Is Governance a Development Concept?

Is Governance a Development Concept? Raúl Chambote, September 2016 ([email protected])

1.0. Introduction From early 1980s to recent years, the term “governance” has been extensively used by International Financial Institutions (IFIs), bilateral and multilateral donors, Heads of State, Governments, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and other entities, when dealing with development related issues. However, despite its wide use, what does governance mean to investors, donors, decision-makers and those with the responsibility for implementing policies for development purposes in developing countries? Does governance add something new to development, or it is just a nice-sounding buzzword? Are there any contributions that can be made from governance towards development? These are some aspects that should be considered when the concept of governance is analyzed from a developmental perspective. Focusing on the usage of the concept of governance in international development, this paper will start by defining the term “governance” and see how it has been used in various ways. I will discuss whether the concept of governance provides a comprehensive understanding to both stakeholders for investment and development in developing countries. Based on this study, it may be possible to see to what extent governance has been used in endeavours for developing countries. 2.0. Governance as Development Concept 2.1. What is Governance? Reviews of the literature by a number of scholars provide various attempts to define the concept of governance that has been in use either for investment or development ends in developing countries. For definition purposes this paper brings three key authors into this debate, namely Stocker (1998), Alcántara (1998) and Krahman (2003). The first takes an institutional system approach, the second, a developmentalist perspective and the third a system-unity analysis. Before presenting the three proposed definitions in detail however, it is also important to review on what other scholars have said. Craig and Porter (2006, pp. 70-73) understand governance as a political concept that has been skilfully operationalized by the World Bank in order to separate the political domain from the technical one, while allowing governments, the Bank and everyone to “get on with business.” Quoting two World Bank documents, one entitled Governance and 1

Development, and another Governance: The World Bank Experience, published in 1992 and in 1994, respectively, they identified three distinct aspects that characterizes governance: “the form of political regime; the process by which authority is exercised in the management of a country’s economy and social resources; and the capacity of government to design, formulate, and implement policies and, in general, to discharge government functions” (Graig and Porter 2006, p. 71). The whole issue of governance, as they perceive it from World Bank’s perspective is centred on curbing corruption. Their view is in line with the so-called Country Policy and Institutional Assessments of the World Bank sixteen criteria compact divided into four clusters, of which the fourth one is the major criterion named as “governance factor”, according to Arndt and Oman (2006, p. 27). Another scholar, using the World Bank view, (Hydén (1999, p. 70), refers governance as the “use of political reform to strengthen the prospect of effective policy implementation”. He adds that donors use it to refer democratization process in the sense of “multiple centres of decisionmaking process either from policy making or territorial jurisdiction, Hill (2003, p. 1). Nevertheless, the World Bank was rebuked by Hydén (1999) for “inventing the concept of governance”, which falls outside its own mandate, reflected in the caution by its General Counsel on Articles of Agreement, that prohibits the World Bank from interfering in the political affairs of member states. The Article IV, Section 10 of the mentioned Agreement, Graig and Porter (2006, pp. 71) write “the Bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member; nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the member or members concerned”. Other scholars such as Bardham (2002), Sulton (1999), Arndt and Oman (2006), in defining governance have also taken the World Bank perspective advanced by other scholars herein cited. Table 1: Definitions of Governance and Good Governance Source

World Bank

What is Governance?

What is Good Governance

"the process and institutions through which decisions are made and authority in a country is exercised" (p. 3)

Inclusiveness and accountability established in three key areas: "selection, accountability and replacement of authority (voice and accountability; stability lack of violence); efficiency of institutions, regulations, resource management (regulatory framework; government effectiveness); respect for institutions, laws and interactions among players in civil society, business and politics (control of corruption; rule of law) (pp. 3-7)

"the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. It

Characterised as "participatory, transparent…accountable…effective and equitable…promotes the rule of law…ensures that political, social and

(n.d)

UNDP 1997

2

IMF 2005

DFID 2001

comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences" (p. 12)

economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that

For IMF purposes, "limited to economic aspects of governance…in two spheres: improving the management of public resources…,supporting the development and maintenance of a transparent and stable economic and regulatory environment conducive to effecinet private sector activities…" (p. 4)

"ensuring the rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the

"how the institutions, rules and systems of the state – the executive, legislative, judiciary and military - operate at central and local level and how the state relates to individual citizens, civil society and private sector"

"seven key governance capabilities: to operate political systems which provide opportunities for all people…to influence government policy and practice; to provide macroeconomic stability…to promote growth necessary to reduce poverty; to implement pro-poor policy; to guarantee the equitable and universal provision of effective basic services; ensure personal safety and security…; to manage national security arrangements accountable…; to develop honest and accountable government…" (p. 9)

(p. 11, note a)

USAID

2005

Hyden et al. (2004)

Kaufmann 2003

"The ability of government to develop an efficient, effective, and accountable public management process that is open to citizen participation and that strengthens rather than weakens a democratic system of government" (p. 1)

"The formation and stewardship of the formal and informal rules that regulate the public realm, the arena in which state as well as economic and societal actors interact to make decision" (p. 16) "the exercise of authority through formal and informal traditions and institutions for the common good, thus encompassing: (i) the process of selecting, monitoring and replacing governments; (ii) the capacity to formulate and implement sound policies and deliver public services, and (iii) the respect of citizens and

the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources" (p. 12)

public sector, and tackling corruption" (p. 1)

Democratic governance: "transparency, pluralism, citizen involviment in decision-making, representation, and accountability; focusing particularly on five areas: legislative strengthening, decentralisation and democratic local governance, anti-corruption, civil-military relations, and improving policy implementation" (p. 1)

Can be measured along five dimensions ("participation, fairness, decency, efficiency, accountability, and transparency") in each of six arenas (civil society, political society, government, bureacracy, economic society, judiciary)

Can be measured along with six dimensions: (Voice and Accountability; Political Stability and Absence of Violence; Government Effectiveness; Regulatory Efficiency; Rule of Law; Control of Corruption (p. 5)

3

the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them" (p. 5) Source: Adapted from Grindle' 2000

Returning now to the three scholars mentioned at the beginning of this section, Stocker (1998, p. 2), in his five-fold approach theory defines governance as a complex set of institutions and actors whose concerns for tackling political, social and economic issues, in a changing world, recognizes no parameters for an interdependent shared responsibilities. He suggests that the complexity of the institutions and actors at local, national, regional and supranational level blur the boundaries of responsibility due to power dependence that entails their relationships in collective action, such as organizational processes, a negotiated common goal to be achieved, the exchange of resources and the establishment of the rules of the game among the participants. His view of rolling back the State seems to be a necessary step to enhance autonomous selfgoverning networks of institutions and actors, yet enabling the State to use new tools and techniques for appropriate guidance. The five propositions Stocker (1998, pp. 2-3) advanced refer to governance, firstly, as “a set of institutions and actors drawn from but also beyond government”, whereby the constitutional or formal government system are challenged by the political and social dynamic changes in the contemporary world; secondly, as a recognition of blurred boundaries of responsibilities among the institutions and actors that might concur either in confusing the public-policy makers on who pass on state responsibilities to a different sector; thirdly, as power dependence in the relationships between institutions during a collective action, yet acknowledging the potential for opportunist behaviour among the actors within the networks; fourthly, as “an autonomous selfgoverning networks of actors”, moreover, warning about difficulties in managing power game in dealing informally with the government; and finally, governance is understood as an ability to get things done, including government when it is capable of using “new tools and techniques” to guide the process. According to Alcántara (1998, pp. 1-5), governance is a tool to create a more effective system of authority and regulation within global economy that would seem to be a precondition for the survival of democracy in developing countries. She understands it as the re-interpreted neoliberal agenda for IFIs, bilateral and multilateral donors, scholars, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), the media and others for supporting public and private investments in developing 4

countries. In the context of democratization, globalization and supranational organization, Alcántara (1998, p .8) asserts that the discourse of governance aims at resolving, not just the problems of developing countries, but the international crisis of livelihood and governability in the world. This approach is centred on current development issues, such as funding processes for development, observance of the rule of law, democratization and decentralization of public services, accountability, auditing and procurement practices, citizen participation in policy making and others. In his system-unity analysis, Krahman (2003, p. 1), and points out that “governance can be universally defined as a fragmentation of political authority in seven ways: geography, functions, resources, interests, norms, decision-making, and policy implementation”. The proposed definition, he argues, “helps to distinguish governance from government as ideal concepts of fragmented and centralized political authority”. The definition advanced by Krahman offers an insightful thought because it helps to understand governance as a general phenomenon rather than a concept for an exercise of intellectual abstraction. He reasons that the proposed analytical framework helps to observe and compare governance arrangement across levels of analysis providing specific information about problems and failures of governance at national, regional and international levels whether solutions at one level is applicable to another. For example, how the State authority is perceived at national, regional and international levels in dealing with development issues or at sector level such as education. Finally, as I will discuss later on, it is his attempt to call the attention “to determine factors that promoted governance and how governance norms and policy-making modes have been transferred from one level to another” that is disregarded by the key players on the politics of development. Though Stocker’s institutional approach appears attractive by pointing to the current political, social and economic trends, the need for shared responsibilities at all levels within the institutions, be them public, private or voluntary and actors, self-networking, it is fraught with fragilities. On his proposed rejection, Stocker (1998, p. 3) of some constitutional or formal institution has a boomerang effect, because it is not governance that needs institutions or actors but the other way round. Concerning blurred boundaries and power dependence claims, Stocker (1998, p. 5) seems to have missed the point by leaving aside the liberalism and neo-liberalism ideology supported by clear structured and defined system. Advocating self-governing networks of actors weakens it more because it suggests actions coming out of a legal framework. Freedom 5

that the West enjoys is discipline defined by the rule of law. If the United States of America had not these I wonder whether Bill Gates could have become a millionaire. Alcántara’s alternative contribution to the governance debate based on the premises of ground work needs some academic scrutiny because it may constrict unprepared reader in finding scapegoats for what has not yet done, imagined or real. Instead of dismissing her contributions some additions could make Alcántara’s views stronger, such as pointing out that the governance is not a new phenomenon and it has evolved throughout the history of the human kind; the ideology that has been formed by the IFIs should be traced right to the core existence of the State; and all the processes that entail funding for development, such as democratization, accountability, auditing, transparency, rule of law and participation of citizens in policy-making are meant, as Craig and Porter (2006, pp. 97-105) argue to enable States to become appropriate vehicle for the market to function. If this last observation is viewed as a convincing one, what aspects link the concept of governance to development? Are they clear to both investment and development stakeholders? This is the subject of my discussion in the next section.

6

2.2. Governance as Development: a re-interpreted concept In order to consider the questions above, it is worth also asking what makes governance a development concept, if it really means it, and why? To answer these questions is not an easy task, and there will be eventually shortcomings on one argument or another. However, there are some elements that can help to discuss the issue. For this I will attempt to elect three: the diplomacy of political economy, the worldwide unpredictable social and economic changes, and the attempts to find an alternative to liberalism. Concerning the diplomacy of political economy, I would say that the concept of governance has been interpreted in line with vested political interests either on the side of investors and donors or on the side of political and economical elites in the developing countries, through diplomatic means to establish conducive structures, as Agg (2006, pp. 3-9) points out, ideologically suitable for market and exercise of power. Out of these parameters it could have been difficult to talk about a “capable state and an inclusive neo-liberalism”, Graig and Porter (2006, pp. 63-94) as opposite to liberalism. From early 1980s to 1990s the international environment favoured dramatic changes when the world witnessed the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 which had been perceived by Fukuyama (1992) as the triumph of liberalism. It seems there were enough reasons for the claims, taken for granted by some, that the market failures implied government failures, as Krueger (1990, pp. 10-15) contends. Investment and funding become increasing based on diplomatic negotiations around security issues that would assure investors for having access to their assets and donor countries to have the market opportunity for their goods and also movement for people. One example can be drawn from International Country Risk Guide governance indicators that assesses financial and economic risks relying on objective measurement while for political risks assessments rely “on subjective interpretations of experts” (Arndt and Oman 2006, pp. 21-22). Economic relations between States or International Financial Institutions (IFIs) with particular States cannot be dissociated with ideological interests. Therefore, diplomatic tools are useful to harness hidden agendas, as it has been of the World Bank by ignoring its own Article of Agreement earlier mentioned or as denounced by Hanlon (2002, pp. 10-15), concerning a number of issues taking place in Mozambique. Regarding the unpredictable social and economic changes worldwide, governance has been referred to, Graig and Porter (2006, p. 10) state, as a managing tool for solving many social and economic problems that emerged during the Cold War, the failure of Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) and the inability to fix financial crises, as it was the case of “the 1997 Asian currency crisis” (Graig and Porter 2006, p. 75). How were these problems going to be solved? 7

Private investors, IFIs and government of the Developed Countries set up appealing tools with normative power around governance related issues in order to make people understand and encourage them to adhere to the consensus. This consensus had to be built on inclusive premises since the social and economic problems affected, directly or indirectly not only financial and government institutions but also people all over the world. But where to begin? Rather than accusing anyone, the World Bank report offered the answer, Bosckstette, et al., (2002) (cited in Graig and Porter 2006, p. 1) in asserting that: “People rise from poverty when countries act on two pillars of development: building a good investment climate in which private entrepreneurs will invest, generate jobs, and produce efficiently, and empowering poor people and investing in them so that they can participate in economic growth. What’s a good investment climate? Start with macro-economic management and trade and investment policies that promote openness and raise productivity and growth. Add the elements of good governance, such as regulation of industry, promotion of competition, and prevention of corruption. Then set all that on foundation of basic infra-structure and effective basic services, such as health and education.”

From the extract, there is a normative urge how the governments, financial institutions and the people should do in order to achieve development success. There is a perceived need to create a good investment climate for entrepreneurs and empower people to participate in their own development. The proposed macro-economic management and particularly the elements of good governance, sounded morally irresistible, for many participants in the market and development, not to accept governance. In 2000, James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank is quoted saying that “…leaders of the developed and developing world are united by a global responsibility based on ethics, experience and self-interest. It is a recognition that opportunity and empowerment – not charity – can benefit us all.…we are a common humanity with a common destiny…leaders are tackling corruption and putting in place good governance. They are doing it…because it is right” (Cornwall and Brock 2005, p. 4). This turned to be a call for what is morally right to do for the poor; for unity in tackling many problems that the world, especially the developing countries witnessed over the last 30 years, as Cronwall and Brock (2005, p. 12) quote the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2000, “…as government comes closer to the people, more people will participate in politics…that will give them representation, a key element in empowerment...”. The key point here is that the problems caused by unpredictable social and economic changes were identified and the message was crafted in such a way that all financial and government institutions and people get it accordingly and act to improve the situation. Finally, attempts to find an alternative to liberalism made governance accepted as a development concept. From the literature reviews scholars surrendered to the evidence of the multiplicity use 8

of the concept and even the staunchest sceptic arguments, such as those of Cornwall and Brock (2005); Agg (2006), Alcántara (1998), Graig and Porter (2006), about its misuse in development could not stand firm. Those scholars and a number of others, Jessop (1998); Lau, et al (1991); Kuerger (1999; Nanz (2004) helped, consciously or not, the worldwide NGOs such as Oxfam GB, World Vision, Action Aid to name few and CSOs to understand what the World Bank, the UK Department for International Development (DFID), UN Agencies, particularly UNDP, the United States of America Aid Agency (USAID), wanted to be understood and done all over the world.

The more scholars and these institutions debated it, the more people become familiar and disseminate it. But, how did it happen? The media played an indispensable role by linking the whole debate of governance to corruption related issues as these appeared as the most attractive ones, argue Arndt and Oman (2006, pp. 25-26), compared to the Cold War period. This has been done through publications, conferences, workshops or seminars and in most of these events the media have been aided to disseminate the concept of governance. To sum it up, their audiences delivered the message and disseminated it further; its ideological power made private investors and governments support it and, its normative weight made rich and poor people alike welcome it as a panacea that will solve all development problems in the world. 3. 0. Contribution of Governance to Development Arguments presented by several scholars, some questioning and others giving emphasis on the importance of the concept of governance to development have shed light for investors, decisionmakers, policy makers and civil society at large in developed countries as well as in developing ones. Though it is scholarly acknowledgeable that the origins of governance has nothing to do with development but with government, its widespread acceptance in the development community indicates that there may be some really contributions for it to be desired by affected people, supported by investors and encouraged by donor governments and, disseminated by the media. For this paper I will elect three major aspects that governance has made to development: quality of governance, policy coherence among investors, donor and aid recipient governments, and re-shaping of states, markets and society. The first one is “the need for quality of governance in developing countries” suggested by Arndt and Oman (2005, p. 15) whereby shared responsibilities between stakeholders, Stoker (1998, pp. 5-8) and participation of citizens in the development are viewed as innovation, Alcántara (1998, p. 3). During the Cold War as mentioned earlier in this paper, government in developing 9

countries did not conceive civil society participation important for development. For example many African countries that have Ghana Independence in 1957, as an historic landmark, due to their association with the communist socialist ideology did not see the importance of the participation of citizens in policy making process. Decisions and policies were centrally designed. Though participation of the CSOs in policy making is desirable, the participatory approach brought by governance does not provide legitimacy because CSOs are formed based on their interests and they are not elected by the people of their respective countries. However, governance attempts to bestow the original governing power on the citizens for them to decide how to organize and development their society and this is what Bardham (2002, pp. 12-20) describes as decentralization. The second, refers to the improvement of policy coherence among investors, donor agencies and aid recipient governments. The problems of incoherence in proposing policies based on investors and donor self-interest to recipient countries, in some occasions resulted in failures to implement policy reforms as happened in the 1980s to 1990s, when the World Bank SAPs were implemented, as evidenced by Arndt and Oman (2005, p. 15) and Alcántara (1998, p. 1). Investors, donors and recipient governments are rational actors, and they cannot have same interests and priorities in handling money and state business. Yet they do it for press conference and political courtesy. In the apogee of the Cold War, security and ideological interests of investors or fund providers were the most important aspects for funding developing countries but not transparency. Governance, as Krahman (2003, p. 9) points out has helped to reduce this by calling for a coordinated action among the stakeholders in policy making for development. The third contribution of governance to development is based on the “new modes of governing, shaping the market and society into a desired direction”, as Grin (2005, p. 3) puts it. There is a moral imperative that, in order to transform the State, Narayan and Woolcock (2000, pp. 4-15) say social capital should be invested into community development, and the manner in which it is networked, that is, how political, legal and institutional synergies are unified for the benefit of the society, should be clearly defined for the benefit and stabilization of society. A question remains: How can state governments avoid interfering with their own responsibilities if rules are to be changed and institutions reformed? To all these, Cornwall and Brock (2005) would add a need for a critical look of what the concept does not do for development as the role of political power still keeps its relevance for negotiations, establishing development funding priorities and regulations. Governance makes political power an important instrument to organize the market and make development take place. 10

4. 0. Conclusion In the preceding analysis based on literature reviews this paper attempts to demonstrate how the term “governance” has been re-interpreted and used in the field of international development by analysing several definitions of it, identifying some influential aspects and significantly contributing factors, that made governance an accepted concept for development by international private investors, bilateral and multilateral donors, Head of States and Governments, national and international NGOs, CSOs, citizens and other entities. While retaining its broadly recognized central meaning as a concept for political sciences, governance, as I discussed in this paper, can also be understood as a set of rules, procedures, communication techniques, capacity to influence, embedded ideology, interests and opportunity that formal or informal institutions (political, financial, socio-economic and others) with their respective actors need to make the established structures function accordingly. Though, all of this is no less than politics, due to the actors that primarily engaged in crafting governance, as I argued when discussing the diplomacy of political economy in section 2.2, its importance for development is an added value. Another importance of governance for development can also be understood when unpredictable socio-economic changes in the world called for a new way of looking at the problems. The financial crisis in 1997 in Asia, the failure of SAPs in Developing Countries in 1980s to 1990s and the reported unemployment in Develop Countries, were not understood just as an Asian crisis, a problem of Africa or Latin America and a European problem, respectively, but also as global problems. The final elected contribution of governance can be understood from the efforts that helped to change the minds of the people and bring together several institutions and individuals in trying to find alternative solutions that affect negatively the functioning of states, governments, economic growth and integral development of human beings. These can be achieved if rules and procedures are observed and communication techniques help people to understand the rational behind certain ideology and interests involved in undertaking a certain curse of action. Then, the capacity to influence positive change with a supported observance of the rules and procedures will make institutions and people alike see it as an opportunity to participate in a fair project for the well-being of the majority. Finally, though it is generally accepted that the term “governance” has been borrowed from the field of political sciences and crafted in such a way to downsize the centralization of government from development perspective, I would say, however, that governance has done it rhetorically because it made government stronger than any other institution in addressing development 11

issues. The state is the only stable institution that can assure us that changes in development can be controlled and managed in keeping the standards observance parameters at local, regional and international context the state and market rules and procedures and open up opportunities for the participation of all in development endeavours. I doubt if any other institution is capable of doing this better than the State in the area of international development. If all of these things are not right governance would not have been a relevant one-size-fits-all-recipe for development and investment.

12

5.0. References Agg, Catherine, (2006), Trends in Government Support for Non-Government Organizations. Is the “Golden Age” of the NGO Behind Us?, Civil Society and Civil Movement Programme Paper No. 23. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Pp., 3-9. Geneva. Arndt, Christine and Oman, Charles (2006), Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators. Development Centre Studies, OECD. Bardham, Pranab (2002), Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic Perspective. Volume 16, Number 4, pp., 185-205. Bockstette, Valerie., et al., (2002), States and Markets: The Advantages of an Early Start. Journal of Economic Growth. Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 347-369. This study has been commissioned by the World Bank in 2002. Cornwall, Andrea and Brock, Karen (2005), What Do Buzzwords Do for Development Policy? A Critical Look at “Participation”, “ Empowerment” and “Poverty Reduction”. Third World Quarterly. Volume 26, Number 7/October, pp. 1043-1060 Craig, David and Porter, Doug. (2006), Development Beyond Neoliberalism? Governance, poverty reduction and political economy. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Pp. 97-105. Grin, John (2005), Reflexive modernisation as governance – or: designing and shaping restructuration. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. Volume 1, Number 1-2, pp. 126-149. Hanlon, Joseph (2002), Are Donors to Mozambique Promoting Corruption? Paper submitted to the conference Towards a New Political Economy of Development, Sheffield, 2-3 July 2002. H. de Alcántara, Cynthia, (1998), Uses and abuses of the concept of governance. International Social Science Journal. Volume 50 Issue 150, pp 105-113. Unesco. New York. Hill, Chapel (2003), Unravelling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review. Volume 97, Number 2, pp. 233-243 Hydén, Göran (1999), “The Shifting Grounds of Policy Coherence in Development Cooperation.” In Forster, Jacques and Stokke, Olav (eds.), Policy Coherence in Development Cooperation. EADI Book Series 22. London: Frank Cass Publishers. Pps. 58-76 Jessop, Bob. (1998), The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, Volume 50, Issue 155, p. 29 Krahman, Elke, (2003), National, Regional and Global Governance: One Phenomenon or Many?, Global Governance, Volume 9, Issue 3. Pp., 323-346. Krueger, Anne O., (1990), Government Failure in Development, The Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 4, No. 3, pp. 314.

13

Narayan, Deepa and Woolcock, Michael, (2000), Social Capital: Implication for Development, research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, Volume 15, Issue 2, p. 225 Lau, Richard R. et al., (1991), Politics of Beliefs, Policy Interpretations and Political Persuasion. The Journal of Politics. Volume 53, Issue 3, p. 644. Nanz, Patricia A., Steffek, Jens (2004), Global Governance, Participation and Public Sphere. Governance and Opportunity Ltd. Volume 39, Issue 2, p. 314 Stoker, Gerry. (1998), Governance as theory: five propositions, International Social Science Journal. Vol. 50, Issue 155. Pp., 17-28. Sulton, Rebecca (1999), The Policy Process: An Overview. Overseas Development Institute, London.

14