Good governance, professionalism, ethics and responsibility

In a recent publication of the IIAS entitled The World We Could Win (Fraser-Moleketi, 2005), Professor Werner Jann aptly concluded: ‘The moment when somebody declares the ”end of history” or indeed ”end of discussion”, on the ground that all has been said and all the problems of governance have been resolved, we shall all be in deep trouble’ (pp. 156-7). We have been in some trouble for more than 20 years, precisely on this account. Developing countries, especially, have been victims of one-dimensional thinking which was sold to the world as the definitive answer to public sector reform. The ‘market model’ of governance sought to convert the government to private sector ways and ‘hollow out’ the State. A salient trait of this model was technocratic claims and scientific pretensions. The model, in effect, purported ‘to develop a science of administration with principles of universal validity’ (Heady, 2001: 391). Both in theory and in practice, the outcomes of this mind-set have been very mixed at best. As this article will show, it tried to root its claims in the myth of global convergence. It thus sought to legitimate ‘coercive isophormism’, that is to say solutions imposed on developing countries without any regard to the institutional context and administrative capacity in each particular case. Backed by political clout, the resulting ‘policy transfers’ have arguably contributed to arresting the development of innovative approaches consistent with the culture and needs of the countries concerned. They have exacerbated the problems of corruption, decline of public trust and the erosion of public service.