processes in manycountries, which have frequently displacedmilitary dictatorships, have often been led bypolitically oriented associations, includingsocial movements, voluntary organizations, andcitizen associations.

In Robert Putnam’s words, associations aresocial structures of cooperation which provideavenues for groups to pursue commonobjectives (Putnam, 1993, p. 89-91).Participation in these groups can instill a senseof responsibility for communal action. Throughassociations common interests can bearticulated and aggregated. In societies withlarge numbers of organizations, multiplemembership is likely to occur, thus creatingnetworks of people and organizations. Wheresuch organizations and networks are plentiful,one can speak of civil society being highly

organized and having high levels of socialcapital (Coleman, 1990). These associations andnetworks allow members to be more efficientand productive, just as physical capital allowworkers to be more efficient.

Putnam attempts to determine the effect ongovernment of social organizations bycontrasting regions in Italy with different levelsof social capital, a point that will be furtherdiscussed below (Putnam, 1993). Here ourdiscussion will focus on the effect governmentcan have on the level of social capital .Government and public policy contribute to theenabling environment of social organization.Protection of human rights and the freedom ofassociation are critically important to the abilityof social organizations to participate in publiclife, at least within democratic societies.Charles Taylor defines stages of civil societythat depend critically on the state (Taylor,1990). For civil society to exist, at its most basiclevel, associations have to be able to coalesceoutside the purview of the state. At the nextstage, associations have to be permitted to actcollectively, and in the most advanced stage,associations must have access to politicalprocesses and have sufficient capacity toinfluence policy outcomes.

But the enabling environment is not theunique determinant of the level of social capital.There are many cases where societies have lostsocial capital. In the United States, it is arguedthat a process of deterioration of associationallife is leading to the erosion of a wide range ofinsti tutions, from family to church tocommunity, weakening society and creatinginstability.2 In the Philippines and Brazil, levelsof social capital atrophied under militarydictators. In both countries, however, thesocieties reorganized themselves, in thePeople’s movement in the Philippines and broadpopular mobilization in Brazil, to resist thedictatorships and recreate democratic forms ofgovernment. In an extreme case, the civil warand collapse of a national government inLebanon destroyed social capital that is onlytoday being recreated.

Political parties are a critical element of civilsociety, but their roles may be difficult toanalyze. A political party, in theory, shouldembody the interests and values of its members.In many of the recent movements forredemocratization, political parties exercised


RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000 57

key leadership. However, in looking broadlyacross countries, parties assume many differentroles. Even within a single country, parties mayhave differing effects on civil societyorganization. Rather than articulating andaggregating the interests of their members,parties may serve principally the interest ofpoliticians and be largely organized aroundelectoral needs. In Latin America and elsewhere,parties are often viewed as the embodiment ofclientelism and organized around the exchangeof favors. Some political parties areindistinguishable from government, especially inone party countries, and as such may impede thedevelopment of social organizations outside thepurview of the state. Although political partiescannot be entirely indifferent to interests ofcitizens that belong to them, they may not beeffective vehicles for articulating the desires ofcitizens in some countries.

The objectives of polit ical parties areclearly linked to influencing governmentalaction. But many associations in civil societymay not be interes ted in the act ions ofgovernment . Whether associat ions arepolitically-oriented or not, an interestingquestion arises as to how a change in the levelof social capital in a country comes about. Whydo different levels of social capital exist acrosscountries and even within a single country?Why do some social settings generate largenumbers of social organizations? What factorscan cause the degree of social organization tochange in a country? These are challengingquest ions . For social capi ta l to play aconstruct ive role in governance, someassociations must be concerned with affectinggovernmental action. If there are few, how cantheir numbers be increased? Some would arguethat political organizations must be createdaround the interes ts of people , e .g . theIndustr ia l Areas Foundat ion in theSouthwestern United States3 or the Workers’Party in Brazil. Fox argues that governmentcan help create a conducive environment forthe growth of social capital through theexpansion and guarantee of the poli t icalfranchise, but that a more productive strategylies in the creation of horizontal linkages ofcommunity and citizen-based organizations ina country (Fox, 1996).

A rather extraordinary phenomenon,operating virtually worldwide, has been the

dramatic growth of nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs). These organizations canbe important actors in the political process butmay also provide public services. Therestrictions placed on political parties inauthoritarian countries have funneled politicalactivism into NGOs, as in Indonesia (Porio,1996, p. 75). Although these organizationswould typically be classified as associations incivil society, they may undertake activitiestraditionally considered government functions,

even at times under contract with governmentagencies. In many developing countries, theidentification of NGOs as potential serviceproviders by international agencies iscommonly practiced.

Capacity of local governmentGovernance has been conceived as the

relationship between civil society andgovernment in determining governmental action.If government does not have the capacity to act,the question of governance is moot. Althoughthis point may seem gratuitous and, at best,appropriate in only extreme cases, whenaddressing local government the point has broadapplication. In many countries of the world,especially in parts of Africa but in rural areas ofdeveloping and developed countries, the capacityof local government to act may be severelylacking. Local governments are frequently ill-prepared to assume responsibil i t ies for

Local government

provides services

to citizens, but

citizens have limited

opportunity to influence

local government and,

consequently, the

governance relation

is ineffective.

57

58 RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000


policymaking, resource mobilization andprogram implementation.

Even in instances where local governmentcapacity exists, the governance relationshipmay be ineffective. Centralized governmentsmay have effective administrative capacity atthe local level, but decisions concerning actionsof local government may be made by higherlevels of government. The relationship betweencivil society and government at the local level,consequently, is uni-directional; localgovernment provides services to citizens, butcitizens have limited opportunity to influencelocal government and, consequently, thegovernance relation is ineffective.

In the 1980s, structural adjustment policiesin many developing countries wereaccompanied by an emphasis on managerialorientation for local governments, whichreinforced a technical orientation to policydevelopment (Halfani, 1996, p. 183-186.). Themanagement orientation held the potential forimproved government action over the earlier,relatively inflexible, administrative orientation.Local problem solving and locally determineddeployment of resources were promisingdevelopments.

Although the management orientationrepresented an innovation to local governmentin many countries, the notion that governmentshould lead the development process was widelyheld in many developing countries. The conceptof government, or the state, as a neutral forumfor resolving conflict, a view predominate inseveral industrialized countries, was foundinappropriate in most developing countries.Rather in countries with relatively low levels ofdevelopment and limited productive resources,the national state often provided the dynamicleadership believed necessary for development.In developing countries, policymaking andgovernment action often became centralized,based on the pragmatic position that efficiencywould be gained in the centralized managementand application of scarce resources forinfrastructure and other investments. Thestagnation of the import substitution model insome developing countries engendered greatcriticism and generated alternative strategiessuch as neo-liberal development policies.

The call to diminish the role of governmentin the economy has been accompanied byproposals to decentralize it. Decentralization is

seen as a way to make government smaller andmore effective and promote democraticpractice. Many countries have adopteddecentralization policies and the difficultiesgenerated by these policies have called attentionto the question of capacity in local government.In countries like Mexico, Brazil, and India, localgovernments, lacking adequate financial,human, and insti tutional resources, havefrequently not been prepared to assume the newresponsibilities required by decentralization.The degree of preparation of local governmentvaries substantially from country to country andeven within various regions of the same country(Urban, 1994/1995, Approaches, 1997). But thecapacity of local government is a recurringproblem in most countries undergoingdecentralization. Efforts for administrativereform and the training of individuals to assumepositions in local government are critical.

Effective local government action does notdepend exclusively on its own administrativecapacity. The intergovernmental dimension ofgovernment action has become a prominentissue. Local governments are linked to higherlevels of government in several different ways,including through constitutional and statutoryframeworks, f iscal relations, jointresponsibilities of program implementation, andpolitically. The specific set of linkages variessubstantially across countries. The promise ofdecentralization, in which relatively rigidcentralized systems would devolve powers andcooperate with lower levels of government, hasproven difficult to fulfill in practice. In theUnited States, for example, even though the1970s and 1980s witnessed significantdecentralization of power from the federalgovernment to state government, federal controlover states increased significantly in the realmof regulation (Advisory, 1984; Wilson, 1998).Decentralization holds the potential forimproved local government action, but localgovernments operate within a set of complexintergovernmental relations that can constrainif not impede their actions.

Central governments have, for sound andunsound reasons, not encouraged fiscalautonomy of lower level governments. Giventhe greater efficiency in national systems forrevenue collection, as compared to localgovernment capacity, decentralization ofrevenue generation may not be effective. In


RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000 59

Brazil, the enormous debt of state governmentbanks has prompted the central bank to maintaincontrol (Wilson and Graham, 1997). Incountries with strong clientelistic traditions, thetimely transfer of funds from nationalgovernment to lower levels, as required in atruly decentralized system, is problematic inthat it requires fundamental change in well-established political systems.

Decentralization generally implies theenhancement of the fiscal situation of localgovernments, especially in terms of creatingopportunities for generating revenues locally.Although local decisionmaking and localcontrol of own-source revenues are soundprinciples, the capacity to administer local taxsystems may be absent and tax collection andnew taxes may represent a political problem forlocal officials. Furthermore, the tax base in poorregions may be severely limited. From anational perspective, fiscal decentralization,especially in terms of greater local fiscalindependence, will likely place poor regions ata substantial disadvantage in comparison to morewealthy regions (Wilson and Graham, 1997).

Another challenge to decentralizedgovernment is the growing importance ofinterorganizational relations (Radin et al.,1996). Given the trend toward less hierarchicalgovernmental structures, cooperation amonggovernment agencies, or between agencies andnongovernmental organizations, in theperformance of a single task increases.Organizations must become adept atcooperating and undertaking tasks as an elementin a network of organizations. For mostcentralized governmental bureaucracies, thisrequires substantial reform from within.

Linking the citizen and local governmentHaving examined the organization of civil

society and the capacity of the local governmentto act , at tention can now return to therelationship of these two elements indetermining the actions of government. Thisrelationship can be quite complex, affected byformal institutional mechanisms as well as byinformal ones. To further complicate ouranalysis, the role and importance of thesemechanisms vary across countries. To structureour discussion, this relat ionship will beconsidered in three dimensions: the election ofgoverning bodies, decisionmaking for

government action (policymaking) and theprocess of implementation of policy decisions.4

Some argue that citizen involvement ingovernment should be largely limited to theelection of representatives, who conduct theaffairs of government and whose actions canbe held in account in later elections. However,it is now broadly recognized that governmentaction is, and should be, subject to citizeninfluence throughout the policy process. Thepolicymaking phase of the process containstwo elements: the consideration of competingal ternat ives to address an issue and the

decision, taken by the governing body, topursue some specif ic act ion. In theimplementation phase, government agencies orcontracted organizat ions implement theprograms or initiatives that follow from thepolicy decisions.

In democratic systems, in which politicalequality among individuals is a core value, theparticipation in elections of public officials is aprincipal means by which a civil society caninfluence government. In other words, citizensin democratic systems have the right to elect theofficials who will determine what governmentis to do. Elected officials are held accountableto citizens by having to stand for election on aregular basis. Officials will convey, in theory,the interests and desires of their constituenciesinto the legislative arena where policy can beformulated. Elected officials not representingconstituencies satisfactorily will presumablynot be returned to office.

The imposition of free and fair electionsystems in democratizing countries is aprerequisite for improving governance. Shoringup the democratic f loor is an essentialcomponent, especially in terms of the expansionof the political franchise to groups previously

Decentralization is seen as

a way to make government

smaller and more

effective and promote

democratic practice.

59

60 RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000


excluded (Fox, 1996, p. 12-13). But gaining thevote does not necessarily lead to minorityrepresentation among elected officials. In anumber of countries, alternative electionsschemes have been constructed to insure therepresentation of excluded groups amongelected officials. India has taken the bold stepof reserving a share of seats in local governingbodies for women, a group that historically hashad quite limited influence on government(Mathew, 1996, p. 247-56). In some areas ofthe United States, cumulative voting systemsto insure representation of underrepresentedgroups have been adopted.

In practice, the principles of democraticelections can be violated in many ways,including patronage and clientelism, which arefound in many countries. Fair and free electionsmay best be thought of as a goal and countriesshould develop systems to monitor elections.But even fair election systems and inclusivepolitical franchise do not necessarily secure theeffective part icipation of ci t izens in thedecisions concerning government action. Aprocedural democracy can be achieved withouttrue participation of citizens. Without thearticulation of the needs and desires of societyand their incorporation in the political process,participation of civil society is incomplete. Onevisible element of this articulation is thepresence of citizen deliberation in publicforums or spaces. Such processes, called“strong democratic talks” by Benjamin Barber,are seen as the essence of political participation(Barber, 1984). A weakly organized civilsociety does not offer opportunities for suchtalks, which undermines democratic politics andforces government to take action without civilsociety advice (Wolfe, 1989). Civil society mustbe fully and fairly engaged in electinggoverning bodies, but must also be present inthe process of defining and deciding upon theactions government should take.

Redemocratization and the expansion ofpolicymaking at the local level, key elementsof decentralization, pose interesting challengesfor public deliberations. The ability of localgovernment to serve as a venue for articulationand reconciliation of legitimate interests andconsensus building is problematic in manycountries. Under democratic regimes, withcitizens able to exercise a role in publicdeliberations, a greater range of interests will

likely be represented, thus increasing thelikelihood of conflict. Contestation of ideas andinterests should be embraced as a fundamentalfeature of democratic practice, but i tcomplicates government action (Graham, 1995).For action to occur, interests must be articulatedand when interests conflict, they must bereconciled. Although the assignment of formalresponsibilities varies among countries, localgovernments are increasingly encouraged toserve as a forum or venue for policy debates,to reconcile differences and reach consensuson action. If this is a new role for a localgovernment, the capacity for incorporatingmore open and flexible political processes mustbe generated. Once the capacity has beendeveloped, however, challenges still remain. Areconciliation of interests at one point may notbe sustained over time. A well establishedfinding in the study of public policy is thatelectoral transitions frequently produce changesin policy, even in cases where the same politicalparty retains control (Jacobi and Morales,1996). Sustained and consistent governmentalaction is problematic under democratic regimes.Decentralization heightens this problem forlocal government.

At this point, the work of Robert Putnam(1993, Chapters 4 and 6) in Italy can be revisited.Putnam, in his historical analysis of regionalgovernment performance, found highperformance to be positively correlated with thedegree of organization in civil society or socialcapital. Greater numbers of civil societyassociations provided the opportunity for thedesires of society to be articulated andexpectations on government practice established.

Citizen participation in policymaking cantake many different forms. Participation canoccur in public hearings when individuals andgroups consult with public officials. Throughpublic protests and social movements, groupscan communicate with officials and the broaderpublic even when their message may be resisted.Another form of citizen involvement occurswhen officials or outcomes of agencies andprograms are scrutinized and compared againstprevious established goals. An independent,local press can facilitate this type of publicaccountability. In yet another form, politicalresources can be mobilized by groups for thepurpose of placing issues on the public agendaand securing the adoption of specific policies


RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000 61

(Wilson, 1997). For many issues, such asenvironmental policy, groups must acquiretechnical resources and expertise to be effectivein the agenda setting process.

Citizen participation can also occur as policyis implemented. Often the policy decisionstaken by legislative bodies leave muchdiscretion to implementing agencies in termsof the specific actions to be undertaken.Decisions concerning siting of facilities orinfrastructure investments may rest in the handsof administrative officials. Administrativeofficials may be hidden from public view andscrutiny and may be subject to class or ethnicbiases that lead to actions inconsistent with thebroader public will and, perhaps, eveninconsistent with the elected governing body.This issue has great importance whenconsidering local government. In manycountries, local governments haveresponsibility for actions that affect propertyvalues. Decisions on the location ofinfrastructure investments can result in greatwindfalls to private interests. When localgovernments award franchises or regulatebusinesses, the possibilities for graft andcorruption are high. Public involvement in andmonitoring of government practices, which mayestablish the legitimacy of government action,are essential for democratic practice.

The part icipation of civil society inimplementation also occurs through directservice provision by nongovernmentalorganizations. When local governmentalcapacity is weak or local populations requirespecial consideration, nongovernmentalorganizations can be very effective. InBangladesh, for example, nongovernmentalorganizations substi tute for nonexistentgovernment.

Governments in many countries haveadopted policies, such as improving electionsystems, to induce citizen participation. In theUnited States, community participationprovisions exist for many federal programs(Howard, Lipsky, Marshall, 1994). In Brazil, theConstitution of 1988 incorporates a variety ofpublic councils – for health, children, theenvironment and others – to create forums forcitizen participation. In spite of great potential,these councils face various challenges inpractice. Council members may not have theexperience or resources to participate fully. The

service providers, because of their expertise andinterests, can come to dominate councils. Somecouncils have become bureaucratized, whichlimits their effectiveness as channels for citizenparticipation (Wilson and Graham, 1991,section II). Government policy can enablepart icipation, but i ts abil i ty to generateparticipation may be limited. The full utilizationof such mechanisms depends on the degree ofpolitical organization in the society.

Decentralization of policymaking providesthe potential for greater citizen participation butit also runs a risk. Devolution of decisionmakingto local levels may provide traditional,nondemocratic elite the means to regain politicaldomination. In addition citizens, as a result ofpast experience, may have no expectations forlocal government to perform well. In thiscontext, a new political culture will need to becreated before governance becomes meaningful.

Challenges to improving governanceGovernance remains an alien concept in

many developing countries. Many view theconcept as an imposition of internationalagencies and western, industrialized countries.Nevertheless, the attention being given togovernance should be welcomed. Despite thelack of consensus, the concept encourages thefocus of development and government practiceto expand beyond government i tself . Bybroadening the context of governmental action,i t tends to emphasize responsiveness ofgovernment to citizens and to improving

In countries like Mexico, Brazil,

and India, local governments,

lacking adequate financial,

human, and institutional

resources, have frequently

not been prepared to assume

the new responsibilities

required by decentralization.

61

62 RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000


government through stronger mechanisms ofaccountability. Nevertheless, caution must beexercised in the application of governance toparticular country and cultural contexts. As aresult of these considerations, governance canbest be used as a diagnostic rather than a set ofnormative propositions.

Improving the effectiveness of governmentaction, especially in terms of the improvementof living conditions in a country, remains thecore concern. The responsibilities of localgovernment vary substantially across countriesand within a single country performance mustbe evaluated against the responsibilities andcompetencies that local governments hold. Asothers have suggested, governance should beconceptualized as the relationship between civilsociety and the public sector as it affectsgovernmental action. This definition andunderstanding of governance can make animportant contribution to the diagnosis ofgovernment action in a particular country or area.

In this framework, inadequate performanceof local government can result from a numberof sources. The problem may be in the publicsector itself, which may have inadequate localcapacity or will to act or be severely constrainedby its intergovernmental context. Anotherpotential source of difficulty is civil society,which may not be able to articulate interestsand demands in an effective manner. Orinadequate performance may result from therelationship between the public sector and civilsociety. Citizens may not be able to participatefully and freely in the election of their leadersor there not may be a public space in which theinterests of society are debated, aggregated andheard by public officials. Perhaps channels ofcommunication between the two sectors areavailable but the public has inadequateknowledge of governmental action orunderstanding of the issues involved.

The analysis of poor performance in thisframework leads to multiple strategies forenhancing performance. And substantialvariation among countries regarding the mostappropriate strategies should be expected. Forexample, a change in political culture so thatcitizens develop expectations concerninggovernment performance or better electoralsystems may be needed. Better information, so-called transparency, concerning governmentalprocedures, planning, and actions may be

required. The creation of mechanisms that allowfor the direct participation of civil society indetermining governmental action may enhanceperformance.

Can experiences in one locale be successfullyreplicated in others? Although communityparticipation can produce positive results onissues in a particular place, how can local actionovercome the obstacle of being local? Canlocalities unite or associate in ways that lead tothe adoption of enabling mechanisms at nationalgovernment level? Can cross-fertilization ofeffective practice across local governmentsinfluence governance practices at the nationallevel? Promoting participation across localgovernments and insuring that local participationcan be aggregated to affect higher levels ofgovernment are mechanisms for overcoming thelimitations of local action. One would hope thatsuccess in community and citizen participationin specific locales could eventually be broadlyincorporated into a country’s practice and evenaffect its political culture. Finally, whatopportunities and constraints do nationalgovernments place on local governance?Improved local governance may be achievedthrough initiatives of higher levels ofgovernment. However, diffusion of innovativepractice across local governments or localgovernments acting in coalition may alsoimprove the prospects of local governmentperformance.

The burden and responsibility this conceptionof governance places on civil society should notbe underestimated. Effective government actionis a responsibility civil society shares withgovernment itself. A variety of governmentalprerogatives and responsibilities, including theprotection of basic human rights and the creationof contexts for citizen participation, exists in allsocieties but society must organize itself. Thedevelopment of social capital is, in the end, aresponsibility and function of civil society. If theunorganized and disenfranchised are also poor, thechallenge is even greater. In some extreme cases,with widespread poverty, a complete lack ofgovernment institutions makes local governancemoot. The argument that governance must beimproved in order to improve governmentalperformance has much merit, but it must beapplied with caution. It some situations, effectiveleadership, public and private, may be necessarybefore broad participation in public life can be


RAE • v. 40 • n. 2 • Abr./Jun. 2000 63

achieved. If citizens have historically held noexpectations of governmental action, withouteven some simple examples of governmentaccomplishment, public expectations ofimprovement will not materialize. Even whenthe channels of participation are open andaccessible, the information and analysisneeded for coherent policy formation are

substantial. In order for citizens to acquiresuch independent analysis, they will needconsiderable resources. This conception ofgovernance identifies civil society as anessential factor for producing good government,but it also implies that only well organized andpolitically active societies have the ability tohold governments accountable. �

REFERENCES

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTALRELATIONS. Regulatory Federalism: policy, process,impact and reform. Washington, DC : AdvisoryCommission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1984.

APPROACHES to the enhancement of governmentcapacity and performance: panel IV. In: WILSON, RobertH., CRAMER, Reid (Eds.). International workshop ingovernance. Austin, TX : LBJ School of Public Affairs,1997. p. 59-70.

BARBER, Benjamin. Strong democracy: participatorypolitics for a new age. Berkeley, CA : University ofCalifornia Press, 1984.

COLEMAN, James. Foundations of social theory.Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press, 1990.p. 300-321.

DAHL, Robert A. Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

FOX, Jonathan. Local governance and citizenparticipation. In: WILSON, Robert H., CRAMER, Reid(Eds.). International workshop on local governance:second annual proceedings. Austin, TX : LBJ School ofPublic Affairs, 1996. p. 11-18.

GRAHAM, Larry. Summation of the issues and criteriain identifying good local government. In: WILSON,Robert H., CRAMER, Reid (Eds.). Internationalworkshop on good local government: first annualproceedings. Austin, TX : LBJ School of Public Affairs,1995. p. 151-53.

LEFTWICH, Adrian. Governance, democracy anddevelopment in the Third World. Third World Quarterly:Journal of Emerging Areas, v. 14, n. 3, p. 610-12, 1993.

HALFANI, Mohamed. The challenge of urbangovernance in East Africa: responding to an unrelentingcrisis. In: MCCARNEY, Patricia L. (Ed.). Cities andgovernance: new directions in Latin America, Asia andAfrica. Toronto : Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies, 1996. p. 183-186.

HOWARD, Christopher, LIPSKY, Michael, MARSHALL, DaleRogers. Citizen participation in urban politics: rise androutinization. In: PETERSON, George E. (Ed.). Big citypolitics, governance, and fiscal constraints. Washington,DC : The Urban Institute Press, 1994. p. 153-199.

HYDEN, Goran. Governance and the study of politics.In: HYDEN, Goran, BRATTON, Michael (Eds.).Governance and politics in Africa. Boulder, Co. : LynneRienner, 1992. p. 5-8.

STEPAN, Alfred. The state and society: Peru incomparative perspective. Princeton, NJ : PrincetonUniversity Press, 1978. p. xii.

TAYLOR, Charles. Modes of civil society. Public Culture,

v. III, p. 95-107, 1990.

TOCQUEVILLE, Alexis de. Democracy in America. NewYork : Harper & Row, 1966.

URBAN research in the developing world. A four volumeseries, edited by Richard Stren. Toronto : Centre forUrban and Community Studies. vol. 1 – Asia, 1994; vol.2 – Africa, 1994; vol. 3 – Latin America, 1995; and vol.4 – Perspectives on the City, 1995.

WILSON, Robert H. (Ed.). Public policy and

community: activism and governance in Texas.Austin, TX : University of Texas Press, 1997. Chapter 9.

WILSON, Robert H. Is devolution approaching its

limits? Austin, TX : LBJ School of Public Affairs, 1998.(Working Paper, n. 87).

WILSON, Robert H., GRAHAM, Lawrence (Eds.).Policymaking in a redemocratized Brazil. Austin,TX : LBJ School of Public Affairs, 1997. Vol. 1:Decentralization and social policy.

WILSON, Robert H., GRAHAM, Lawrence (Eds.).Policymaking in a redemocratized Brazil. Austin,TX : LBJ School of Public Affairs, 1997. Vol. 2: Publicpolicy and social exclusions, n. 119.

WOLFE, Alan. Whose keeper: social science and moralobligation. Berkeley : University of California Press,1989.

WORLD BANK. Sub-Saharan Africa: from crisis tosustainable growth: a long term perspective.Washington, DC : The World Bank, 1989.

WORLD BANK. Governance and development.

Washington, DC : The World Bank, 1992. p. 3.

WORLD BANK. Governance: the World Bank’sexperience. Washington, DC : The World Bank, 1994.

ZICCARDI, Alicia. Governance and governability: oneor two concepts. In: WILSON, Robert H., CRAMER, Reid(Eds.). International workshop on good local

government. Austin, TX : LBJ School of Public Affairs,1995. p. 78-83.

JACOBI, Pedro, MORALES, Carlos. Public policies andgovernability: policy continuity and disruption in theadministration of collective transport in Santos, 1989-95. In: WILSON, Robert H., CRAMER, Reid (Eds.).International workshop on local governance: secondannual proceedings. Austin, TX : LBJ School of PublicAffairs, 1996. p. 29-46.

LANDY, Marc. Public policy and citizenship. In: INGRAM,Helen, SMITH, Steven Rathgeb. Public policy fordemocracy. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution,1993. p. 19-44.

MATHEW, George. Local government and theempowerment of women. In: WILSON, Robert H.,CRAMER, Reid (Eds.). International workshop on localgovernance: second annual proceedings. Austin, TX :LBJ School of Public Affairs, 1996. p. 247-256.

MCCARNEY, Patricia L. Considerations on the notionof governance. In: MCCARNEY, Patricia L. (Ed.). Citiesand governance: new directions in Latin America, Asiaand Africa. Toronto : Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies, 1996. p. 4-6.

MCCARNEY, Patricia L., HALFANI, Mohammed,RODRIGUEZ, A. Towards an understanding ofgovernance: the emergence of an idea and itsimplications for urban research in developingcountries. In: STREN, Richard (Ed.). Urban researchin developing countries. Toronto : Centre for Urbanand Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1995.v. 4, p. 95-98.

PORIO, Emma. Urban governance in Southeast Asia:implications for sustainable human settlements. In:MCCARNEY, Patricia L. (Ed.). Cities and governance:new directions in Latin America, Asia and Africa.Toronto : Centre for Urban and Community Studies,1996. p.75.

PUTNAM, Robert D. Making democracy work.Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1993.

RADIN, Beryl et al. New governance for rural America:creating intergovernmental partnerships. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1996. Chapter 5.

SKCOPOL, Theda. Bring the state back in: strategiesof analysis in current research. In: EVANS, Peter,RUESCHEMEYER, Dietrich, SKOCPOL, Theda (Eds.).Bringing the state back in. New York : CambridgeUniversity Press, 1985. p. 3-37.

NOTES

1974. p. 2-4. See also BERGER, Peter L., NEUHAUS,

Richard J. To empower people: the role of mediating

structures in public policy. Washington : American

Enterprise Institute, 1977.

3. For a discussion of one organization’s strategy for

developing social capital, see CORTES, Ernesto.

Reweaving the fabric: the iron rule and the IAF strategy

for power and politics. In: CISNEROS, Henry G. (Ed.).Interwoven destinies: cities and the nation. New York: WW Norton, 1993. p. 294-319.

4. The assumption is that local government does havedecisionmaking responsibility for government action.If it does not, local governance cannot exist in ameaningful sense, as discussed above in relationshipto the capacity of local government.

1. Legitimacy itself is connected to governance. Hyden

argues that four variables are prerequisites for effective

governance, trust, reciprocity, accountability, and

authority, can also be used to measure regime

legitimacy. See Hyden, 1992, p. 12-15.

2. A group of writers holding this view is discussed inCOLE, Richard L. Citizen participation and the urban

policy process. Lexington, MA : Lexington Books,

Documents

Administração Pública - SciELO