INTERNATIONAL

Roxana ,The French swimming star from Romania

-Claudine Canetti, France

When the French national anthem, the Marseillaise, resounded in Perth Australia, on 17th January1998, in honor of a 22 year-old swimmer who just earned France its first world title for swimming in history, Roxana Marcineanu, the world champion for the 200 meters backstroke, beamed from the top strip of the winner's rostrum, hardly able to believe her victory. A few moments earlier, from her lane in the water, she could be seen scrutinizing the results on the display board for several seconds before realizing that she won, and then bursting into tears on climbing out of the pool.

A year and a half later, she repeated her performance by winning the gold medal for the 200 meters backstroke (her favorite distance) and the bronze medal for the 100 meters backstroke in the European championship in Istanbul, in July 1999. Now, she dreams of the Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, in September 2000.

The new French swimming star comes from an unusual background. She was born in Bucharest on 7th May 1975 and, when she came to France with her parents at the age of nine, after fleeing Nicolae Ceausescue's communist regime in 1984, she could not speak a word of French. Today, the family lives in Mulhouse, in the east of France, and Roxana trains enthusiastically in her club without neglecting her studies for all that. She was a brilliant student and passed her baccalaureate high school certificate with merit. She has Master's degree in applied foreign languages, which makes her the most highly academically qualified member of the France swimming team.

So Roxana managed to successfully fit into the French way of life but this star, who is feted and admired and caught up in the whirlwind of celebrity (which she managed to resist perfectly), finds the comments describing her victory in Perth as the <<victory of integration>> <<shocking >>.<<It is a victory of sport and not of integration!>>, she protests, reminding people just how hard she worked in  her club to achieve this result. What is more, it is not << A Romanian (who) won a medal for France>>, as she read in one paper, but a Frenchwomen!

Which does not mean that Roxana denies her native land. In fact, as she explained in an interview, <<I feel as if she was born twice, once in Romania and a second time in France at the age of nine>> and she considers that <<having a double identity>> and a double culture is << incredibly enriching>. It is in Romania that she learnt to swim but in France that she discovered competition, which she loves. She continues to speak Romanian with her parents and when, the Marseillaise was played in Perth, she thought of them. << If they have not come to France, may be the Romanian national anthem would have been heard.>>

After her triumph in Australia, she received enthusiastic messages of congratulations from President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, but also from the Romanian President Emil Constantinescu who told her, << The Romanians are proud of you too>>. But it was the French President who awarded her the National Order of Merit at a ceremony at the Elysees Palace in honor of French top-level sportsmen and women on 18th January 1999.

The pretty swimmer, with her clear eyes, did not let it go to her head, modestly pointing out that perhaps, "she had been luckier than other", doing " a race in which the times had not been extraordinary." She reminded us that the last French world winner of a medal for swimming, Catherine Plewinski, had never managed to win a gold, contending herself with silver and bronze medals," as she had to compete against East Germans swimmers who had taken drugs". "I had been lucky to be able to swim in a << clean" context", she sportingly pointed out, without missing on the fact that she had beaten her two followers, who came joint-second behind her, by nearly a second and a half.

France's only world swimming champion is now looking formly ahead to the Olympic Games in Sydney next September in Australia, a country that has brought her luck. They will be her first Olympic Games. During the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, she did not manage to be selected for the France team, which had almost led to give up swimming. Fortunately, she had found other forms of training during her six-month study period in Germany and she had returned to competition.

"The world title in Perth had been a bit of a gift. A medal in Sydney would be a reward for all the work I have done, "she said in her soft voice, and she carries on working!

ADB identifies four basic elements of good governance: accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency

Dr. Richard Vokes, Resident Representative
Asian Development Bank, Kathmandu

Having gone through the HDC report, my own view is that humane governance represents not so much a new concept of development governance but rather a new and certainly very useful framework within which to examine and discuss issues of development governance. In this regard, it is significant that while Professor Maskay does not use the term humane governance in his new book, he nonetheless covers most, if not all, of the same issues, such as the need for people centered development, greater equity, ownership, empowerment and so on.

With this introduction and background, let us now turn to ADB’s perspective on development governance. Although strongly influenced by work on governance undertaken by other multilateral institutions and especially the World Bank, ADB was in fact the first of the Multilateral Financial Institutions (MFIs) to formerly adopt a governance policy, which it did in August 1995. On the face of it, the range of governance issues addressed by the ADB is narrower than those discussed above, reflecting the fact that as an MFI, its Charter specifically prohibits the ADB from direct interference in the political affairs of its member countries.   To the ADB, governance refers to  “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” This is exactly the same overall definition as used by the World Bank. Under this definition, the concept of governance is concerned directly with the management of the development process; it encompasses the functioning and capability of the public sector, as well as the rules and institutions that create the framework for the conduct of both public and private business, including accountability for economic and financial performance, and regulatory frameworks relating to both the public and private sectors.   In broader terms, then, governance is about the institutional environment in which citizens interact among themselves and with government agencies and officials. Thus for the ADB, “ {good} governance is synonymous with sound development management.

In comparing this concept of governance with that used in both Professor Maskay’s book and the HDC report, the ADB definition clearly encompass the various elements included under the dimension of economic governance. However, it also covers at least some elements included in the dimension of civic governance or social governance, for example, participation and the role of community based-organizations and non-governmental organizations in the development process.  What is excluded is an explicit political dimension. In this respect, the MFIs are different from the bilateral donors and the UNDP, since their governance work often does include a more explicit political dimension, for example support for democracy or human rights.

In practice, this distinction between the economic and political dimensions of governance is rather artificial. Issues surrounding development management are usually bound up with political issues and this is clearly also true in the area of civic governance, for example in the way in which governments and civil society interact.  Like other development agencies, the ADB is increasingly working with CBOs/NGOs and other grassroots organizations. In the process, such institutions are strengthened and people empowered. This clearly can and does have implications for the wider political process in a country. Nonetheless, given the stricture imposed by the Charter, the Bank steers clear of overtly political goals/dimensions of governance although efforts to enhance the quality of economic governance, such as the management of resources for development, could well redound to the benefit of the former.

Moving beyond these definitional issues, how does the ADB seek to address governance issues in its work? In doing so, ADB draws a distinction between, on the one hand, elements of good governance and, on the other, the specific areas of action (e.g., public sector management) in which they could be promoted, or their existence enhanced. In line with this reasoning, the Bank has identified four basic elements of good governance: (i) accountability, (ii) participation, (iii) predictability, and (iv) transparency.

By accountability is meant the imperative to make public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to the entity from which they derive their authority. Accountability also means establishing criteria to measure the performance of public officials, as well as oversight mechanisms to ensure that the standards are met. 

The principle of participation derives from the acceptance that people are at the heart of development. Development is both for and by people; hence they need to have access to the institutions that promote it. Participation also relates to such issues as ‘ownership’ and the interface between public agencies and both private individuals and private entities.

Predictability refers to (i) the existence of laws, regulations, and policies to regulate society and (ii) their fair and consistent application. Rules-based systems for economic life are an essential component of the environment within which economic actors' plan and take investment decisions. Besides legal and regulatory frameworks, consistency of public policy is also important.

Transparency refers to the availability of information to the general public and clarity about government rules, regulations and decisions. Thus it both complements and reinforces predictability. 

Conceptually, the four elements of governance tend to be mutually supportive and reinforcing. These elements of good governance are abstract and conceptual in nature. To make them operationally relevant to the Bank, we have to translate them into specific areas of action. Examples of these are:

Accountability (building government capacity)

— public sector management

— public enterprise management and reform

—public financial management

—civil service reform

Participation (participatory development processes)

participation of beneficiaries and affected groups

public sector/private sector interface

decentralization of public and service delivery functions (empowerment of local government)

cooperation with non-government organizations (NGOs)

Predictability (legal frameworks)

law and development

legal frameworks for private sector development

Transparency (information openness)

disclosure of information

While there are some differences in emphasis given to the various elements and dimensions of development governance by ADB and both Professor Maskay and the HDC Report,  I am in fact  struck by the similarity in the various elements and dimensions of governance that are highlighted. Thus, humane governance according to the HDC Report is built on “the principles of ownership, decency and accountability….Governance must be seen by the people as operating in their interests-transparent and accountable” (p. 8). The report goes on to talk about the importance of the rule of law, macroeconomic stability, guaranteeing property rights, removing market distortions, eliminating rent-seeking opportunities, etc.  

While all of the various dimensions and elements of development governance are undoubtedly important and worthy of further discussion and analysis, I would like to spend a few minutes before I finish focusing on one aspect that I think is particularly important in the current debate and also very relevant to Nepal, namely the appropriate role of the state (or government) in development management.  ABD and the other MFIs have been frequently criticized over the last 15-20 years for pushing developing countries too far and too fast down the road of liberalization and globalization. A focus on these issues is usually part of a wider process of economic reform that involves a reduction in the role of the state in the economy along with the adoption of market-friendly policies, including the opening up of trade regimes. Some of the criticism leveled at the MFIs is justified in that it is clear that market-forces alone cannot deliver sustainable development. Equally, the strength and ability of private sector agents (be they individual small farmers or small businesses or larger corporations) to respond positively to market forces and the opportunities these provide, varies from country to country and depends on a whole range of wider issues, such as the levels of literacy and skill development, availability of capital, infrastructure and so on. Equally, the recent Asian financial crisis has made it even clearer than before that effective regulation of both public and private sector actors by government is an essential prerequisite of well functioning and efficient markets.

These criticisms notwithstanding, and despite the recent financial crisis, there remains a strong and still growing consensus among development practitioners on the key role of the market and the private sector in development. Equally significantly, the HDC report talks about the need to redirect the priorities of the state. To quote, “ An enduring problem of South Asia has been that there is too much involvement in some areas and too little in others”. “{the} evidence is not that the government has no role to play in economic development but that a positive role requires not expansion in the scale of government activity, but an increase in its effectiveness and a major reallocation of its resources”. What is needed is “a small but effective state”. Significantly, the report also talks in positive terms about globalization and the role of the private sector. Thus,  “ If liberalization is properly sequenced and ‘hot flows’ carefully managed, globalization can be beneficial to all” (p.25), and one of the key actions required for the reorientation of the priorities of the state is “a major impetus to increase economic growth through an increased role for the private sector, more open economies, and an equitable fiscal policy that taxes the rich and spends on the poor”.

There are many other elements that must be in place if liberalization, globalization and private sector-led development are to lead to the kind of development outcome which we all desire.  But this is in many ways precisely the point. It bears emphasis that we are not simplistically talking about rolling back and down sizing the state, or about the idea of the minimalist state. Rather, what we are talking about is changing and enhancing the role of the state. In broad terms it means changing the role of the state from a ‘doer’ to a ‘facilitator’, at least in all those areas where the private sector or private sector investment is possible given the right enabling environment. It is in providing the correct enabling environment that governments can make the greatest value-added to the development process. While this certainly covers such things as sound economic policies and a proper legal and regulatory framework, it also covers the provision of certain economic infrastructure, as well as basic social infrastructure.

If there is any lesson that is clear from development experience over the last 50 years it is that neither the state not the market can do everything. What is needed is an appropriate balance between the two and this is something that will vary between countries and, even more importantly, over time within a country, underlying the dynamic nature of development management and governance.

This need to reorient the role of the state has been most evident in the former centrally planned economies such as the People’s Republic of China, Viet Nam, and Kazakstan. Having worked extensively on the Asian transition economies for most of a decade from 1986, I know how difficult the problems of the transition to the market can be. But clearly, it is not just the centrally planned economies that are going through such a transition. As the HDC report indicates, it is certainly true of the South Asian economies, which certainly includes Nepal.  The challenges and demands facing government are immense which is why both the energy and resources of government have to be carefully managed and directed into these critical areas. (Paper read by the author on January 7, 2000, at a symposium held on Development Governance: Agenda for Action by Center for Development and Governance. The author is the Resident Representative of the ADB, Nepal office based in Kathmandu. Excerpts only-Chief editor).