Democracy, “Good Governance” and (Sustainable) Development

1. 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

2. Program for Research and Documentation for aSustainable 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, Department for Environmental Issues, Energy and Sustainable Development Område for miljø og utvikling Norges forskningsråd

3. The ProSus mandate: • Documentation and evaluationof 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

4. 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 social-welfare initiative

5. 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

6. Democracy: “An idea in history”I. The basic elements Instruments: - Elections - Representation - Majority Rule - Minority rights - Legal enactment - Judicial Review - Referenda 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” Presuppositions: - Community - Rationality Conditions: - History - Religion / values - Technology / culture - Economy / level of need satisfaction - Education - Constitutions ("power maps") Outputs: - Decisions - Laws / regulations - Policies - Allocations

7. 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

8. 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)

9. “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???

10. 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

11. The model for democratic decision-makingcan 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

12. The Norwegian model for democratic decision-makingis 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 • 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 • Inability to seriously limit – or even stabilize – economic and social-welfare demands on a petroleum-driven economy • Moving away from a nearly 100% renewable-based power system (hydro-electric) towards gas-fuelled generation WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

13. 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”

14. Good luck – and Welcome to the ProSus Reading Room http://www.sum.uio/prosus