While development economists like J.K Sundaram acknowledge that good governance is a worthy goal in the pursuit for economic development, they do not see it as a pre-requisite for development especially so when you consider the administrative and financial resources required. 

In fact, economists such as Ha-Joon Chang, an institutional economist and a professor at the University of Cambridge, reiterated this argument in 2012 at the Pretoria Roundtable on Good Governance by insisting that (governance problems) "should not make us believe that (developing countries) have to wait for a perfect state to emerge before doing anything.” 

To make his point, Chang pointed to the Taiwanese model of governance as an example for developing countries to follow mainly because this particular model emerged out of ‘islands of competence’, which Chang contends, "can later be given greater responsibilities as they succeed, and increase their legitimacy and status until they supplant much of the old bureaucracy”.

It is also widely argued in the field of development that it is possible to achieve economic growth (in per capita terms) with minimum governance practices in place. Nations like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and, to a large extent, China have been put forward as examples.

Granted, while there may be some truth in the argument that good governance is not necessarily a condition for development - having considered the arguments above – I also contend that it is also true that the examples of poor nations that have achieved economic development without much emphasis on good governance structures are far fewer than the number of countries I can list here as examples of countries that have failed to develop due to a lack of credible governance structures.

Thankfully, Rwanda realised this feature a number of years ago, when the government instigated eight well articulated governance indicators: rule of law, political rights and civil liberties, participation and inclusiveness, safety and security, investing in people, control of corruption, quality of service delivery, and economic and corporate governance.

In this piece, looking at good governance from the lenses of how a government and its entities can be held to account by those it is trying to serve, I want to maintain that even with limited resources at hand, good governance practices are worth pursuing in full, mainly on the assumption that, if governance includes the exercise of authority in managing the resources of a country, then good governance is about making sure that this exercise of power helps to improve the quality of life enjoyed by all citizens. Besides, several practices require more determination and hard work than they do financial resources.

Benefits of good governance practices 

Principles of good governance such as accountability, effectiveness, openness and transparency, integrity, and rule of law, have been put forward as concepts that are important in achieving sustainable development. 

In fact, accountability practices alone make it easy for citizens to keep track of whether or not their government follows through on pledges made, where the resources are coming from, when results should be expected, and who is responsible to deliver on promises made.

Similarly, effectiveness allows the public to evaluate whether or not a government is delivering services such as education or healthcare in accordance with the most pressing needs, available resources, and so on. 

Additionally, open-information means that civil society as well as the general public can assess whether or not the government is using tax revenues honestly, and investing those resources wisely.

Transparency practices help citizens to connect with authorities because they feel part of the decision-making process, where open and honest debate will generally reflect the broad interests of the nation.

This does not necessarily assume that everyone will agree with each decision, but the court of public opinion is more likely to accept the outcomes if the process has been open, even if they do not agree with the decision. 

You could also argue that when the decision-making process is open and able to be followed by observers, it is also more likely that governments will try to comply with the relevant legal requirements. Officials will also be less likely to take shortcuts or bend the rules so to speak, because making choices and having to account for them in an open and transparent way encourages honest consideration of the choices facing those in the governance process.

In summary, while nations like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and China have been put forward as examples of nations that have registered economic development without putting emphasis on good governance practices, you can also argue that many more countries have failed to register economic development precisely due to lack of good governance structures. 

And besides several studies including a study by the IMF concluding that there is a high correlation between the application of good governance and sustainable economic development as well as per capita income, poor governance structures dissuade both local and foreign potential investors who often have to consider the risk of market fluctuations, the risk on large-scale infrastructure investment, the risk on intellectual property, the competency of the legal system, and so on. 

And unless the risks are considered to be manageable, the likelihood is that potential investors will almost always seek out less risky environments over the unpredictable ones, with exceptions made in environments where the potential benefits far outstrip potential risks. Unstable oil-rich nations come to mind.

Email: junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk