Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Varieties of Good Governance: A Suggestion of Discursive Plurality

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concepts of good governance and also good administration have increased in popularity over recent years. They have found a convincing conceptual niche on a European and global level. This is also visible in scholarly activity; from the early 1990s on, there has been a wave of good governance talk and consequently, research and criticism. In this article the concepts of good governance and good administration are discussed from a discursive standpoint. The main claim is that the concepts are over-inclusive and can signify a plethora of meanings. Consequently, the mechanisms of this indeterminacy are studied; the criteria according to which good governance and administration are defined vary. This is exemplified in the contexts of the EU and the Council of Europe. Accordingly, different “good-nesses” can contradict each other. It is suggested that the different discourses or vocabularies of good governance and good administration form closed systems of meaning which identify only claims which adhere to their own rationality. Furthermore, these different meanings enable different forms of exercising societal power. The approach is inspired by systems theoretical reading of discourses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. [2–11]. This list is far from exhaustive; rather, it is illustrative.

  2. Generally, good governance can be suggested to point more to teleological reasoning (what is the preferable order in society?) and good administration to instrumental reasoning (how is the most preferable order to be executed?). Nevertheless, good administration can be seen as a part of good governance, which makes the former a more overarching or generic concept. See Recommendation CM/Rec (2007)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on good administration (CJ-DA (2005)4, 2–3).

  3. That, however, depends more on institutional imitation than mere registration of the natural content of the concept. See Argyriades [2, p. 157].

  4. Metaphor by Kennedy [13].

  5. This question can also be framed with the vocabulary of the fragmentation of international law. See Teubner and Fischer-Lescano [14], Koskenniemi [15, 16].

  6. So called critical discourse analysis draws influence from this theory. See e.g. Fairclough [19].

  7. Some might argue that these approaches are mutually exclusive. However, they can also be seen as completing each other. See Teubner [70, p. 120].

  8. Compare with Ricouer [20].

  9. World Bank [24]. On the theorization of the concept in the World Bank see [12].

  10. E.g. Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part and the European Community and its Member States of the other part.

  11. E.g. IMF Code of Conduct for Staff [30].

  12. Argyriades [2, p. 155] uses the term “coercive isomorphism”. Trubek and Santos [31].

  13. See e.g. IMF [28, p. iv].

  14. Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part and the European Community and its Member States of the other part (the Cotonou Agreement) 2000, article 9.

  15. COM(2001) 428 final, European Governance—White Paper.

  16. See Craig [38].

  17. White Paper, p. 8.

  18. The Code of good administrative behaviour for the staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public.

  19. The European Code of Conduct of Good Administrative Behavior.

  20. On the Ombudsman’s competence to “create” new elements of good administrative behavior see Mendes [43] and de Leeuw [41].

  21. Article 12 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

  22. CJ-DA (2005)4, p. 8.

  23. CJ-DA (2005)4, 9.

  24. Critically, see Klabbers [49].

  25. E.g. Bauman [53, 54].

  26. Compare with Dworkin [55, 56].

  27. Žižek [57, p. 400] turns around Hannah Arendt’s famous notion of “the banality of evil”.

  28. [62, 63] Both Weber and Foucault emphasize economy, control and predictability as the key issues of efficient governing. Although they look at the topic from theoretically different viewpoints, their accounts can be interpreted as substantively supplementing each other. See e.g. Szakolczai [64].

  29. E.g. Cassese [78].

  30. Compare with Fischer-Lescano and Christensen [79].

  31. Somewhat surprisingly, Luhmann [74, pp. 374–375] sees both (the governing/the governed, legal/illegal) as parts of the system of politics. See also Brans and Rossbach [76].

  32. Foucault [63] see also Rajkovic [37].

References

  1. Koskenniemi, M. 2004. Global governance and public international law. Kritische Justiz 3: 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Argyriades, D. 2006. Good governance, professionalism, ethics and responsibility. International Review of Administrative Sciences 72(2): 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Botchway, F. 2001. The old, the new, the principle and the elements. Florida Journal of International Law (Spring 2001, Number 2) 13: 159–210.

  4. Chiti, M. 1995. Are there universal principles of good governance? European Public Law 1(2): 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Diamandouros, N. 2007. The relationship between the principle of good administration and legal obligations. In Liber Amicorum en L’honneur de Bo Vesterdorf, ed. E. Barbier de la Serre, C. Baudenbacher, E. Coulon, C. Gulmann, and K. Lenaerts, 314–352. Bruylant, Bruxelles.

  6. Doornbos, M. 2001. Good governance: The rise and decline of a policy metaphor? Journal of Development Studies 37(6): 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fortsakis, T. 2005. Principles governing good administration. European Public Law 11(2): 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lord, Millett. 2002. The right to good administration. Public Law, Summer 2002:309–322.

  9. Kennedy, D. 2008. Mystery of global governance. Ohio N.U.L. Review 827, 34: 827–860.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nanda, V. 2006. The “Good Governance” concept revisited. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 603(1): 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Seppänen, S. 2003. Good governance in International Law. The Erik Castrén Institute Research Reports 13/2003, University of Helsinki.

  12. Landell-Mills, P., and I. Serageldin. 1991. Governance and the external factor. In Proceedings of the World Bank annual conference on development economics World Bank. Washington D.C.

  13. Kennedy, D. 1998. A critique of adjudication, fin de siècle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer-Lescano, A., and G. Teubner. 2004. Regime-collisions: The vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 24(4): 999–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koskenniemi, M. 2006. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of International Law. Int’l L. Commission Fifty-eighth session Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi.

  16. Koskenniemi, M. 2007. The fate of Public International Law: Between technique and politics. The Modern Law Review 7: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Foucault, M. 2002. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ricouer, P. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth (TX): Texas Christian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. von Wright, G.H. 1963. The varieties of goodness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  22. World Bank. 1989. Sub-Saharan Africa: From crises to sustainable development. Washington, D.C.

  23. World Bank. 1992. Governance and development I. Washington D.C. 1992.

  24. World Bank. 1991. Governance: The World Bank’s experience. Washington D.C. 1994.

  25. IMF. 2005. The IMF’s approach to promoting good governance and combating corruption—A Guide. Washington DC: IMF.

    Google Scholar 

  26. United Nations Development Programme. 1997. Governance for sustainable human development. A UNDP policy document. January 1997.

  27. OECD. 2013. Public Governance. Retrieved from (http://www.oecd.org/governance/) July 4th 2013.

  28. IMF. 1997. Good governance. The IMF’s Role. 1997. Retrieved from (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/govern/govern.pdf) July 4th 2013.

  29. Santos, A. 2006. The World Bank’s uses of the “Rule of Law” promise in economic development. In The new law and economic development: A critical appraisal, ed. D.M. Trubek, and A. Santos, 253–300. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. IMF. 1998. IMF code of conduct for staff. Retrieved from (http://www.imf.org/external/hrd/code.htm) July 4th 2013.

  31. Trubek, D.M., and A. Santos. 2006. Introduction. The third moment in law and development theory and the emergence of a new critical practice. In The new law and economic development: A critical appraisal, ed. D.M. Trubek, and A. Santos, 1–19. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. World Bank. 2002. World development report 2002: Building institutions for markets. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rittich, K. 2006. The future of law and development: Second generation reforms and the incorporation of the social. In The new law and economic development: A critical appraisal, ed. D.M. Trubek, and A. Santos, 203–252. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Grindle, M. 2004. Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 17(4): 525–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wouters, J., and C. Ryngaert. 2005. Good governance: Lessons from international organizations. In Good Governance and the European Union. Reflection on concepts, institutions and substance, ed. D.M. Curtin, and R.A. Wessel, 69–104. Antwerp, Oxford, New York: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Resolution of the Council and of the Member States meeting in the Council on human rights, democracy and development 28.11.1991.

  37. Rajkovic, N.M. 2012. Global law’ and governmentality: Reconceptualizing the ‘rule of law’ as rule ‘through’ law. European Journal of International Relations 18: 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Craig, P. 2006. EU Administrative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Nickel, R. 2008. Participatory governance and european administrative law. New legal benchmarks for the new European public order. In Law, democracy and solidarity in a post-national union. The unsettled political order of Europe, ed. E.J. Eriksen, C. Joerges, and F. Rödl, 44–60. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Official Journal of the European Union (2007/C 303/02), (2007/C 303/02), Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Explanation on article 41.

  41. de Leeuw, M. 2009. An empirical study into the norms of good administration as operated by the European Ombudsman in the field of tenders. EUI RSCAS Working Papers, 2009/20. Firenze: European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.

  42. Kańska, K. 2004. Towards administrative human rights in the EU. Impact of the charter of fundamental rights. European Law Journal 10(3): 296–326.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mendes, J. 2009. Good administration in EU Law and the European Code of good administrative behavior. EUI Working Papers Law 2009/09. Firenze: European University Institute, Department of Law.

  44. Bradley, A.W. 1995. Administrative justice: A developing human right? European Public Law 1(3): 347–369.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Niemivuo, M. 2008. Good administration and the council of Europe. European Public Law 14(4): 545–564.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Council of Europe, Project Group of Administrative Law (CJ-DA). 2005. Preliminary Draft Report on the feasibility and desirability of preparing a recommendation and/or a consolidated model code of good administration. 17th meeting (28 February–2 March 2005). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

  47. Kieres, L. 2003. The constitutional basis for the right to good administration. In The right to good administration proceedings. European Conference organized by the Council of Europe in collaboration with the Ministry of the Interior and of Public Administration of Poland and the Office of the Ombudsman in Poland. December 2003. Warsaw (Poland): 9–18.

  48. Devolvé, P. 2003. The right to good administration. General report. In The right to good administration. Proceedings. European Conference organized by the Council of Europe in collaboration with the Ministry of the Interior and of Public Administration of Poland and the Office of the Ombudsman in Poland. December 2003. Warsaw (Poland): 121–133.

  49. Klabbers, J. 1996. The redundancy of soft law. Nordic Journal of International Law 65: 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kingsbury, B., N. Krisch, and R. Stewart. 2005. The emergence of global administrative law. Law and contemporary problems 68: 15–61.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Engle Merry, S. 2011. Measuring the World: Indicators, human rights, and global governance. Current Anthropology 52 (Supplement 3): S83–S95.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Esty, D.C. 2006. Good governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law. Yale Law Journal 115(7): 1490–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bauman, Z. 1993. Postmodern ethics. Oxford UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bauman, Z. 1995. Life in fragments. Essays in postmodern morality. Oxford UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Dworkin, R. 1977. Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Žižek, S. 2006. The parallax view. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Barzelay, M. 2001. The new public management. Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, New York: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lane, J.-E. 2000. New public management. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lane, J.-E. 2000. The public sector. Concepts, models and approaches. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public management reform. A comparative analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Weber, M. 1968. Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology, vol. 1–3. New York: Bedminster press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Foucault, M. 2007. Security, territory, population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Szakolczai, A. 1998. Max Weber and Michel Foucault. Parallel life-works. London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Reichel, J. 2006. God förvaltning i EU och i Sverige. Stockholm: Jure.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Maes, R. 1997. Public management between legality and efficiency: The case of Belgian Public Administration. In Public management and the administrative Reform in Western Europe, ed. W.J.M. Kickert, 199–211. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Mansfield, H.C. 1993. Taming the Prince. The ambivalence of modern executive power. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Koskenniemi, M. 2009. Miserable comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law. European Journal of International Relations 5: 395–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Teubner, G. 1998. De Collisione Discursuum. Communicative rationalities in law, morality and politics. In Habermas on law and democracy, ed. A. Arato, and M. Rosenfeld, 173–189. Berkeley: Critical Exchanges University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Teubner, G. 1997. Altera Pars Audiatur: Law in the collision of discourses. In Law, society and economy, ed. R. Rawlings, 149–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Koskenniemi, M. 2012. Hegemonic regimes. In Regime interaction in International Law: Facing fragmentation, ed. M. Young, 305–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Richardson, H.S. 1990. The problem of liberalism and the good. In Liberalism and the good, ed. B.R. Douglass, G.M. Mara, and H.S. Richardson, 1–28. New York, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Teubner, G. 1993. Law as an Autopoietic system. Oxford, UK, Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Luhmann, N. 2004. Law as a social system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tuori, K. 2010. The tension between reason and will in Law. Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Brans, M., and S. Rossbach. 1997. The autopoiesis of administrative systems: Niklas Luhmann on public administration and public policy. Public Administration 75(3): 417–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lyotard, J.-F. 1988. The Differend: Phrases in dispute. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cassese, S. 2012. New paths for administrative law: A manifesto. International Journal of Constitutional Law 10(3): 603–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Fischer-Lescano, A., and R. Christensen. 2012. Auctoritatis Interpositio: How systems theory deconstructs decisionism. In Social and Legal Studies 21: 93–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge Martti Koskenniemi, Jan Klabbers and Olli Mäenpää for their helpful engagements with and comments on the paper. I also thank Panu Minkkinen and Susanna Lindroos-Hovinheimo for their kind support. I thank Annamari Engelberg for her valuable work on text formatting. The author is a member of Centre of Excellence in Foundations of European Law and Polity Research, funded by the Academy of Finland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014, University of Helsinki, Finland

    Ida Koivisto

Authors
  1. Ida Koivisto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ida Koivisto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koivisto, I. Varieties of Good Governance: A Suggestion of Discursive Plurality. Int J Semiot Law 27, 587–611 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-013-9329-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-013-9329-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation