The African Exception

Ulf Engel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351147903
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Governance has become an important concept in the politics of African development. It is therefore a crucial concept for social science analyses focusing on Africa. In public discourse Africa's future is being shaped by a combination of external interventions backed by African elites who cooperate with the donors, whose understanding of the importance of 'good governance' they share. This groundbreaking book disentangles the analytical aspects of governance from its political and normative connotations. The 'African exception' - the difference in 'development' between Africa and other regions of the South - can be understood by analysis focusing upon the specific forms of governance played out in politics and economics. The perspective of neo-patrimonialism is crucial but not sufficient here. The first section of the book explores African governance in two functional spheres: the political realm and the economic. Section two looks at new areas of governance in Africa: violent social spaces, HIV/AIDS and entrepreneurial urban governance.

Introduction
The African Exception:
Conceptual Notes on Governance in
Africa in the New Millennium

Ulf Engel and Gorm Rye Olsen

In many respects sub-Saharan Africa is an exception to the general pattern of 'development' in the South. Whereas many countries both in Asia and Latin America have achieved some progress in economic growth and in the institutionalisation of democracy, Africa's path into the 21^st century is a different one. While there has been considerable movement towards economic liberalisation and political democratisation throughout most parts of the South in many African countries, economic performance is declining and the exercise of power has hardly changed in substance. More than a decade after the end of the Cold War and the 'second wind of change', many of Africa's political systems at best resemble façade democracies. Economic growth per capita is limited or even negative. Africa South of the Sahara is the only part of the world where a number of development achievements accomplished after independence are crumbling away. This is most obvious in the education and health sectors.

Globalisation processes are accentuating and aggravating the robust downward trend which characterises Africa's weak public institutions and uncompetitive rent-seeking economies. In addition to widespread poverty and mainly internal violent conflicts, Africa is confronted by a number of new challenges. The HIV/AIDS pandemic seems to be the most dramatic of these since it is not only placing a heavy burden on state expenditure and human capital, but is also threatening the social cohesion of communities. However, HIV/AIDS is not the only challenge likely to determine the fate of Africa in the coming decades. The effects of violent conflicts on stateness and the conspicuous growth of urban centres are equally important, to name but two.

We argue that in order to understand the specific features of Africa and thus comprehend the differences between Africa and other regions in the South, it is helpful to look at the specific form of governance that is played out in politics and in the economy in Africa. Over the past 15 years, the term 'governance' has taken centre stage in development politics and public administration. It has also assumed high prominence in a variety of social science disciplines. It is the starting point of the argument to be developed in this book that governance as an analytical concept is in danger of losing a great deal of its value because of the current use of the term both in academia and in practice. It is too normatively loaded, it is too much tied to Western notions of politics and as a consequence, it is far too detached from the way politics and economies in Africa work. In order to contribute to re-establishing governance as an analytical category for comparative analysis, we are looking for a universal rather than a relativist concept (on the difference see Hyden, 1996). Therefore, we propose to employ a broad notion of governance rather than a narrow one.

To this end, some conceptual thoughts will be outlined in this chapter which is organised as follows: First, we will recall the genesis of the term governance in general. We will then briefly take stock of the use of the concept of governance in African Studies. Finally, we will detail our critique of the mainstream use of governance and propose a broader working definition. Towards the end, an introduction is provided to the seven chapters contained in this volume.

Governance: How Useful a Concept for the Study of Politics and Economics in Africa?

In current debates on governance, different players employ different and sometimes contradictory notions of governance: corporate governance, global governance, good governance, hegemonic governance, humane governance,¹ local governance, multilevel governance, network governance, world economic governance, ungovernance² or urban governance to name but a few. On the one hand, the participants in these governance debates are based in public administration or in international development agencies. On the other hand, they are also often part of mono-disciplinary discourses in the social sciences. The latter does not only refer to political science as implied by Goran Hyden's and Julius Court's (2002) analysis of the contributions of international relations and comparative politics to the debate, but also to sociology, political geography and other disciplines.

A number of developments in politics and social science prompted the emergence of the new governance discourse. Thomas G. Weiss (2000: 796) concludes that the concept:

... can be traced at the country level to a disgruntlement with the state-dominated models of economic and social development so prevalent throughout the socialist bloc and much so of the Third World in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. At the international level 'global governance' can be traced to a growing dissatisfaction among students of international relations with the realist and liberal-institutionalist theories that dominated the study of international organization in the 1970s and 1980s. In particular, these failed to capture adequately the vast increase, in both numbers and influence, of non-state actors and the implications of technology in an age of globalisation.

Among the international development agencies, the World Bank has been the most influential actor in defining governance. As early as 1989, in its report From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, the Bank postulated that governance was the major independent variable to explain Africa's continued 'underdevelopment' (1989: 60). In a review published in 1992, it defined governance as 'the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social development' (World Bank, 1992a: vii). As Bonnie Campbell rightfully observes, this definition and the emphasis on public sector management, accountability and the rule of law for development as well information and transparency contributed to a depoliticisation of governance (Campbell 2001: 156f., 159). The Bank's neoclassical economic policy approach went hand in hand with an instrumentalist and functionalist understanding of the state, and a policy concentration on organisational and technical questions which aimed at the improvement of 'efficiency'. Over the past decade this position has slowly begun to change. In the 1997 World Development Report, The State in a Changing World, the notion of social equity is no longer an end in itself (ibid.: 159f.). And in its 1999/2000 report, Entering the 21st Century, the Bank strongly favours decentralisation of governance and the devolution of powers — 'as a tool of political management' (ibid.: 161). Still a functionalist and instrumentalist approach prevailed. According to current World Bank thinking, governance is defined

... as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good. This includes (i) the process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced, (ii) the capacity of the government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies, and (iii) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.³

The Bank's website further states that the Governance Group of the World Bank Institute (WBI) 'facilitates action-oriented and participatory programs to promote good governance and curb corruption in its client countries'. Compared to 1989 or 1992 this definition reflects two developments: the emergence of what has become known as the good governance discourse, i.e. a normative overload of governance, and the introduction of neo-institutionalist thinking in academia and practice (see, in particular, March and Olsen, 1989; and Powell and DiMaggio, 1991).

Thus, initially good governance was translated into 'sound economic management' and linked to the new economic conditionalities imposed by the International Financial Institutions (IFIs, see Uvin and Biagiotti, 1996). Accordingly the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for instance, defined good governance as 'ensuring rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the public sector, and tackling corruption' (IMF, 1997: v). A somewhat more differentiated notion of governance and good governance has been coined by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). While governance 'can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels', good governance 'is, among other things, participatory, transparent and accountable. ... Good governance ensures that political, social and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources' (UNDP, 1997 [webversion]). It is characterised by participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and efficiency as well as accountability and strategic vision (ibid.). In the more recent developmentalist discourse, good governance has become interchangeable with 'democratic governance' (for the academic foil see March and Olsen, 1998). This reflects the new political conditionalities introduced in international development relations in the 1990s (see Leftwich, 1993; Baylies, 1995; Nunnenkamp, 1995; Stokke, 1995; OECD DAC, 1997). The World Bank-commissioned research into this somewhat more complex understanding of good governance looks at six indicators, i.e. 'the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of the citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them' (Kaufman, Kraay and Mastruzzi, 2004: 2).⁴

A similar, basically still functionalist and instrumentalist notion of governance dominates the European Union discourse on this issue. The current debate on 'European Governance' (EU, 2004) is grounded in a public administration tradition (see Bulmer, 1993; Pollack, 1996; Gill, 1998; Benz and Eberlein, 1999; Kohler-Koch and Eising, 1999; Pierre and Peters, 2000). Strongly influenced by the writings of R.A.W. Rhodes (1997), governance refers to 'the rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in which powers are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence'. Merging a public administration perspective and the developmentalists' good governance discourse, the EU aims at modernising European public action 'in order to increase the accountability of European executive bodies to the elected assemblies and open up the Union's decision-making procedures to allow citizens to participate in making decisions which concern them'.⁵

In the first instance academic debates which emerged in political science or geography in response to processes of globalisation and the 'new complexities' seem to be quite different from these policy-oriented debates and their normative overtones.⁶ The 'global governance' discourse (cf. Finkelstein, 1995) attempts to conceptualise the interaction between various structures and processes in international relations at different levels. It is concerned with all sorts of new actors and vertical shifts of governance beyond the Westphalian 'nation' state (see Desai and Redfern, 1995; Väyrynen, 1999; Hewson and Sinclair, 1999; Kirton and Takase, 2002; Held and McGrew, 2002). In line with the thinking of the UNappointed Commission of Global Governance, much attention has been paid towards horizontal shifts in governance, i.e. the role of non-state actors (Haufler, 1993; Higgott, Underhill and Bieler, 2002; Knill and Lehmkuhl, 2002), the emergence of 'governance without government' (Holsti, 1992; Rosenau and Czempiel, 1992) or 'governance beyond the state' (Ziirn, 1998; Wolf, 2001). The Commission looked into the state's declining capacity to confront new global challenges such as climate change, population growth, economic globalisation etc. and it defined global governance as

... the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest...

(Commission of Global Governance, 1995: 2).

Despite the plethora of global governance literature, only a very few useful conceptualisations have been offered. Among the most helpful attempts towards a typology of global governance are two articles by James N. Rosenau (1999, 2002).⁷ Rosenau's reasoning seems helpful in bridging the gap between the governance discourse in development politics and its lack of explanatory power when it comes to Africa. The core points developed by Rosenau will be briefly cross-referenced.

In view of the decomposition of hierarchical lines and the 'fragmegrative dynamics' (Rosenau, 1999: 293), he conceptualises global governance 'as highly disaggregated even as many of its spheres are overlapping' (ibid.: 294). The units of governance are imagined in terms of 'spheres of authority':

They are distinguished by the presence of actors who can evoke compliance when exercising authority as they engage in the activities that delineate the sphere. Authority, in other words, is conceived not as a possession of actors, nor as embedded roles. Authority is relational; its existence can only be observed when it is both exercised and complied with

(ibid.: 295).

But there is no 'pecking order' assumed between the different spheres of authority. In a follow-up to this approximation, Rosenau argues on the difference between government and governance that both consist of 'rules systems'. But while

the rule systems of governments can be thought as structures, those of governance are social functions or processes that can be performed or implemented in a variety of ways at different times and places (or even at the same time) by a variety of organizations. To govern, whether as structure or as function, is thus to exercise authority

(Rosenau, 2002: 72).

On this basis, Rosenau (ibid.: 81) develops a plain typology of governances in which he juxtaposes structures and processes where the latter is either conceived as unidirectional, meaning that it is vertical or horizontal, or multidirectional, meaning vertical and horizontal. Importantly, he conceives structure not simply as popular dichotomy formal vs. informal, he also includes a category 'mixed formal/informal' (described as market governance and mobius-web governance).⁸ By introducing the mix of formal and informal structures of governance, Rosenau comes close to the highly profiled reflections found in recent African studies such as, for instance, Patrick Chabal's and Jean-Pascal Daloz's Africa Works (1999).

Governance in African Studies

In African Studies one can find an interesting mix of the developmentalist and/or public administration thinking on good governance and the IR debate. Again, there is little systematic theory-building. The mainstream of comparative politics literature on Africa equates governance with the practice or the quest for good governance in the World Bank meaning (see Carter Center, 1990; Deng and Lyons, 1998; Olowu and Sako, 2002). One recent example may illustrate the proximity between developmentalist and comparative politics debates on governance. In their introduction to an edited volume on globalisation challenges to governance in the 'New South Africa', Guy Mhone and Omano Edigheji understand the concept of governance as

to have at least three aspects: first, the need for a rule-based, open, transparent, efficient and accountable government; second, the need for the government to undertake its task in a manner that is participatory and consultative and that generally lives up to the democratic precepts of formal democracy; and, third, the need for the government or the state to ensure that substantive aspects of democracy are achieved, which would be compatible with the need to attain sustainable human development in the long term

(2003: 4).

Hence their focus on the state and 'democratic governance', decentralisation of powers between national, provincial and local levels, and what they term 'successful economic transition' (ibid.: viii). Just like the developmentalist mainstream thinking, comparat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• The Authors
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction: The African Exception: Conceptual Notes on Governance in Africa in the New Millennium
• Bibliography
• Index