1. Good Enough Governance Revisited Merilee S. Grindle Kennedy School of Government Harvard University April 2005

2. The Good Governance Agenda: Too Long, Too General Items related to good governance in World Development Reports 199745 199878 1999/200066 2000/2001106 2001/2002100 2002/2003116

3. The Good Governance Agenda Does not discriminate among: What’s essential and what’s not What should come first and what should follow What is feasible and what is not What can be achieved in the short-term vs. longer-term

4. Good Enough Governance Governance interventions need to be focused on the minimal conditions necessary for development to go forward Interventions need to be made relevant to the conditions of individual countries

5. Research on Good Governance Little consensus on: Definition Measurement Indicators Inferences about causality Systematic differences in results from large-N and small-N studies

6. The Dilemma for Practitioners Getting on with good enough governance in context of ambiguity about what can be done where

7. Moving toward Priorities for Action Tools to analyze: The context of the country The content of the reform intervention To identify a limited range of important interventions that don’t overwhelm the capacity of the country

8. The Country Context States differ significantly in their capacities and in the interest of their political leaders in governance reforms.

9. Regimes and Capacities (adapted from M.Moore 2001) Types of political systems CharacteristicsInstitutional stability of the state Organizational capacity of the state Degree of state legitimacy Types of policies in place Collapsed statesNo effective central government Extremely low Low to non- existent No policies Personal rulePersonalities and personal connections Dependent on personal control of power Low Unstable Minimally institutionalized states Personalities and some impersonal institutions Basic rules of the game established, but function poorly Low/modest Basic public services and policies Institutionalized non-competitive states Stable and legitimate institutions, no open competition Clear rules of the game, centralization, authoritarianism Modest Wide range of basic services and policies, little input by citizens Institutionalized competitive states Stable and legitimate institutions, competition Clear rules of the game, not subject to significant change High Wide range of basic services and policies, citizen engagement

10. A Hierarchy of Governance Priorities? Governance characteristics Collapsed statesPersonal ruleMinimally institutionalized states Institutionalized non-competitive states Institutionalized competitive states Personal safety ensured PP Basic conflict resolution systems PPP Basic rules of the game agreed to PPP Basic administrative tasks possible PP Basic services to most PPP Equality/fairness in justice and services PP Open decision making and implementation PP Government responsive to inputs from citizens PP Government fully accountable P

11. Strategic Analysis of Opportunities for Change (After Drivers of Change Initiative) ExampleOpportunities for ChangeConstraints on Change Social, political, economic, institutions issues supportive of change? Incentives of actors to support change? Role, power, influence of domestic actors? Role, power, influence of external actors? Payoffs to poverty reduction? How is intervention operationalized?

12. The Content of Governance Reform Interventions Some reforms create more conflict, and are more complex and harder to implement than others.

13. Ease/Difficulty of Governance Interventions Intervention Degree of conflict likely Time required for institution- alization Organiza- tional complexity Logistical complexity Budgetary require- ments Amount of behavioral change required XXXHiMediumLow

14. Is There Room to Maneuver? To make reform more feasible: Can you adjust the context? Can you adjust the content? Can you adjust the context and the content?

15. Back to Priorities Does the intervention have a significant impact on poverty reduction? Does the intervention advance DFID’s core capabilities objectives? Is the intervention reasonable, given the context of the country and the content of the intervention? What are the risks associated with the intervention and/or risks that might cause the intervention to be abandoned?