Governance Reform: Getting the Fit Right
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1734 |
| Author | Brian Levy |
| Date | 01 October 2015 |
| Published date | 01 October 2015 |
GOVERNANCE REFORM: GETTING THE FIT RIGHT
BRIAN LEVY*
School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, USA
SUMMARY
This article builds on recent literature on political settlements and new institutional economics to suggest a “good-fit”alternative
to the “best practices”approaches that until recently have dominated efforts at governance reform. It introduces a typology for
distinguishing systematically among different groups of countries and maps the typology to four alternative approaches to gov-
ernance reform. The article then offers a set of “good-fit”hypotheses as to the conditions under which each of the approaches is
likely to be effective. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words—governance; governance reform; good fit; working with the grain; public management
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the limitations of “best-practices”approaches to governance reform (and to development
policymaking in general) have increasingly become apparent. Over the long run, good governance may indeed
be a destination to which, as countries develop, their governance systems converge. But the ability to describe
the characteristics of effective states does not conjure them into existence out of thin air. Best-practices
approaches assume that all policies and institutions are potentially moveable, and can be aligned to fit some
pre-specified blueprint. However, they cannot. The central development challenges, both for governance reforms
and socio-economic development, have less to do with the end point than with the journey of getting from here
to there.
There is also a risk at the opposite end of the spectrum. Leaving aside one-size-fits-all best practice prescriptions
makes the search for an alternative vulnerable to reaching a dispiriting conclusion that every country is unique, and
that there is little to be learned in one setting, which can be helpful in another. As a way of filling the gap between
hubris on the one hand and despair disguised as humility on the other, this article articulates a “good-fit”approach
to governance reform.
1
The section on Constructing the Typology presents a typology as a basis for distinguishing systematically
among different groups of countries. The intent is not to suggest that, by grouping countries into categories, one
can summarize (let alone capture) the whole of any single country’s development path. Rather, the aim is to high-
light some key characteristics that are shared across some sub-groups of countries, and can be directly contrasted
with other sub-groups which share a different set of characteristics. These features can facilitate more effective
comparison of like-with-like and thereby lead to the identification of better targeted and more effective options
for governance reforms.
The section on Prioritizing and Sequencing Governance Reform explores how the typology can be used to iden-
tify matches between country characteristics and four distinct approaches to governance reform: (i) comprehensive
efforts to strengthen core public management systems; (ii) targeted efforts that focus on specific public sector func-
tions, sectors, agencies, or locales; (iii) multi-stakeholder approaches; and (iv) initiatives focused on strengthening
*Correspondence to: B. Levy, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, USA. E-mail: blevy9@jhu.edu
1
A fuller treatment of the arguments made in this article can be found in Levy (2014).
public administration and development
Public Admin. Dev. 35, 238–249 (2015)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pad.1734
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial