Auditing Good Government in Africa

Public Sector Reform, Professional Norms and the Development Discourse

M. Gustavson

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137282712
• eBook ISBN: 9781137282729
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Political Philosophy
• Index: Social Sciences

This book gives a comprehensive overview of the literature on development in Sub-Saharan Africa, and challenges the notions of African public officials presented there. It focuses on public audit institutions and offers rich empirical research results, which contradicts many assumptions made in the literature on development in Sub-Saharan Africa.

1

Introduction: Good Government and Development in Africa

Although some African countries have experienced significant development and a general reduction in poverty, the overall development in Sub-Saharan Africa has been poorer than the rest of the world.¹ The 2010 Human Development Report illustrates how the Sub-Saharan Africa region demonstrates the lowest figures for human development in the world, across various dimensions (UNDP 2010). Rates of growth have generally been lower and income inequality higher, as well as improvements in life expectancy, literacy and general poverty reduction generally has been lower in Africa than in other regions in the world (Englebert 2000; Van de Walle 2009). Many scholars today argue that the reason for this development is a consequence of the low quality of public institutions in many African countries (cf. Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson 2001; 2003; Bigsten and Durevall 2004; Diamond 2004; Rodrik, Subramanian and Trebbi 2004; Van de Walle 2009; World Bank 1989; 1997; 2005).

The significance of sound institutions for the overall development in a country has been thoroughly discussed as well as demonstrated in a wide range of studies. It has been illustrated how the rise and persistence of good societal institutions historically have been crucial for the path to contemporary development. Sound institutions may refer to a variety of institutional arrangements, including informal institutions such as norms and trust; however, in the context of development, institutions like secure property rights, independent judiciary and quality of the public administrations are the ones commonly emphasized as well as being the institutions frequently measured (cf. Knack and Keefer 1995; North 1990; Rodrik 2003). The conclusion to draw from these arguments implies strong path dependency for countries, where historical institutional arrangement will have a great impact on the possibilities for societies to develop, and the approach has also been criticized for constituting a deterministic position. Using certain aspects or selected historical events in a country’s past to determine its future may be regarded as a deceptive way of understanding history (Woolcock, Szreter and Rao 2011). Historians rather consider ‘the past as constitutive of the present, not determinative of it,’ and as we study history our perceptions of it changes: ‘Rather than a firm path, which only has to be “found” and its course and contours “mapped,” the past is more as a flowing river of fluid and swirling potential ... with many undercurrents which can be hard to see and to estimate their power’ (Woolcock, Szreter and Rao 2011 p. 86). The historical impact of institutions still leaves questions about many countries unsolved, to the extent that using it as a single explanation for differences in development may be regarded as misrepresentative (Alonso 2011).

A particular part of the institutional arrangements discussed above is the quality of the public authorities. Irrespective of whether these institutions have any deeper roots in the history of various countries or not, a significant amount of cross-country studies have tested and demonstrated the importance of contemporary public-sector performance for several dimensions of development. For instance, studies have illustrated how well-performing public administrations create increased economic growth (Mauro 1995), which not only favors small groups of elites but also benefits the entire population, through a general reduction in poverty and reduced income inequality among citizens. In countries in which the quality of the public institutions is high, governments also tend to allocate more resources to education (Gupta, Davoodi and Alonso-Terme 2002; Mauro 1998). In addition, in the area of health, the performance of public organizations has proved to be significant where studies have demonstrated how better quality in public-sector organizations leads to improved health among citizens (Azfar and Gurgur 2005) and a reduction in infant mortality as well as higher life expectancy (Holmberg, Rothstein and Nasiritousi 2009).

The significance of well-performing public administrations has been noted also by international actors like the World Bank and the donor community. Since the end of the 1980s, the World Bank has acknowledged the importance of the state and the public administration in the development process (World Bank 1989), and its report from 1997 is recognized as constituting a change of the view of development in the international community, towards a stronger focus on the importance of the quality of the public institutions and public-sector performance (Evans and Rauch 1999). In the report, the World Bank (1997) states: ‘Over time, even the smallest increases in the capability of the state have been shown to make a vast difference to the quality of people’s lives’ (p. 15). Due to the large possible impact a well-functioning public sector may have on the overall development of a society, a large number of capacity-building projects by donors and international organizations have been undertaken around the world to strengthen the capacity in the public sector. Nonetheless, as the World Bank report from 2005 demonstrates, projects attempting to reform the administration and build capacity in the public sector have failed to a much greater extent in Africa than in other regions of the world (World Bank 2005 pp. 20–1).

So why have public-sector reforms failed much more in Africa than in the rest of the world? And why do institutions in these countries continue to fail to provide their citizens with public goods in terms of health services, law enforcement, education and so on? Naturally, a single answer to these questions is very difficult to provide, and to understand the discussions over this problem and the diverse answers debated, we need to review the modern history of public-sector reforms in African countries. Here, a short background will be presented, focused on the core elements in the explanations given of the present-day situation in many African countries; an extended discussion on this will be held in Chapter 2.

The vast majority of scholars claim that historic legacies of colonialism are central to understanding the nature of the state and its administration in contemporary Africa (see, for example, Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson 2001; Bayart 2009; Bratton and Van de Walle 1997; Herbst 2000; Hyden 1983; 2006; Migdal 1988; Van de Walle 2009). When European colonial powers arrived in Africa, they established new state and administrative structures in the colonial territories, and ignored the often complex systems of governance existing in African societies (Mamdani 1996). In addition to being based on a racist ideology and practice (Young 1994), these administrative structures derived from external coercion instead of domestic recognition, which contributed to their lack of legitimacy among the African people (Abrahamsen 2000; Englebert 2000; 2009). The colonial period created a situation in which formal institutions became merely artificial, and loyalty as well as decision-making and power structures existed in parallel within informal networks. Although loyalties may have changed from family and tribe towards new elites and powerful individuals, it is argued that the core, informal particularistic networks that override formal structures, have survived in present-day African administrations. Some scholars argue that these features of informality and reciprocal networks have long historic roots in African societies and, despite various efforts to reform the administrations throughout history, this specific culture has continued beneath the formal structures (Ekeh 1975; Le Vine 1980; Mbire-Barungi 2001). Other scholars instead emphasize that the tendency to rely on informal networks instead of formal, impersonal rules and procedures is a consequence of colonialism and the European influence in African countries (Migdal 1988; Englebert 2009). The arrival of Europeans on the African continent changed traditional procedures of governing African societies; new powerful trade networks were established and new administrative chiefs were created and were given extensive powers over traditional rulers. These fundamental changes in the societies resulted in the creation of powerful individuals, so-called ‘big men,’ and laid the foundation for their surrounding strong reciprocal networks. These networks are highly unequal; the people involved in the networks are dependent on the benevolence of certain individuals, and people who are not included in the networks may not expect any rights or privileges. However, it is expected that these societal structures will survive, since people are able to rely on them (Bayart 2009; Bratton and Van de Walle 1997; Mamdani 1996; Migdal 1988). The characteristics discussed above, it is argued, are reasons why administrative reforms have failed to such a large extent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Since African public officials have little reason to change their devices – and their basis for legitimacy, it is argued, is their local communities and particularistic networks and not the formal administrative structures originally deriving from the colonial period – administrative reforms are not likely to succeed or to be sustainable.

Although the above explanations dominate much of the literature, other explanations given for the failure of administrative reforms in Africa include the lack of attention paid to the capacity level in terms of educational levels, infrastructure and technology levels. For investments and reforms to be sustainable, there is a need for a surrounding context that continuously supports the structures. In developing countries, such surrounding contexts may be lacking or may be too expensive to establish (Hilderbrand and Grindle 1998; Klitgaard 1989; Olowu 1999). Consequently, the reason why administrative reforms have failed to a large extent in many African countries is explained here by the failure to adapt foreign (in particular Western) practices to prevailing capacity levels in the country context (Turner and Hulme 1997; World Bank 2005).

