characteristics of good governance essay

Good Governance: Definitions, 8 Characteristics, And Importance

Good governance refers to mobilizing the people of a country in the best direction possible. It requires the unity of people in society and motivates them to attain political objectivity. In other words; It ensures proper utilization of all the resources of the state for its citizens which ensures sustainable development.

Must Read- Governance: Meaning, Definitions, 4 Dimensions, And Types

Table of Contents

Definitions of Good Governance

According to the world bank (1992), “Good governance is central to creating and sustaining an environment which fosters strong and equitable development and it is an essential complement to sound economic policies”.

According to UNDP, “ Good Governance is, among other things, participatory, transparent, and accountable. It is also effective and equitable. And it promotes the rule of law. 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 ”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has defined the concept “ as a broad concept covering all aspects of how a country is governed, including its economic policies, regulatory framework, and adherence to the rule of law ”.

The IMF very much emphasized promoting the concept of mainly two areas:

The management of public resources through reforms covering public sector institutions and
The development and maintenance of a transparent and stable economic and regulatory environment conducive to private sector activities.

Mohit Bhattacharya (2013) has discussed the recent developments of good governance in three ways:

It is an attempt to widen the scope of public administration by going beyond the formal government.
It is an externally dictated term invented to prescribe aid conditionality.
It is a more genuinely democratic intensifying concept- to make public administration more open, transparent, and accountable.

Must Read- 5 Phases of The Evolution of Public Administration

He has also opined that good governance needs to be discussed beyond the World Bank and other funding agencies have been representing this. “ A more creative approach would be to treat the issues as new opportunities to have a fresh look at state-civil society relationships in today’s complex world of governance ”.

8 Major Characteristics of Good Governance

Governance needs some parameters to make it good. From the above definitions, it can be said that good governance has some Characteristics or indicators for the establishment of sound economic management and ensuring the relationship between the state and civil society. From the study of World Bank documents and several studies, there are 8 major characteristics of good governance . These are mentioned below-

Participation
Rule of Law
Transparency
Responsiveness
Consensus Oriented
Equity and Inclusiveness
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Accountability

1. Participation

The participation of citizens in the process of governance is the key characteristic of good governance. Participation is an important step for mobilizing people to participate in the decision-making process. It can be direct or indirect but Participation needs to be informed and organized. The aims and objectives of the political rights would be fulfilled by the greater participation of the people in the society. The legal framework represents the rule of law which ensures impartiality in terms of participation in the decision-making process of governance.

2. Rule of Law

Another important characteristic of good governance is the rule of law. It needs a fair legal framework to establish the rule of law in society. Rule of law ensures impartiality which helps to protect human rights, particularly who is most marginal in society. The Independent judiciary system, its impartial nature, and the incorruptible police force are the key element to ensure the rule of law.

3. Transparency

Governance needs transparency for the fair delivery of services to the citizens. It ensures a balance between policymaking and its enforcement following proper rules and regulations. It enables the citizen to access governmental information regarding various policies and their implementation freely. Proper media should be established for an easy understanding of this information.

4. Responsiveness

Responsiveness has a basic necessity of the administration which can motivate the interrelationships between administration and people. It requires sufficient services to the people within a specific time.

5. Consensus Oriented

Governance depends on the consensus of people in society to make it good. It could fulfill the interest of the people as well as the community. It helped to achieve the long-term perspective of human development. And it originated from the social culture and institutional behaviors of the particular society.

6. Equity and Inclusiveness

An equitable just society must be established for ensuring good governance. Society’s well-being depends on how its members feel about it. It requires all its members to feel that they have a stake in it and they are not excluded from the mainstream in the governance.

7. Effectiveness and Efficiency:

Effectiveness and efficiency ensure the outcomes of the institutions to meet the needs of society. Proper utilization of society’s resources for the establishment of sustainable development is the key to good governance. It also ensures the sustainable use of natural resources for the protection of the environment.

8. Accountability

Accountability is one of the most important characteristics of good governance . Good governance depends on how accountable Governmental, as well as private sectors and civil society organizations, are to their people and their institutional stakeholders. Without transparency and the rule of law, accountability cannot be established.

Must Read – New Public Management: Meaning, Principles, And Features

Importance of Good Governance

The importance of good governance in a state is immense. Sustainable development is not possible without good governance.

Economic Development

Without good governance in a state, the economic development of that state is not stable. All elements of economic development, such as production, distribution, investment, and even consumption, face various obstacles. If good governance is established, such obstacles will be removed and the fair distribution of state resources will be possible.

Social Development

Good governance is essential for social development. The role of it does not end only with economic development. The result of development ensures that every class of people in society enjoys the basis of fairness. People of different religions, castes, and classes live in a society. Now, if there is no fair distribution of wealth among all these people, social discontent will increase.

Again, the proper distribution of wealth is not enough. We have to make arrangements so that minority people can walk without fear. In the same way, various reform laws have to be enacted to reduce the gap between men and women in society.

Political Development

Its relationship with political development is quite important. If the political leaders of a country are not active in establishing good governance, then its establishment in that country is not possible. Its success depends largely on the sincerity of the political leadership and adherence to the rules and regulations of the political establishment.

The constructive cooperation between the political institutions and the political parties and the formulation of programs for the welfare of the people play an important role in establishing good competition and good governance among themselves. For example, in a democracy, mutual cooperation between the government and the opposition helps to establish it in the country.

Must Read- E-Governance: Meaning, Objectives, Features, and 4 Types

In conclusion, good governance is the proper management of the state, society, and resources. It seeks to protect the interests of people from all classes. It emphasizes public sector management, the legal framework for development, accountability, transparency, and the free flow of information.

When good governance is established in a state, people can easily guess it by some of its characteristics. Then characteristics of good governance like Participation, Rule of Law, Transparency, Responsiveness, Consensus Oriented, Equity and Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Efficiency, and Accountability can be easily noticed.

There is good governance for political, economic, and social development. Good governance and development complement each other. It protects the social, economic, and political rights of citizens irrespective of race, religion, caste, or gender. As a result, a country’s development index tends to go up.

Must-Read: Development Administration: Meaning, Features, And Challenges

Bhattacharya, M. (2013). New Horizons of Public Administration . New Delhi: Jawahar Publishers.
Mangla, S. (2015). Citizenship and Governance. New Delhi: Kaveri Books.
Narzary, M. (2015). Concept of Good Governance. In S. Mangla (Ed), Citizenship and Governance (pp. 17-45). New Delhi: Kaveri Books.
Singh and Sachdeva. (2012). Public Administration: Theory and Practice , Noida: Pearson Publication.

Sharing is Caring :)

8 thoughts on “Good Governance: Definitions, 8 Characteristics, And Importance”

it’s good keep it up

Pingback: E-Governance: Meaning, Objectives, Features, And 4 Types
Pingback: Governance: Meaning, Definition, 4 Dimensions, And Types

Good governance should be the way of life in all organizations and mandatory institutionalized it

Fully magnificent Sequence n order.Totally love it for readings assignments projects etc ,Thanks team keep it up -From introduction until conclusion Awesome…..

Nice place to make a research and get more information about good governance.

Great website but plzz add more and more topics so that maximum syllabus will cover

Thank you, feel nice because good governance literature is well elaborated here and very easy to understand. Thank you once more.

6 (page 101) p. 101 Good governance

Published: October 2012
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

How has the ideal of good democratic government which flourished in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries adapted to fit the new theories and practices of governance? ‘Good governance’ considers how the spread of governance theory and related ideas poses new problems and inspires new agendas, especially in the context of development. The new governance arose as hierarchical organizations fell out of favour and social scientists and policymakers began to look to markets and networks as alternatives to bureaucracy. Some observers feel that the complexity of networks undermines accountability, since decisions are often made by unelected officials. Collaborative governance, however, provides an alternative in which participation and dialogue supplement representation and accountability.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

Google Scholar Indexing
GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

UCLG ASPAC Constitution
Decentralised Cooperation

Keep up-to-date with our selected library and writings

News & article.

characteristics of good governance essay

Latest News
Newsletters
Media Coverage

Other Publications
All Resources

Annual Report
Congress Report
Declaration
Statutory Meetings
List of Members

Good Governance: Definition and Characteristics

18 November 2021

Governance is a concept that has been around for years and is commonly used by many people. There is almost no consensus on the official definition of governance because its use often depends on the intended purpose, the people involved, and the socio-political environment of the term.

According to the United Nations (UN) , governance refers to the activities of all political and administrative authorities to govern their country. Meanwhile, as stated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) , governance is a concept in which a country is managed, including economic, policy, and legal aspects.

Thus, in general, governance has the meaning: the decision-making process and the process of determining which policies will be implemented and not implemented.

Defining good governance In the 1990s, the World Bank became the first international institution to adopt the concept of good governance into lending arrangements for developing countries and introduce the idea to the general public. In its 1992 report entitled “Governance and Development”, the notion of good governance was written as the way in which power is used to regulate the economic and social resources of a country for development.

Now, the term good governance has often been used by national and international organisations. Good governance aims to minimise corruption, take into account the opinions of minorities, listen to the voices of the oppressed people in the decision-making process, and respond actively to the needs of the community now and in the future.

Eight principles of good governance Citing from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), the concept of good governance has eight principles.

1. Participation Participation in the concept of good governance here is an opportunity for everyone to voice their opinions through institutions or representations. In addition, everyone, without exception, has the right to freedom of association and expression.

2. Rule of law To implement good governance, the legal framework in the country must be enforced impartially, especially concerning human rights law.

3. Transparency Transparency means that every policy taken and implemented by the government must be carried out under existing regulations. In addition, there must be a guarantee that any information related to the policy can be accessed by everyone, especially those who are directly affected by the policy.

4. Responsiveness Good governance needs institutions and processes to attempt to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable time.

5. Consensus oriented This fifth principle is related to the decision-making process. When the decision-making process cannot accommodate everyone’s wishes, then at a minimum, the decision must be a decision that can be accepted by everyone and does not harm anyone.

6. Equity and inclusiveness Good governance ensures justice for the community. Everyone has the same opportunity to maintain and improve their welfare.

7. Effectiveness and efficiency Every decision-making process and its institutions must be able to produce decisions that meet every community need. Community resources must also be utilised optimally by the government.

8. Accountability All institutions involved in good governance have full responsibility to the public for the sake of improving the quality of society.

Now that we are all presented with an overall understanding of good governance and its principles, let’s talk about how it’s harnessed at the local level and how the role of local governments is especially crucial for a city’s development.

The United Cities Local Governments (UCLG) has emphasised in the Global Agenda of Local Regional Governments that effective local governance can be a key pathway to solving the various challenges in development at the global level. The biggest example is, of course, towards the achievement of the 2030 Agenda or what we know as the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as addressing crucial issues such as climate change. Therefore, being the closest to its communities, local and regional governments have the advantage of putting people at the centre of every decision-making process.

Local and regional governments demonstrate on a daily basis the potential that action based on proximity has to contribute to solving major global challenges. This is UCLG ASPAC believes that the development and improvement of people’s living conditions should be undertaken primarily at the local level. We strive to achieve decentralisation as a way to democratise public governance at all levels.

United Cities and Local Governments Asia Pacific is the voice of Local and Regional Governments in the region. We aim to ensure that our values are shared among our members. This strength is the driver of our aim to secure a more permanent seat at the global table, to ensure the local perspectives and points of view of local and regional governments play a part in the global decision-making processes and in the implementation on the ground of the global agendas.

Collaboration It can be concluded that good governance is an ideal concept to achieve its goals. Yet, of course, implementing good governance is not as easy as it appears on paper. There are only a few countries that have proven successful in implementing this concept in their governance. Swift and responsible action from various parties will undoubtedly be very helpful in implementing good governance. Meanwhile, at the local level, UCLG ASPAC believes that vertical integration of national policies with local level implementation is key to enable greater impact in building a sustainable and resilient city. Again, this is important as we are aware of the challenges that cities and local governments face in terms of technical, institutional, and financial capacity, which can be tackled when they are given a good enabling environment.

Share this article

Read another topics

Garden City Sejong

International Women’s Day, Building a Women-Friendly City

Goyang City Boosts Specialised Libraries to Cater to Diverse Taste

Jakarta Capital City Government Office (City Hall of Jakarta) Building H, 21st Floor Jl. Medan Merdeka Selatan No. 8-9 Central Jakarta 10110, Indonesia

Phone : +62 21 389 01 801 Member Services WhatsApp : +62 811 8047 002 Fax : +62 21 389 01 802

What We Do? Advocacy Capacity Building Policy & Research Programmes & Projects Decentralised Cooperation

Member Apply to be a member List of member

Readings News & Articles Video Resources Archive

Get Involved Internship Vacancy

Recent posts
COVID-19 and Southeast Asia
Connectivity
Urbanisation
Reflections
Comments Policy

Nymia Pimentel Simbulan

June 1st, 2020, human rights as the foundation of good governance: the ironies of the philippine experience.

1 comment | 57 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

“Confronted by these challenges and difficulties, human rights defenders in the Philippines have taken steps to muster all possible support targeting various sectors in Philippine society”, writes Dr Nymia Pimentel Simbulan , Professor and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the University of the Philippines Manila and Executive Director of Philippines Human Rights Information Centre (PhilRights).

_______________________________________________

The Rise of Populist, Autocratic, Strongman Regimes

To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity. – Nelson Mandela

The intersection of good governance and human rights is critical in the building of a robust democracy and the realization of sustainable development. While human rights provides the contents, norms and standards of good governance, good governance guided by human rights norms and principles, creates the conducive environment necessary for the State to respect, protect and fulfill human rights in a sustainable manner¹.

Human rights determines the behavior of governments as primary duty bearers — on how to conduct political affairs, processes and institutions, including what programs, plans and policies to prioritize, what laws to enact, how to allocate resources, and what structures to establish and/or strengthen. Good governance ensures opportunities, spaces and mechanisms that enhance peoples’ participation in decision-making, contribute to their empowerment, and strengthen transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

In recent years, the global community has witnessed the rise of populist, autocratic, strongman politics the likes of Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Donald Trump of the United States, Narendra Modi of India, and Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.² ³

Their governance styles and approaches have seriously affected the state of democratic institutions and processes, undermining fundamental freedoms and violating the human rights of the population.

This ruling style is not by any means new; what is new is the way in which this style of governance has taken advantage of the benefits of information technology, particularly social media, in order to promote simplistic narratives that bolster their popularity.

These leaders share similar characteristics when it comes to how they project themselves, the narratives that they spread, governance strategies, and approaches to rule of law and human rights. Among these shared features are:

Projection of the head of government as a decisive leader who is strong-willed, nationalistic , i.e. putting the nation above all else, and relentless in solving the country’s problems particularly poverty, crime, and corruption, and thereby creating a “cult of personality”. According to the narrative, this leader is different from the political elite who came before him, and is therefore closer to the people. Following the assertion that the country is in crisis and confronted by problems that require urgent and decisive actions because the political elite failed to address these problems, he presents himself as someone who is determined to “do whatever it takes” to get the job done, even in ways which are “unorthodox and verge on the illegal.”⁴ His popularity is based on the use of simplistic narratives having the ability to deliver a straightforward solution to complex problems based on an approach of “shooting from the hip”.
Laying out and overemphasizing one particular problem, usually having to do with criminality, to heighten people’s sense of insecurity and fear . This then lays the foundation for the need of the decisive leader to employ state violence and legitimizes the use of deadly force to deal with criminality and terrorism. (e.g. In the US, it was the criminal hordes of migrants; in India, it was Muslims who threatened the vision of a Hindu Indian nation; in the Philippines, it is people involved in the illegal drug trade, etc.) The populist leader takes advantage of state institutions that are legally authorized to use force — law enforcement institutions and the military — and employing the narrative of a “state of emergency” to carry out campaigns of violence that require authorities to be given the license to kill in order for government to proceed with least resistance in realizing its political agenda.

According to the narrative, violence is the most effective and efficient way to produce results when it comes to addressing the country’s serious problems like illegal drugs, crimes and terrorism. But the use of state violence also has the effect of producing a shocking and chilling effect on people. By establishing an atmosphere of fear, the violence discourages citizens from going against the State and its laws; it urges people to toe the line.

Taking advantage of the discontent of citizens with the “traditional political elite” who are seen as corrupt, using their government positions to consolidate political and economic power for themselves, and failing to address poverty and inequality. The populist leader has presented himself as “different” and has capitalized on the frustration and impatience of the population over the inability of the political elite and democratic institutions to curb the growing economic inequalities in these countries.⁵ This has translated to disillusionment with democracy and the promise of democratic institutions and practices to deliver.
Promoting the narrative that human rights norms, standards and principles get in the way of real progress on these serious problems. Human rights have been viewed as obstacles in the implementation and realization of State policies, plans and programs because according to these State leaders, human rights have served to weaken the State’s “war efforts”. Since human rights have been conveniently used to attack the State while at the same time used as shields or armors to protect “enemies of the State”, “destabilizers of government”, and “terrorists”, human rights to these leaders have no place in society. Even human rights organizations have been tagged as acting as “enemies from within” because they are hampering the government’s legitimate war efforts by choosing to defend “drug addicts”, “drug lords”, “criminals”, “rapists” who have been projected as evil, and deserving to be treated in a cruel and inhumane manner befitting animals. The universality of human rights has likewise been distorted by asserting that “criminals”, “drug users”, “drug pushers”, “drug lords” are not part of humanity ⁶, while at the same time distorting what human rights are about by accusing human rights defenders as not caring about the victims of crimes.

These leaders have resorted to capitalizing on their popularity to misuse state institutions to mount attacks against critics. They have also taken steps to systematically weaken democratic institutions that are meant to act as institutional constraints on the Executive power, under the guise of “doing whatever it takes” and taking a no-nonsense approach to getting the job done.

Take the example of President Duterte who used the Department of Justice (DOJ) to go after Senator Leila De Lima and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ma. Lourdes Sereno, or President Trump in the US, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to misuse the criminal justice system to deter activists, lawyers, journalists, and humanitarian volunteers from challenging — or simply documenting — the systematic human rights violations that US authorities have committed against migrants and asylum seekers by subjecting human rights defenders to warrantless surveillance, interrogations, invasive searches, travel restrictions, and, in isolated cases, a false arrest and unlawful detention. In so doing, they have violated the Constitution, US and international law, and DHS policies — all of which prohibit discriminatory restrictions of freedom of speech and expression. In some cases, US and Mexican authorities have reportedly collaborated in the unlawful restrictions against human rights defenders on their shared border.”⁷

Undermining the ability of the press, the Fourth Estate, to act as a counterbalance or check on government power by questioning traditional media, particularly media that is critical of government actions, and claiming that these are sources of “fake news”. These leaders use social media to disseminate propaganda, or to spread allegations meant to discredit, vilify, neutralize and/or silence their critics and opponents through the mobilization of a well-financed army of social media trolls. The strategy of constantly bombarding and saturating social and mass media with misinformation presented as “truths” has made the general public accept without question State pronouncements and assertions, even if these lack factual basis to the point of bordering on absurdity.

Reliance on these beliefs and practices has had serious consequences on peoples’ lives, livelihood, and social relations. It has likewise placed democratic institutions and processes in a precarious and unstable state.

Consequences of the Strongman Autocratic Leadership: The Philippine Experience

After the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 and prior to the installation of Rodrigo R. Duterte as the 16th President of the Republic of the Philippines in June 2016, the country enjoyed the reputation of having a dynamic human rights track record in Southeast Asia. This is evident by the existence of a human rights-influenced 1987 Philippine Constitution cognizant of the atrocities and human rights violations perpetrated by the Marcos government during the Martial Law period, a vibrant human rights movement, free mass media, and open democratic space. The Philippines was among the first country in Southeast Asia to establish a national human rights institution (NHRI) which has consistently enjoyed a status A accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.⁸

The country has achieved major strides with the passage of numerous human rights enabling laws including the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013 (Republic Act №10368), Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (Republic Act №9745), Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012 (Republic Act №10353), The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (Republic Act №10354), Generics Act of 1988 (Republic Act 6675), Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act 8371), and The Magna Carta of Women of 2009 (Republic Act №9710). Moreover, the Philippines is a State Party to all key international human rights laws/treaties. However, significant changes took place and continue to take place in the socio-political landscape of the country when Duterte came to power in June 2016.

Laying the foundation for the “War on Drugs”

Presenting himself as “Father of the Nation”, Duterte has claimed that the way to move forward is to be tough and decisive in dealing with the key problems besetting the Philippines. He has identified illegal drugs as among the root cause of crimes and corruption in Philippine society, an assertion that has been propagated and accepted by different sectors, even in the absence of scientific evidence and solid data. Constant reiteration and bombardment by government of the public, civil society and the international community through the use of the mass and social media, reinforced by educational and government agencies/institutions, have transformed such narratives to be “real and true”.

Because he claims to know what will work best for the country, everyone is expected not to question and oppose his actions, not even by those in government. It is also because of this image and his chauvinist posturing that women’s groups have been attacked and insulted for openly criticizing his misogynist policies, programs and approaches.

Prior to his installation into power, Duterte used a discourse of a corrupt elite coddling drug dealers and addicts, incompetent in addressing problems of poverty and inequality in society, and primarily preoccupied in further enriching themselves while in power.⁹

While distancing himself from one section of the ruling class/political elites to show how different he is, he has, at the same time, forged strategic alliances and ties with the most powerful sections of the ruling class/political elites to strengthen his control of government and pursue his political agenda.¹⁰

In this way, he has further isolated and rendered powerless any legitimate opposition. In return, he has allowed these political allies to realize their own agendas and consolidate their power within their own turfs. This can be seen in the nature of his relations with the traditional Philippine political dynastic families, the Macapagal-Arroyos, Marcoses, Villars, etc.¹¹

The “War on Drugs” and the use of state violence

Complementing the framework that the country is “in crisis” is the strategy of drawing the line between the supporters and critics of government, thereby polarizing the country . In a state of war, he has asserted either you are with us or you are against us . Those on the side of government are rewarded and protected, while those who oppose the administration are labeled “enemies of the State”, obstructionists in the “war efforts” against drugs and criminality, and are therefore deserving of experiencing the “full force of the law” and its consequences. Thus, the official policy of launching a “war on drugs and criminality”, mobilizing police and military forces, and conducting mass killings and arrest of those believed to be involved in illegal drugs, has been legitimized.¹²

The escalation of human rights violations emanating from the use of state violence in addressing the country’s problems particularly crime and terrorism, is another impact of the actions of populist, autocratic leaders, very evident in the case of the Philippines. Law enforcement institutions and the military, complemented by the use of non-state hired armed groups/individuals, have served as the principal machinery in the State-sponsored violent campaign against illegal drugs, crime and terrorism. To make this more acceptable to “polite society”, drug users and drug dealers have been cast as criminals who can no longer be redeemed and therefore no longer have human rights and should thus not be treated humanely. They are projected to be “dregs of society” that deserve to be physically eliminated in order to protect the law-abiding citizens of the country from the havoc that they otherwise would have been wreaking on society.

Operating under the instruction and protection of the Chief Executive, abuses and human rights violations in the form of killings, illegal arrest and detention, torture, and enforced disappearance, have become a normal/common occurrence, and oftentimes justified and condoned.¹³ State agents have not been made accountable for their actions in the conduct of police and/or military operations in communities, consequently, perpetuating a culture of impunity.

It is therefore not surprising that the administration continues to push for the restoration of the death penalty in the country, a priority legislative measure of the President despite the Philippines being a State Party to Optional Protocol 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which does not allow for the restoration of the death penalty once it has been abolished from the law of the country.¹⁴

The rule of law has been seriously eroded with a culture of impunity becoming deeply entrenched and institutionalized. Instead of holding State agents accountable for human rights violations perpetrated in the context of the “war on drugs”, the President has assured them protection and freedom from prosecution for their actions. He continues to condone and even encourage members of the police force in the excessive and indiscriminate use of violence resulting to torture and death of alleged drug users and/or pushers in urban poor communities.¹⁵

The President has even gone to the extent of increasing the salaries of the men and women of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as reward for a “job well done” in the government’s campaign against illegal drugs and terrorism.¹⁶ Meanwhile, victims of the “war on drugs”, particularly the victims of extrajudicial killings (EJKs), have been denied access to justice. To this day, families of EJK victims, children referred to as “collateral damage”, and even those admitted by law enforcement agents as killed because of mistaken identity, have not seen a single State agent prosecuted, all the more punished and made accountable for their actions. They continue to go scot free and enjoy the protection of government officials including the President.

Impact of the “War on Drugs” on democratic institutions

Democratic institutions like the legislative and judicial bodies have been weakened in a bid to bolster executive power. The principles of transparency, and check and balance, have been replaced by the avowed virtues of loyalty, obedience and subservience to ensure that the priority programs and policies of government, foremost of which is the “war on drugs and criminality” will be on track. The rhetoric propagated by government is since the “drug menace poses a clear and present danger”¹⁷ dictating the country to be on war footing, the President should be given the leeway or prerogative to determine the strategies that are considered best to address the problems to be in control or on top of the situation. There is no room for questioning and opposition, and everyone is expected to contribute to the war effort; everyone is expected to make sacrifices for the greater good. Any criticism is viewed as obstructing and taking away from the war effort which should be dealt with accordingly by the State.

Furthermore, the President’s political party and avid supporters enjoy a monopoly control over the Philippine Congress, both the House of Representatives and Senate. The principle of checks and balances has been undermined with the transformation of Congress particularly the House into a rubberstamp of the President ensuring that “what the President wants, the President gets”. The Supreme Court upheaval resulting to the ouster of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, and with 12 out of the 15 Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court (7 out of the 15 Justices, namely Associate Justices Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, Jose Reyes Jr., Ramon Paul Hernando, Rosmari Carandang and Amy Lazaro-Javier and Henri Jean-Paul Inting with 5 more to be appointed this second half of 2019) appointed by the President before the end of 2019, is indicative of a disturbing development challenging the independence of the judiciary.¹⁸

Impact on human rights

The low tolerance for criticism and opposition has led to the shrinking of democratic space and the prevalence of an environment of fear and silence throughout the country. Freedoms of speech and expression are subtly being curtailed. Human rights defenders, mass media practitioners, and members of the political opposition who have consistently expressed contrary views, criticized government programs and policies, have not been spared from insults, embarrassment, and threats. They have been the targets of red-tagging and vilification campaigns. With the intention to malign and destroy their reputation and credibility, critics and/or opponents have likewise experienced harassment through the filing of trumped-up charges using fabricated evidences and hired witnesses.

The repulsion towards human rights and human rights defenders has led the Duterte government to virtually declare a “war against human rights”.¹⁹ It has distorted and bastardized human rights by asserting that “criminals, drug pushers, drug lords” are not humans;²⁰ threatened to kill and/or behead human rights advocates;²¹ ²²attacked and insulted international human rights bodies, officials and personalities like the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnes Callamard, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra-ad al Hussein.²³ ²⁴ ²⁵ ²⁶

It has likewise led to the abandonment of State obligations to international human rights commitment. Last March 17, 2019, the Philippines withdrew from being a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), an act openly defying the United Nations and international critics.²⁷ There are also plans to abrogate its international human rights commitments being a State Party to Optional Protocol 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with the marching order of the President to Philippine Congress to reinstate the death penalty in the country.²⁸

The social cost of the “War on Drugs”

To date, close to 30,000 individuals²⁹ have been killed as a consequence of operations of police forces or unidentified assailants or men riding in tandem, or both, in the Philippines. The rights to life, due process, presumption of innocence, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, are among the civil and political rights denied and violated by the State.³⁰ Meanwhile, families of victims of civil and political rights violations, particularly State-perpetrated mass killings and/or extrajudicial killings, have been further deprived of their economic and social rights like the rights to decent work and pay, rights to education, health, housing, and social security.

The poor, who have been the primary targets of the “war on drugs” of the Duterte government as evidenced by the socio-demographic profile of the close to 30,000 victims of mass killings, have experienced multiple burdens with the impact of civil and political rights violations on their economic and social rights. The death of the husband, father, son, usually the breadwinner of the family, has left behind not only stigmatized widows, traumatized children, and terrorized communities in the course of the drug campaign of the government in urban poor communities. A major consequence of the “war on drugs” on the poor is that it has exacerbated and deepened their impoverishment and marginalization. Wives and/or mothers, in addition to their being caretakers of the children and elderly, have been forced to assume the role of breadwinner formerly played by the dead family member to make both ends meet. Children, who oftentimes have witnessed the murder of their father, mother, sibling and/or relative, experience fear, shame and discrimination having its toll on family and community relations, health, and attendance and performance in school.³¹

There is no doubt that the families of the close to 30,000 victims of the “war on drugs” in the Philippines have experienced further deterioration in their poverty situation. Widows, mothers and loved ones of victims of the “war on drugs” have difficulty or are unable to find decent jobs or sources of livelihood; children are forced to drop out of school; the state of homelessness, hunger and sickness among urban poor has worsened; and possibly involvement in crimes, including the selling and/or use of illegal drugs, among the youth and young adults in urban poor communities, has deepened.³² Not to mention the impact on the state of mental health, particularly of the wives, parents, children because of the shock, disbelief, guilt, grief, of the sudden and violent death of a loved one.

Even families of victims of extrajudicial killings in the context of the “war on drugs and criminality” have decided to keep mum to injustices and repression within their midst. For fear of retribution and absence of resources to defend themselves and seek justice through the judicial system, they have chosen to leave their fate to God and/or move out of their places of residence for safer areas and to escape the punitive actions of unscrupulous law enforcement agents, many of whom are operating within the community. This attitude of passivity and resignation is dictated by their feeling of powerlessness and deprivation, a common characteristic of poor victims of State violence. Thus, in communities where there is seeming order and stability are residents engulfed and immobilized by terror, distrust and suspicion.

Ways Forward: Instituting Genuine Changes

Confronted by these challenges and difficulties, human rights defenders in the Philippines have taken steps to muster all possible support targeting various sectors in Philippine society. They have also reflected on the weaknesses and gaps of the human rights movement in the conduct of its advocacy work especially with the continuing support and popularity enjoyed by the Duterte administration from the people.

A priority course of action taken is raising peoples’ awareness and understanding of human rights and its principles through mass education and information campaigns. Human rights groups have realized the value of sustained, age-specific and creative ways of conducting human rights education and information work in order for it to be viewed as important and relevant to the lives of ordinary citizens from all walks of life.

Not only have human rights NGOs paid attention to improving and simplifying the contents and language of human rights education and information work. Methodologies in the conduct of education activities have likewise been improved or enhanced. Training on popular education techniques like the use of theater, street plays, arts, songs, games and community participation, have been incorporated in human rights education curriculum for people from all walks of life, i.e. urban poor residents, women, children, youth and students, artists, indigenous peoples, workers and peasants, church people, etc.

Human rights NGOs have also devoted much time and effort in the development and production of culturally-appropriate information, education and communication (IEC) materials for various audiences to ensure that these will complement educational activities conducted in urban poor communities, schools, workplaces, parishes, farms, etc. Details like type of materials, language, art works and designs, and lay-out are studied and adopted to suit the target audiences.

Organizing work is another measure recognized as valuable by HRDs in the Philippines. Efforts have been taken to set-up human rights task forces, ministries, committees and other types of formations in different areas and territories. These have been undertaken usually in partnership and collaboration with community organizers/coordinators, progressive church people, trade unionists, student leaders, peasant leaders, environmental activists, etc. Organizing people at various levels and scale is emphasized to contribute to peoples’ empowerment through collective actions in the defense of their rights.

Closely linked to organizing is mobilization. Peoples and communities are encouraged and assisted to prevent human rights violations and/or protect their rights. Participation in mass protest actions like rallies, demonstrations and pickets, joining lobby work in Congress, doing the rounds of schools and communities to conduct education and/or information activities, helping out in the production of IEC materials, or just simply convincing a family member, neighbor, friend to attend community forums or assemblies on social issues, are different forms of mobilization made available to peoples and communities.

A distinct form of mobilization which HRDS have provided particularly the families of victims of the “drug war” and alleged EJKs is their participation in the documentation of cases of human rights violations. This involves mobilization in the form of sharing their stories/experiences and allowing these to be documented by HRDs; convincing other victims to have their stories/experiences documented by HRDs; attending documentation training workshops conducted by HR NGOs; and/or engaging in actual documentation activities. There have also been families of victims of alleged EJKs who have gone to the extent of filing cases against known perpetrators of human rights violations through the assistance of human rights lawyers.

Concomitantly, human rights NGOs have collaborated with journalists, film makers and other media practitioners recognizing their role and contribution in disseminating the stories and experiences of the victims of human rights violations and ensuring that their narratives are not forgotten. All these in the hope of seeking justice and reparation in the future. Journalists and media practitioners have also been instrumental in humanizing victims of EJKs by being able to put names and faces behind the statistics.

Moreover, HR NGOs have taken efforts to maximize international solidarity work by participating in international conferences, forums to disseminate to the world the state of human rights of the Filipino people under the current administration. NGOs have become more active in sending delegations to U.N. activities to do lobby work and solicit support to address the human rights situation in the country. The recent resolution filed by Iceland and adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on the Philippines is an example of intensified efforts exerted by Philippine NGOs for the international community to take action on the human rights situation in the country.³³

Last but not the least is the defense and protection of HRDs against various forms of attacks from the State. HR NGOs have taken steps to enhance their capacities and competencies to defend themselves and protect their organizations through education, training, networking on personal and organizational safety and security, including digital security.

All these activities are interlinked, overlap and reinforce each other. These do not come in any order but are conducted simultaneously depending on the situation and needs of organizations, peoples and communities with the objective of eventually bringing about genuine change in Philippine society. After all, a government that thrives on state violence, lies and deception is a government founded on unstable grounds; it is a government that will eventually be discredited in history, if not rejected by the people.

1 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Good Governance and Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx (Accessed: 12 September 2019) 2 Kenneth Roth. World’s Autocrats Face Rising Resistance. Human Rights Watch World Report 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/keynote/autocrats-face-rising-resistance (Accessed: 8 Sept. 2019) 3 Joshua Kurlantzick. Southeast Asia’s Populism Is Different But Also Dangerous. Council on Foreign Relations. Nov. 1, 2018. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/southeast-asias-populism-different-also-dangerous (Accessed: 8 Sept. 2019) 4 Inquirer.Net. Full Text: President Rodrigo Duterte inauguration speech. June 30, 2016. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/793344/full-text-president-rodrigo-duterte-inauguration-speech (Accessed: 30 Sept. 2019) 5 Aries Arugay. The 2019 Philippine Elections: Consolidating Power in an Eroding Democracy. Heinrich Böll Stiftung Southeast Asia. 21 June 2019. https://th.boell.org/en/2019/06/21/2019-philippine-elections- consolidating-power-eroding-democracy (Accessed: 9 October 2019) 6 Inquirer.Net. Criminals are not human — Aguirre. Feb. 1, 2017. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/867331/criminals-are-not-human-aguirre (Accessed: 30 Sept. 2019) 7 Amnesty International. USA: Authorities are misusing justice system to harass migrant human rights defenders. 2 July 2019. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/07/usa-authorities-misusing-justice- system-harass-migrant-human-rights-defenders/ (Accessed: 6 October 2019) 8 Commission on Human Rights. Republic of the Philippines. https://chr.gov.ph/about-chr/ (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 9 Mark R. Thompson. Duterte’s illiberal democracy and perilous presidential system. East Asia Forum. 16 April 2018. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/04/16/dutertes-illiberal-democracy-and-perilous-presidential- system/ (Accessed: 6 October 2019) 10 Mark R. Thompson. Duterte’s illiberal democracy and perilous presidential system. East Asia Forum. 11 Aries Arugay. The 2019 Philippine Elections: Consolidating Power in an Eroding Democracy. Heinrich Böll Stiftung Southeast Asia. 12 Mark R. Thompson. Duterte’s illiberal democracy and perilous presidential system. East Asia Forum. 13 Christina Mendez. Duterte to PNP: Kill 1,000, I’ll protect you. The Philippine Star. July 2, 2016. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/07/02/1598740/duterte-pnp-kill-1000-ill-protect-you (Accessed: 30 Sept. 2019) 14 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. 15 Dec. 1989. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/2ndopccpr.aspx (Accessed: 9 October 2019) 15 Christina Mendez. Duterte to PNP: Kill 1,000, I’ll protect you. The Philippine Star. 16 Pia Ranada. Duterte signs resolution on pay hike for soldiers, cops. Rappler. January 9, 2018. https://www.rappler.com/nation/193248-duterte-signs-joint-resolution-pay-hike-soldiers-cops (Accessed: 30 Sept. 2019) 17 Christina Mendez. Duterte to PNP: Kill 1,000, I’ll protect you. The Philippine Star. 18 Edu Punay. Duterte to appoint 5 more SC justices in 2019. The Philippine Star. May 29, 2019. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/05/29/1921803/duterte-appoint-5-more-sc-justices-2019 (Accessed: 9 October 2019) 19 Associated Press. ‘I don’t care about human rights’: Philippines’ Duterte acknowledges abuses in drug war but refuses to back down. 6 Aug. 2016. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/1999755/i- dont-care-about-human-rights-philippines-duterte (Accessed: 30 Sept. 2019) 20 Agence France-Presse. Criminals are not human — Aguirre. Feb. 1, 2017. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/867331/criminals-are-not-human-aguirre (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 21 Marlon Ramos. Duterte threatens to kill rights activists if drug problem worsens. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Nov. 29, 2016. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/848933/duterte-threatens-to-kill-human-rights-activists-if-drug- problem-worsens (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 22 Trisha Macas. Duterte threatens to behead human rights advocates. GMA News Online. May 18, 2017. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/611343/duterte-threatens-to-behead-human-rights- advocates/story/ (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 23 Paterno Esmaquell II. Philippine President-elect Duterte curses UN. Rappler. June 3, 2016. https://www.rappler.com/nation/135179-philippines-president-duterte-curses-united-nations (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 24 Nestor Corrales. Duterte hurls expletives at Callamard after her remark on Kian slay. Inquirer.net. August 28, 2017. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/160053/duterte-callamard-war-on-drugs-kian-delos-santos-killings- expletive (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 25 Felipe Villamor. Rodrigo Duterte of Philippines Calls U.N. Human Rights Chief an ‘Idiot’. The New York Times. Dec. 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-zeid-raad-al- hussein.html (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 26 Consuelo Marquez. UN expert asks Duterte admin: Stop maligning human rights advocates. Inquirer.net. Dec. 19, 2018. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/172096/un-expert-asks-duterte-admin-stop-maligning- human-rights-advocates (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 27 Agence France-Presse. Philippines leaves International Criminal Court. Rappler. March 17, 2019. https://www.rappler.com/nation/225924-philippines-international-criminal-court-withdrawal-march-17-2019 (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 28 Pia Ranada. Duterte pushes for the return of death penalty for drug crimes, plunder. Rappler. July 22, 2019. https://www.rappler.com/nation/236024-duterte-pushes-return-death-penalty-drug-crimes-plunder-sona- 2019 (Accessed: 29 Sept. 2019) 29 Emmanuel Tupas. 29,000 deaths probed since drug war launched. The Philippine Star. March 6, 2019 https://www.philstar.com/nation/2019/03/06/1898959/29000-deaths-probed-drug-war-launched 30 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 16 Dec. 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx (Accessed: 15 Sept. 2019) 31 Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights). The Killing State: The Unrelenting War Against Human Rights in the Philippines. Sept. 2019. 32 Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)…… 33 Sofia Tomacruz. Why Iceland led UN resolution on PH drug war killings. Rappler. July 19, 2019. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/235775-why-iceland-led-un-resolution-drug-war-killings-philippines (Accessed: 19 Oct. 2019)

REFERENCES:

Agence France-Presse. Criminals are not human — Aguirre. Feb. 1, 2017. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/867331/criminals-are-not-human-aguirre

Agence France-Presse. Philippines leaves International Criminal Court. Rappler. March 17, 2019. https://www.rappler.com/nation/225924-philippines-international-criminal-court- withdrawal-march-17–2019

Amnesty International. USA: Authorities are misusing justice system to harass migrant human rights defenders. 2 July 2019. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/07/usa-authorities-misusing-justice- system-harass-migrant-human-rights-defenders/

Arugay, Aries. The 2019 Philippine Elections: Consolidating Power in an Eroding Democracy. Heinrich Böll Stiftung Southeast Asia. 21 June 2019. https://th.boell.org/en/2019/06/21/2019-philippine-elections-consolidating-power-eroding- democracy

Associated Press. ‘I don’t care about human rights’: Philippines’ Duterte acknowledges abuses in drug war but refuses to back down. 6 Aug. 2016. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/1999755/i-dont-care-about- human-rights-philippines-duterte

Commission on Human Rights. Republic of the Philippines. https://chr.gov.ph/about-chr/

Corrales, Nestor. Duterte hurls expletives at Callamard after her remark on Kian slay. Inquirer.net. August 28, 2017. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/160053/duterte-callamard- war-on-drugs-kian-delos-santos-killings-expletive

Esmaquell II, Paterno. Philippine President-elect Duterte curses UN. Rappler. June 3, 2016.

https://www.rappler.com/nation/135179-philippines-president-duterte-curses-united- nations

Inquirer.Net. Full Text: President Rodrigo Duterte inauguration speech. June 30, 2016.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/793344/full-text-president-rodrigo-duterte-inauguration- speech

Inquirer.Net. Criminals are not human — Aguirre. Feb. 1, 2017.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/867331/criminals-are-not-human-aguirre

Kurlantzick, Joshua. Southeast Asia’s Populism Is Different But Also Dangerous. Council on Foreign Relations. Nov. 1, 2018. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/southeast-asias-populism- different-also-dangerous

Macas, Trisha. Duterte threatens to behead human rights advocates. GMA News Online. May 18, 2017. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/611343/duterte- threatens-to-behead-human-rights-advocates/story/

Marquez, Consuelo. UN expert asks Duterte admin: Stop maligning human rights advocates. Inquirer.net. Dec. 19, 2018. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/172096/un-expert-asks- duterte-admin-stop-maligning-human-rights-advocates

Mendez, Christina. Duterte to PNP: Kill 1,000, I’ll protect you. The Philippine Star. July 2, 2016. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/07/02/1598740/duterte-pnp-kill-1000-ill- protect-you

Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights). The Killing State: The Unrelenting War Against Human Rights in the Philippines. Sept. 2019.

Punay, Edu. Duterte to appoint 5 more SC justices in 2019. The Philippine Star. May 29, 2019. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/05/29/1921803/duterte-appoint-5-more- sc-justices-2019

Ramos, Marlon. Duterte threatens to kill rights activists if drug problem worsens. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Nov. 29, 2016. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/848933/duterte-threatens-to- kill-human-rights-activists-if-drug-problem-worsens

Ranada, Pia. Duterte signs resolution on pay hike for soldiers, cops. Rappler. January 9, 2018. https://www.rappler.com/nation/193248-duterte-signs-joint-resolution-pay-hike- soldiers-cops

Ranada, Pia. Duterte pushes for the return of death penalty for drug crimes, plunder. Rappler. July 22, 2019. https://www.rappler.com/nation/236024-duterte-pushes-return- death-penalty-drug-crimes-plunder-sona-2019

Roth, Kenneth. World’s Autocrats Face Rising Resistance. Human Rights Watch World Report 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/keynote/autocrats-face-rising- resistance

Thompson, Mark R. Duterte’s illiberal democracy and perilous presidential system. East Asia Forum. 16 April 2018. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/04/16/dutertes-illiberal- democracy-and-perilous-presidential-system/

Tomacruz, Sofia. Why Iceland led UN resolution on PH drug war killings. Rappler. July 19, 2019. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/235775-why-iceland-led-un-resolution-drug- war-killings-philippines

Tupas, Emmanuel. 29,000 deaths probed since drug war launched. The Philippine Star. March 6, 2019 https://www.philstar.com/nation/2019/03/06/1898959/29000-deaths-probed-drug-war-launched

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Good Governance and Human Rights https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernance Index.aspx

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. 15 Dec. 1989. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/2ndopccpr.aspx

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 16 Dec. 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Villamor, Felipe. Rodrigo Duterte of Philippines Calls U.N. Human Rights Chief an ‘Idiot’. The New York Times. Dec. 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/world/asia/rodrigo- duterte-philippines-zeid-raad-al-hussein.htm

*This blog is based on Prof Simbulan’s talk delivered at the 2019 LSE Southeast Asia Forum .

*The views expressed in the blog are those of the authors alone. They do not reflect the position of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, nor that of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

About the author

Professor Nymia Pimentel Simbulan is Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines Manila, and Executive Director of Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights), a human rights institute which is part of Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA). PhilRights has played an important role in the abolition of the death penalty in the country in 2006. It has also played a leading role in the submission of alternative reports on economic, social and cultural rights to the UN.

great content! plus it has references which makes it more reliable

Deaf Community and DiDRR Network in Viet Nam Call for Action: Ensuring that No One is Left Behind

August 10th, 2022.

The Kleptocrat’s Accomplice? Incentives, Values, and Networks in the Professional Enabling of Corrupt Capital

June 16th, 2023.

Singapore’s Economic Response to Covid-19: An Outsider’s View from Inside

November 10th, 2020.

Book Review: Projectland: Life in a Lao Socialist Model Village, by Holly High

February 2nd, 2023.

Ethics and good governance

Presidential Address
Published: 02 June 2020
Volume 184 , pages 379–398, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

Roger D. Congleton 1

1008 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

Public choice research has revealed a variety of political dilemmas associated with governance that tend to make good governance unlikely. This paper suggests that the good governments that we observe are likely to have cultural or ethical support–support that solves or ameliorates the dilemmas uncovered by public choice research. It demonstrates that five important impediments to good governance can be ameliorated by internalized ethical dispositions. Although good government is not generated by ethical conduct per se, some forms of conduct regarded as ethical are supportive of good governance and arguably prerequisites to it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression

Gehan Gunatilleke

Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look

Archie B. Carroll

Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis

Here and in other papers on the role of ethics in choice, I use the term “pragmatic” in a manner that is a bit more severe than many would use the term. It is used as an antonym to behavior that is “idealistic” in the sense of being substantially determined by one’s internalized norms. This is one of its many definitions. It is not used in its philosophical sense, although this author has some sympathy for its conclusions, but as a term to characterize a person’s immediate, practical, narrow interests in such matters as their own (and perhaps their family’s) health, safety, comfort, wealth, status, and fame.

See, for example, Grether and Plott ( 1979 ) or Ostrom ( 1998 ).

That evolutionary support for such rule internalization exists is implied by a variety of simulation studies, beginning with the simple round-robin tournaments among rules (computer programs) for participating in prisoners’ dilemmas organized by Axelrod ( 1980 ). The first application of simulations to study norms for participating in social dilemmas (with exit) were undertaken by Vanberg and Congleton ( 1992 ), who subsequently extended the approach to multiparty prisoners’ dilemmas with exit possibilities in Congleton and Vanberg ( 2001 ).

Issues of cosmology are beyond the scope of this essay, but it bears noting that a deistic theory of the divine would allow Locke’s theory of natural law to be compatible with both genetic and social transmission of rules of conduct from one generation to the next. Disagreements among deists, physicists, and biologists boil down to whether a first mover exists or not—which of course is not a testable proposition.

A variety of social dilemmas have to be solved for all of that to happen, but they are beyond the scope of this paper. They are addressed in the book manuscript mentioned in a previous footnote on ethics and prosperity.

In many respects, this approach is similar to that developed by Nozick’s classic ( 1974 ) book, who also begins with the Lockean state of nature. However, the point of the present paper is that ethical predispositions are necessary—or at least the most plausible explanations—for solutions to political dilemmas that tend to make extractive regimes more commonplace than productive ones, even in cases in which governing institutions are adopted through largely consensual means. Nozick, in contrast, simply assumes that all agents behave in accord with a specific interpretation of natural rights and explores what types of governments and governmental policies are consistent with such rights.

The equilibrium for such markets is very similar to that of Akerlof’s ( 1970 ) lemons dilemma, but without his differential equations. Note also that this and the other game matrices developed later in the paper can be used to characterize larger number games and the subgame perfect equilibria of finitely repeated versions of such games. Their one-shot versions are adopted to simplify the narrative.

Rent extraction requires the existence of economic profits, which is to say rents that can be extracted or shared without bankrupting the merchant or commercial organization of interest. Such markets would be commonplace when, for example, production processes are Ricardian rather than Marshallian, or markets diverge from perfectly competitive and monopolistically competitive equilibria. The enforcement game with bribery (not shown) tends to generate a stochastic pattern of law enforcement that is sufficient to make the threat of punishment credible but weak enough to maximize the bribe revenue collected.

In the case in which all law enforcers are volunteers, S = 0. In others, S > 0. Including the possibility of S > 0 demonstrates that the problem is not caused by the assumption that the enforcers are volunteers.

Becker and Stigler ( 1974 ) advocate paying law enforcers relatively high salaries (efficiency wages) to reduce their temptation to accept bribes. However, the the enforcement dilemma goes through in that case as well, insofar as such a salary is simply one of many values that S can take. The use of efficiency wages requires a still higher level of authority that would dutifully fire the highly paid rule enforcers that failed to perform their duties.

Congleton and Vanberg ( 2001 ) demonstrate that some evolutionary support exists for such enforcers. Somanathan and Rubin ( 2004 ) provide a social evolutionary theory of the emergence of honesty.

It bears noting that internalized norms also improve the performance of extractive organizations: as with promise keeping, deference to authority, and bravery, which likewise may be reinforced by the formal rule-enforcing aspects of such organizations. The contracts adopted by pirate ships (Lesson 2007 ), for example, clearly relied upon internalized norms for much of their effect on the behavior of both officers and members of the crew.

An institutional structure for divided governance emerges if such rules are to be enforced (executed) by the preexisting customary law enforcing agency. Such divisions have many advantages (Congleton 2011 , 2013 ), but most are beyond the scope of this paper.

Congleton ( 2020 ) suggests that agreement-based governments are likely to rely upon consensus or supermajority rules. Majority rule is used in the examples that follow because it is so widely regarded to be the best rule for collective action—where “best” is used in its normative sense. Such majoritarian norms are likely to play a role in solving the last majoritarian dilemma examined in this paper.

To be fair to Black, he would have regarded such choices as multidimensional in which each person’s net benefit share is a separate dimension. However, as far as pragmatists are concerned, such choices are essentially single dimensional. Only effects on themselves are relevant.

Shepsle and Weingast ( 1981 ) and Weingast et al. ( 1981 ) propose a series of procedures that can stabilize majoritarian systems, which may provide an alternative to the norm-based one suggested in the text. However, such institutionally induced equilibria require that such institutions be adopted formally, which would tend to be subject to the same cycling problems. Moreover, their associated rules have to be followed faithfully. The same reasoning applies to other mechanism design solutions as well. Such solutions thus also rest ultimately on the existence of rules for solving majoritarian cycling problems and supportive “rule-following” norms after the ameliorating institutions are adopted.

Support for such demogrant programs comes and goes in the West. Such programs—sometimes termed negative income taxes—were favored by both mainstream candidates in the 1972 US presidential election and have returned to prominence as proposals for universal basic income in the past decade.

The model easily can be generalized to account for life cycles and economic growth. In a generalized model, pragmatists would maximize the present value of their lifetime incomes, and economic growth would be affected by the size of the demogrant program. The first-order conditions for ideal tax rates and demogrants conceptually would be very similar to those developed above, although the mathematical characterizations would be somewhat more complex and include new terms for time horizons, discount rates, and growth rates. The steady state model examined thus is sufficient for the purposes of this paper.

For an early analysis of the effects of norms on the politics and sustainability of a welfare state, see Lindbeck et al. ( 1999 ).

Lott and Bronars ( 1993 ), for example, find little or no evidence of significant policy or voting changes in an incumbent candidate’s last term of office.

Table 7 leaves out two even higher-income states regarded as democracies because their PPP per capita rgdps were implausibly high: Luxembourg and Norway. Including them would not have changed the basic results.

Bjørnskov and Méon ( 2013 ) provide persuasive econometric support for the generalized trustcausality explanation. Insofar as generalized trust characterizes trustworthiness and trustworthiness is generated by a community’s most commonplace ethical dispositions, the main body of the present paper can be regarded as providing one plausible theoretical explanation for their results.

As I had not read their paper before constructing Table 7 , their results likewise can be regarded as a further test and affirmation of the hypotheses developed above.

Notice that “vintage” is not necessarily decisive. India’s and Germany’s democracies are of approximately equal age and in force long enough to have influenced the political culture of their politicians and parties, but they are still very different in terms of their average effects on income and perceived corruption. However, it also bears noting that India exhibits the highest generalized trust of the poor democracies and Germany is among the lowest of the rich democracies.

See Bjørnskov ( 2019 ) for an overview of public choice research on trust and Potrafke ( 2018 ) for an overview of public choice research on ideology. Evidence of the effects of internalized norms also is indicated by the various “demographic” variables commonly used in statistical studies, although they rarely are grounded in explicit behavioral models.

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (3), 488–500.

Article Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values . New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar

Axelrod, R. (1980). Effective choice in the prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24 (1), 3–25.

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic perspective. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.

Becker, G. S., & Stigler, G. J. (1974). Law enforcement, malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers. Journal of Legal Studies, 3 (1), 1–18.

Bjørnskov, C. (2019). The political economy of trust. In R. Congleton, B. Grofman, & S. Voigt (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public choice . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bjørnskov, C., & Méon, P.-G. (2013). Is trust the missing root of institutions, education, and development? Public Choice, 157, 641–669.

Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23–34.

Buchanan, J. M. (1965). Ethical rules, expected values, and large numbers. Ethics, 76 (1), 1–13.

Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent, logical foundations of constitutional democracy . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Congleton, R. D. (2011). Perfecting parliament: liberalism and the rise of western democracy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Congleton, R. D. (2013). On the inevitability of divided government and improbability of a complete separation of powers. Constitutional Political Economy, 24, 177–198.

Congleton, R. D. (2019). Toward a rule-based model of human choice: On the nature of Homo Constitutionalus . In R. E. Wagner (Ed.), James M. Buchanan: A theorist of political economy and social philosophy ., Volume III of the series remaking economics: Eminent post-war economists New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Congleton, R. D. (2020, forthcoming). The institutions of international treaty organizations as evidence for social contract theory, European Journal of Political Economy .

Congleton, R. D., & Vanberg, V. J. (2001). Help, harm or avoid? On the personal advantage of dispositions to cooperate and punish in multilateral PD games with exit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44 (2), 145–167.

Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69 (4), 623–638.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan (Kindle ed.). Overland Park: Neeland Media LLC.

Leeson, P. T. (2007). An-arrgh-chy: The law and economics of pirate organization. Journal of Political Economy, 115 (6), 1049–1094.

Lindbeck, A., Nyberg, S., & Weibull, J. W. (1999). Social norms and economic incentives in the welfare state. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (1), 1–35.

Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government . Kindle edn. MacMay.

Lott, J. R., & Bronars, S. G. (1993). Time series evidence on shirking in the US House of representatives. Public Choice, 76 (1–2), 125–149.

McChesney, F. S. (1987). Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 16 (1), 101–118.

Meltzer, A. H., & Richards, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 914–927.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia (Vol. 5038). New York: Basic Books.

Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92 (1), 1–22.

Potrafke, N. (2018). Government ideology and economic policymaking in the United States—A survey. Public Choice, 174 (1–2), 145–207.

Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37 (3), 503–519.

Somanathan, E., & Rubin, P. H. (2004). The evolution of honesty. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54 (1), 1–17.

Vanberg, V. J., & Congleton, R. D. (1992). Rationality, morality, and exit. American Political Science Review, 86 (2), 418–431.

Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89 (4), 642–664.

Download references

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this talk was delivered at the Political Economy of Democracy and Dictatorship conference in Muenster Germany in February 2020, where several useful comments and questions helped push its development forward. The very diligent editor in chief of this journal also provided numerous helpful suggestions. Christian Bjørnskov deserves special thanks for provided the data on trust used in Table 7 .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

Roger D. Congleton

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger D. Congleton .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Congleton, R.D. Ethics and good governance. Public Choice 184 , 379–398 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-020-00824-3

Download citation

Published : 02 June 2020

Issue Date : September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-020-00824-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Ethical dispositions
Good government
Political dilemmas
Cycling problems
Sustaining democracy
Mystery of democracy

JEL Classification

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

Good Governance Essay Outline & Introduction
(DOC) GOOD GOVERNANCE AND WHAT CONSTITUTES BAD GOVERNANCE
8 Major Characteristics of Good Governance
What is Good Governance?
(DOC) WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE? WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF
Good governance Module 1.docx

VIDEO

Public governance (english subtitle)
Principles of Good Governance
Good Governance
Good Governance essay #shorts #ytshorts #Governance #goodgovernace #politicalscience #css #pms
Crisis of good governance in Pakistan Essay [the best essay for css,pms& competitive exams]CSS&PMS
Have We Learned any Lessons from 1971?

COMMENTS

Good Governance: Definitions, 8 Characteristics, And Importance
1. Participation. The participation of citizens in the process of governance is the key characteristic of good governance. Participation is an important step for mobilizing people to participate in the decision-making process. It can be direct or indirect but Participation needs to be informed and organized.
PDF What is Good Governance?
Effectiveness and efficiency. Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.
PDF Good Governance: The Inflation of an Idea
good governance—participation, fairness, decency, efficiency, accountability, and transparency—that are equally evocative. 6. Good governance at times is also used to refer to normative concerns about what government should do—reduce poverty, for example, or maintain macroeconomic stability, or provide basic services.
About good governance
Good governance and human rights are mutually reinforcing. Human rights standards and principles provide a set of values to guide the work of governments and other political and social actors. They also provide a set of performance standards against which these actors can be held accountable. Moreover, human rights principles inform the content ...
Good Governance: An Introduction
Abstract. Good governance is a legal concept and a cornerstone of the modern state. It is the most modern of the three cornerstones of the state, whereas the rule of law and democracy concepts are the more classical yet still lively cornerstones. The legal system of the state requires further specification by norms and enforcement and the ...
Good governance
Good governance is the process of measuring how public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources and guarantee the realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption and with due regard for the rule of law. Governance is "the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)".
Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for ...
Good governance can only be achieved in a free and democratic political system, as it cannot emerge without freedom and democracy. In fact, there were more profound causes why the theory and practice of good governance sprang up in the 1990s. First of all, good governance is more widely applicable than good government in the traditional sense.
Good Governance
It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. According to UNESCAP, good governance has eight major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law.
Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and
global governance: conceptual and. actual challenges. THOMAS G WEISS. ABSTRACT This article takes seriously the proposition that ideas and concepts, both good and bad, have an impact on international public policy. It situates the emergence of governance, good governance and global governance, as well as the UN's role in the conceptual process.
What is good governance?
Abstract. Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that ...
Conclusions on Good Governance: Concept and Context
The good governance principles became more concrete by enumerating six groups of principles (properness, transparency, participation, effectiveness, accountability, and human rights) which are found in many documents of national, regional, and international context. From the legal theory approach on good governance we discussed the character of ...
PDF Good governance as a concept, and why this matters for ...
Figure 1 presents six of the simplest causal possibilities: the first three are the most obvious: first, as donor agencies tend to highlight, good governance may 'promote' or 'cause' development (path A). Second, development may cause good governance (B). Third, another factor may cause both (C).
Principles and Characteristics of Good Governance
Good governance has 8 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 ...
(PDF) Good Governance as a Concept, and Why This Matters for
Working Paper No. 20 12/30. Good Go vernanc e as a Con cept, an d. Why This Matters for Development. Policy. Rachel M. Gisselqu ist*. March 2012. Abstract. Almost all major development ...
PDF Good Governance: Rule of Law, Transparency and Accountability
2 Good governance: legitimate, accountable, and effective ways of obtaining and using public power and resources in the pursuit of widely-accepted social goals Rule of law: the exercise of state power using, and guided by, published written standards that embody widely-supported social values, avoid particularism, and enjoy
Good governance
'Good governance' considers how the spread of governance theory and related ideas poses new problems and inspires new agendas, especially in the context of development. The new governance arose as hierarchical organizations fell out of favour and social scientists and policymakers began to look to markets and networks as alternatives to ...
Constitutional Perspectives on Good Governance
The H. M. Seervai Gold Medal for Best Essay in Constitutional Law 2004 Constitutional Perspectives on Good Governance Aditya Sudarshan* This article assesses the Indian Constitution's perspective on the notion of ' good governance ' At a theoretical level, it analyzes the key aspects of that notion , and shows how a liberal democratic
Good Governance: Definition and Characteristics
6. Equity and inclusiveness. Good governance ensures justice for the community. Everyone has the same opportunity to maintain and improve their welfare. 7. Effectiveness and efficiency. Every decision-making process and its institutions must be able to produce decisions that meet every community need.
Human Rights as the Foundation of Good Governance: The Ironies of the
The intersection of good governance and human rights is critical in the building of a robust democracy and the realization of sustainable development. While human rights provides the contents, norms and standards of good governance, good governance guided by human rights norms and principles, creates the conducive environment necessary for the ...
Good Governance
The UN system promotes good governance through many avenues and the principle is reaffirmed in the Declaration of the High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law [para. 12]. United Nations activities in ...
(PDF) GOOD GOVERNANCE AND ITS IMPACT ON ECONOMIC ...
Abstract and Figures. Good governance is a polymorphous concept that stems from economic and political science. It is used both in the context of the management of public action and in a strategic ...
Ethics and good governance
Public choice research has revealed a variety of political dilemmas associated with governance that tend to make good governance unlikely. This paper suggests that the good governments that we observe are likely to have cultural or ethical support-support that solves or ameliorates the dilemmas uncovered by public choice research. It demonstrates that five important impediments to good ...
Characteristics Of Good Governance
There are many characteristics of good governance. First is the government should be responsible. Being responsible is an essential requirement of good governance. ... Conceptual Model Of Good Governance Essay 1085 Words | 3 Pages. Conceptual model of good governance in the world's view Based on the literature reviewed, this study perceived ...
How to Improve the Environmental, Social and Governance Performance of
The environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of construction enterprises still needs to be improved. Therefore, in order to better utilize resources effectively to improve enterprise ESG performance, this paper explores the configuration paths for Chinese construction enterprises to improve their ESG performance using the (fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis) fsQCA method ...

Good Governance: Definitions, 8 Characteristics, And Importance

Definitions of Good Governance

8 Major Characteristics of Good Governance

1. Participation

2. Rule of Law

3. Transparency

4. Responsiveness

5. Consensus Oriented

6. Equity and Inclusiveness

7. Effectiveness and Efficiency:

8. Accountability

Importance of Good Governance

Economic Development

Social Development

Political Development

8 thoughts on “Good Governance: Definitions, 8 Characteristics, And Importance”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

6 (page 101) p. 101 Good governance

Signed in as

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Sign in through your institution

Sign in with a library card

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Keep up-to-date with our selected library and writings

Good Governance: Definition and Characteristics

Read another topics

Garden City Sejong

International Women’s Day, Building a Women-Friendly City

Goyang City Boosts Specialised Libraries to Cater to Diverse Taste

Nymia Pimentel Simbulan

The Rise of Populist, Autocratic, Strongman Regimes

Consequences of the Strongman Autocratic Leadership: The Philippine Experience

Ways Forward: Instituting Genuine Changes

About the author

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Related Posts

Deaf Community and DiDRR Network in Viet Nam Call for Action: Ensuring that No One is Left Behind

The Kleptocrat’s Accomplice? Incentives, Values, and Networks in the Professional Enabling of Corrupt Capital

Singapore’s Economic Response to Covid-19: An Outsider’s View from Inside

Book Review: Projectland: Life in a Lao Socialist Model Village, by Holly High

Ethics and good governance

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression

Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look

Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

JEL Classification

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS