Good Governance Report

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Governance and good governance

Governance and good governance are terms that has been often used in the in the academic literature. Indeed, the governance and good governance are two important issues that shape national debates of economists, politicians, public administrators and philosophers. Boeninger (1992: 268) points out that the World Bank first coined the word ‘governance’ in the context of sub-Saharan Africa, where the term was used to define the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development. There are many governance definitions, but they only vary slightly. Thompson (1996), defines governance as the act or manner of governing,

Maserumule (2014), suggested that the fundamental distinction between good governance and governance is that the former is expressed in terms of ‘ought’ (value) whereas the latter is in terms of ‘is’ (fact). Omoyefa (2010), links good governance to the notions of good and common good. Omoyefa further states that the outcome of good governance ought to be “the good of all, i.e. common good” (Omoyefa, 2010:111-112). According to Leftwich (1993), the conceptualisation of good governance along the aspects of substantive democracy could be associated with the theory of a developmental state, which emphasises that government ought to play an interventionist role in the economy in the interest of the developmental needs and the welfare of the citizens It is crucial to recognize that bad governance is on the rise and that the world is becoming more unjust. Good governance has many major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. Godbole (2001), noted that good

The Erdmann & Engel (2006, 105), define neo-patrimonial systems feature as ‘a mixture of two coexisting, partly interwoven, types of domination: namely patrimonial and legal bureaucratic domination’. Neopatrimonialism has extensively been conceptualized to cover, the nature of African state including; level of authority, power politics, political legitimacy, elections, corruption, nepotism, paternalism, cronyism, privatization and presidentialism just to mention few (Brobbey, 2014). Neopatrimonial politics have developed the capacity of being able to divert public resources (from national tax revenues and aid funds) for private lucrative gain, “undermining development possibilities already restricted by social and economic constraints” (Cromwell and Chintedza, 2005: 3). In South Africa, Neo-patrimonial indicators include the acquisition of business interests by leading politicians and their families, most notably the proliferation of the presidential family’s business concerns since Jacob Zuma’s accession to the