Above, the core of the explanations given in the literature as to why administrative reforms have failed in Africa has been outlined, and a further discussion of these explanations will be provided in the next chapter. Although the past cannot be changed, it may help us to understand appropriate solutions in the present and how we can think about ways of managing development in Africa. Discussions of development in Africa are multifaceted and consist of a variety of arguments, political ones as well as pragmatic ones. I would, however, like to argue that the debate essentially consists of two overall perspectives: the first consists of a critique of the concept of ‘development’ and ‘modernization’ and the second comprises a more pragmatic approach to development as a road to modernization. Worth noting is that ideas and arguments from the two perspectives are not used exclusively in the literature. This means that although some scholars are critical of the fact that the use of Western ideas and models has been and, to a great extent still is, regarded as development in Africa, many scholars still do not reject individual development ideas such as provision of modern health care, increased levels of education, gender equality and so on (cf. Brett 2009; Dia 1996; Hyden 1983). The same applies to scholars who are not really problematizing the fact that being modern and developed implies for African countries becoming more like the Western world. Among such scholars there also is today a generally strong focus on adapting foreign and Western models and ideas to suit circumstances and cultures in the local context (see, for example, Diamond 2004; Grindle 1998; World Bank 2005).

As mentioned, the first perspective constitutes a critique of the concept of development within this perspective Western world hegemony is regarded as problematic since Western standards and norms are spread and regarded as development and modernization at the expense of other cultures and traditions. Although the colonial period has ended, and African countries today are independent, critics argue that Western countries, due to asymmetric relations in power structures within international communities and among donors, have continued to use their own perceptions of the state and the public administration as a role model for how the African institutions need to change. The conditions in the Western world constitute ‘development’ which the African countries need to achieve (Abrahamsen 2000; Ake 1996; Brett 2009; Ekeh 1975; Ferguson 1994). This critique has evolved from the manner by which development has been discussed and proposed on the African continent and other parts of the world from the colonial period until contemporary development cooperation projects. For instance, Abrahamsen (2000) argues that the strong focus on ‘good governance’ in the development discourse today merely is a continuation of the discourse, established already during colonialism, of what constitutes a developed society:

The good governance agenda can thus be seen to contain an underlying belief in the superiority of Western values and political systems, and as such it reveals clear continuities with colonial discourses and practices and with past development theories.

(Abrahamsen 2000 p. 36)

An important theoretical influence of this perspective is the postcolonial ideas, wherein perception of the world is built around the dichotomy of ‘the West and the rest,’ and where the West has been able to dominate the world economically as well as politically and culturally since the colonial era (Young 2001). Key to this dominance, according to the influential postcolonial scholar Said (1978), has been the ability of the Western world to control the production of knowledge and science. By constructing cultural norms and values of Western societies into objective ‘knowledge,’ it becomes difficult for other cultures to claim their own values as a worldwide norm; rather, they come to constitute ‘the other.’ Within this tradition there is a rejection of using Western-styled models and ideas for development, since that obviously may not be a free choice but instead an intended or unintended consequence of the asymmetric balances in power between the West and the individual country. Rather, the answer is to find unique solutions which encompass the specific character of that specific society, which may be done through building on domestic traditions, local communities and knowledge produced within local communities (Dia 1996). This perspective is supported by a wide range of empirical studies on natural resource management (Ostrom 1990; 1999). In these studies on governing the commons it has been demonstrated how local communities have solved collective-action problems within their communities much more effectively than when external actors such as the state or international communities have intervened to regulate the situation (Ostrom 1990; 1999).

It is difficult to argue against the idea to create possibilities for societies to build on local traditions to find their own paths and develop on their own terms, instead of becoming a blueprint of Western societies (cf. Hyden 2006). Sophisticated procedures of solving collective-action problems, as well as other traditional institutions used throughout history in Africa before colonialism, may have been effective and legitimate procedures for governing African societies. However, this approach does not always apply in how to handle many contemporary development situations in which modern institutions exist. For instance, should citizens receive access to modern health care with medical treatment developed in the Western world, even if it is not part of domestic traditional institutions? Or should gender equality in terms of girls’ rights to education be promoted and supported, regardless if that perception is not part of the domestic traditions? It is as difficult as claiming that Africa should copy the West to actually argue that people who are born outside the West should not be given the right to benefit from development, for instance within medicine and education, and that the richer part of the world should not support their access to these institutions. This is most likely the reason why many scholars, although using a critical approach, still discuss that institutions originated in Western countries may be used in another context. However, the need to adapt them to the local circumstances and the local culture then becomes essential (cf. Brett 2009; Dia 1996).

The other perspective encompasses a more pragmatic perspective, wherein measures of growth, health-care provision and education levels are measures indicating levels of development. Within this perspective, using Western perceptions and Western models for development in Africa is not really regarded as a problem. For instance, one of the major debates about the effectiveness of aid has been centered around the impact of aid on economic growth in developing countries. Burnside and Dollar (2000) claim that the effects of aid in developing countries is conditioned by the countries’ levels of good policies, where good policies implies good fiscal, monetary and trade policies. In countries in which such policies are poor, they argue that there will be little effect of aid on growth. As a consequence, they suggest that aid should only be given to countries which can demonstrate good policies in these areas. Reactions to their influential article have been many, and their results have been tested with other data and methods, finding similar as well as different results (see, for instance, Dalgaard and Hansen 2001; Easterly, Levine and Roodman 2000; Hansen and Tarp 2000). Although these papers focus merely on growth as a measure of development, their impact on the donor community and policy recommendations for development in general is highly significant as it may determine to which countries and under which circumstances aid will be allocated. In this context, there is little discussion on whether these measures and sound policies in the particular areas actually are appropriate for genuine development in harmony with local cultures and contexts.

Discussing development and modernization in these terms, without problematizing the relationship between the West and the developing countries or whether Western-styled institutions are appropriate or not in these contexts, then finding answers to the current situation in African countries becomes more a question of strengthening technical and infrastructural capacity and finding ways to properly implement capacity-building programs. For instance, Gyimah-Boadi (2004) argues that the lack of capacity in terms of infrastructure and education is the major reason why improvements in the quality of government have not been greater in Africa. Likewise, the World Bank (2005) concludes that the main reasons their capacity programs have failed is that the programs have been wrongly designed, where levels of education and technologies in the countries in general have been underestimated (cf. Turner and Hulme 1997). Grindle (1998) adds to these explanations by arguing that capacity-building programs aimed at creating good government in general have paid too little attention to prevailing local conditions – not only in terms of infrastructure and education, but also of overall political and socioeconomic conditions as well as existing state–society relations. In addition, Grindle (2004) argues that it may be too much to expect developing countries to achieve good governance. In particular, she argues, it needs to be taken into consideration that the conditions poor countries are trying to achieve within the good governance agenda took decades or centuries for developed countries to realize (p. 533). Grindle (2004) proposes that the ambition of poor countries should be, instead, to achieve ‘good enough governance,’ which is a more realistic goal for poor countries with weak institutions. A generally appropriate level of good enough governance may be difficult to outline; the focus, rather, should be to assess and analyze what this may imply for each individual country, taking that specific country context and level of development into consideration.

When Leonard (2003) discusses capacity building and reform in African countries, he argues that management matters significantly for development. Managers play both an internal and an external role for the organizations, as they have to encourage their employees and determine the direction for the overall development of the organization at the same time as they, as the principal representative for the organization, play a key role in the relationship with other actors, such as politicians, donors or international associations. Leonard (2003) claims that managers who are well embedded in professional values and hold a high level of professional integrity are the ones who will be the most successful in developing their organizations. In particular, if these managers belong to internationally recognized professions they will be in a better situation to take risks, since they most likely have a wider range of work options ava...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1 Introduction – Good Government and Development in Africa
• 2 The Dynamics of Public Sector Reform – Two Research Traditions
• 3 The African Context of Public Auditors
• 4 State Audit Conceptualized
• 5 The National Audit Offices of Botswana and Namibia
• 6 Dimensions of Development – Transnational Professional Communities
• 7 Conclusions
• Appendix
• Notes
• References
• Index