2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Thomas Dam
Center for Development and the Environment
University of Oslo
thomas.dam@sum.uio.no

Paper to be presented at the Multi-conference 18-19 January 2001

DRAFT ONLY – Comments welcome (please do no quote!)

Good Governance in the Multilateral

Development System

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

ABSTRACT:
Good Governance in the UNDP: What, Why, How
Thomas Dam, Centre for the Development and the Environment - University of Oslo
e-mail: thomas.dam@sum.uio.no

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the idea of governance or good governance began to
flourish in the multilateral development institutions.The concept of good governance as
a new theme in development assistance is often referred to as a significant shift in the
multilateraldevelopment system. Nevertheless, a clear definition of good governance is
non-existent after several years of debate and discussion. This paper is basically an
effort to question what the concept of good governance means in the multilateral
development system in general and in the UNDP in particular. Subsequently, the paper
discusses why different multilateral development organizations define and understand
the concept of good governance so differently. The paper points to ways in which the
adoption of the good governance agenda
can be studied. The purposes of this paper are therefore two-fold: first, to examine
what is meant by the term "good governance" and the confusion and divergence it
leads to in the multilateral development system. Second, to provide a brief discussion
of how new ideas are adopted in the multilateral development system. The role of ideas
has occupied an uneasy
and often marginal place in the study of international relations. By examining IR
literature dealing with the role played by ideas in international relations, this paper will
assess different attempts to take seriously ideas in international relations. It will be
argued that "ideational" factors must be taken into consideration to a considerable
extent in order to shed light on how the good governance agenda crystallizes in the
multilateral development system. In sum, the paper addresses following questions:
What is meant by the term "good governance"?
Why have different conceptualizations of good governance crystallized in the
multilateral development system? How can we study the adoption and the role of ideas
in the multilateral development system.

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

1. Introduction1

“The challenge for all societies is to create a system of governance that promotes, supports
and sustains human development – especially for the poorest and most marginal. But the
search for a clearly articulated concept of governance has just begun” (UNDP 1997a: 2)

A widespread enthusiasm for the notion of good governance characterized the

multilateral development system in the 1990s. The concept of good governance, which
has shown to be very attractive, has been on top of the agenda among politicians,
academics and aid practitioners in the multilateral development institutions for more
than a decade. All the major multilateral development institutions have introduced
policies to improve governance. Nevertheless, after several years of debate and
discussion attempts to develop and implement a good governance agenda has given
rise to some level of consensus, but also controversy. Recently it has been questioned
whether the promotion of democratic governance is part of “a wider neo-liberal
hegemonic project of global domination” (Crawford 2000: 23).

In his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money John Maynard Keynes
drew our attention to the role of ideas: “…the ideas of economists and political
philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful
than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else” (Keynes 1936:
383). In this paper “good governance” is treated as an idea defined as a concept “which
powerfully influences development policy” (Bøås and McNeill 2000: 1). 2 Therefore, it
is more than just a slogan or a “buzzword”. On the other hand it is not a theoretical tool
or a theory subject to scientific analyses and standards. Nevertheless, many ideas such
as the informal sector, sustainable human development, social capital and good
governance derive credibility and support from the academic world (ibid.). In other
words, an idea is characterized by the fact that it operates both in academia and policy
domains.

1
In writing this paper I have benefited from the advice and comments from Morten Bøås. Further
constructive comments on the first draft were received from the participants in the conference “The State
under Pressure” held by The Norwegian Association for Development Research 5-6 October 2000.
2
For a discussion of the definition of ideas in the multilateral development system, see Bøås and
McNeill (2000).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

In recent years multilateral development organizations have begun to question the

meaning of good governance. This paper will take a closer look at the concept of good
governance in the multilateral development system. In section 2 different
conceptualisations of good governance will be presented and discussed. Thereafter, in
section 3, the paper points to ways in which the adoption of the good governance
agenda can be studied. By examining IR literature dealing with the adoption of new
ideas in international relations, this paper assesses different attempts to take seriously
ideas in international relations. Ideas are deeply contested and severely under-theorized
in the study of international relations. Focussing on the concept of good governance in
the multilateral development system, this paper sets out to give an introduction to the
range and depth of the good governance agenda and show different ways of analysing
the adoption of new ideas in the multilateral development organisations.

2. Definition(s) of good governance

A brief overview of the past decade in the multilateral development system reveals that
the introduction of the good governance agenda has had great influence on the
development policies. Since the concept of good governance flourish in all the
multilateral development organizations, it gives us a great opportunity to carry out
comparative studies of how ideas are adopted in different organizations. Against this
background, the study of the good governance agenda in the multilateral development
system can prove to be an interesting case shedding light on the role of ideas in the
multilateral development system. Thomas Weiss differentiates between governance and
good governance on the one hand and global governance on the other hand (Weiss
2000). This paper deals with the former, but they are clearly related. There is a “logical
link” between good governance at national and international level (ibid.: 807).

It is hard to determine a specific moment when the concept of good governance

surfaced in the multilateral development system. Nevertheless, researchers have dated
the introduction of “good governance” to the World Bank’s 1989 report “Sub Saharan
Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth”, which characterizes the crisis in the region
as lack of good governance and a stable set of institutions in the adjustment process
(Bull 2000: 2; Bøås 1998: 119; Santiso 2000: 6). It confronts us with severe problems

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

to say how ideas origin. Accepting an inability to identify the origin of the notion of
good governance, it can be argued that the World Bank’s 1989 report was the “point of
no return” as far as the concept of good governance in the multilateral development
system is concerned.

A clear definition of good governance is non-existent. In the 1990s all the major
development institutions adapted the notion of good governance, but divergence and
different conceptualisations characterized the governance agenda. There seems to be
competition to produce good ideas among and between multilateral development
organizations. In the following some different conceptualisations and understandings
will be discussed by looking at the ways in which different institutions have tended to
conceptualise the notion of good governance. In each case I am interested in the
definitions and conceptualisations, which are to be found in official documents and
policy notes. The notion of good governance is often defined in a descriptive and
instrumental way. These are just a few brief examples of how the notion of good
governance has been conceptualised in the multilateral development system. Two
essential questions will be addressed in this preliminary survey: 1. Does the
organization operate with a broad or a narrow definition of good governance? A broad
definition includes both political and economic aspects of governance whereas a
narrow definition only deals with issues of technical efficiency and public
management. 2. Has the question of good governance high or low priority in the
organization?

The World Bank

The World Bank’s conceptualisation of good governance has been called the
“managerial-definition” of governance (Bull 2000: 11). The Bank operates with a
relatively narrow conceptualisation of good governance. According to the Bank the
concept of good governance can be divided into three dimensions, namely “1) The
form of political regime, 2) the process by which authority is exercised in the
management of a country’s economic and social resources for development and 3) the
capacity of governments to design, formulate and implement policies and discharge
functions” (Santiso 2000: 14). This conceptualisation of good governance, which is
based on an assumption of a strong causal relationship from improved governance to
better development outcomes, can be read as a “de-politicisation” of the concept (Bull

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

2000: 2). In other words, it appears that the World Bank promotes good governance to
strengthen the prospect of effective policy implementation. The World Bank cannot run
the risk of being partisan or biased because of its own official mandate (Bull 2000: 2;
Hydén 1999: 71). Nevertheless, the Bank increasingly stresses a linkage between
democracy and good governance. The fact that the World Bank endorses and promotes
good governance by linking it to the concept of democracy, indicates that the Bank de
facto is willing to take the political dimension into account in the policy formulation
(Santiso 2000). Some authors argue that the World Bank has entered a terrain clearly
beyond its original mandate (e.g. Campell 2000).

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

In 1998 Managing Director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, stressed that IMF help
“members improve the management of their public resources and establish a stable and
transparent regulatory environment for private sector activity, a sin qua non for
economic efficiency and the eradication of corruption” (Camdessus 1998: 2). There are
initiatives under way to incorporate the concept of good governance in this respect, but
at the moment it is mainly through consultations and policy advice (Santiso 2000: 13).
In other words, the concept of good governance is present in the IMF, but not to a large
extent as far as the scope of the concept is concerned. Since the collapse of the gold
standard in 1971, the IMF has been searching for a new mission and justification of
existence (Welch 1998: 1). In recent years IMF has not been able to keep politics and
development apart in promoting macroeconomic stability and economic growth in the
member countries. The agenda for good governance is quiet narrow though. This non-
political approach can be deduced from Article IV in “Articles of Agreement of the
International Monetary Fund”.3 Nevertheless, the economic aspects of governance,
namely how carry out an effective implementation of policy reforms, is more or less
explicit increasingly taken up as a part of the Fund’s policy objectives (Santiso 2000:
13). Nevertheless, critics argue that IMF already has moved far beyond its original
mandate (Welch 1998: 1).

Regional Multilateral Development Banks

3
Section 3 in Article IV in the “Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund” states that
the principles adopted by the Fund shall be consistent with “the domestic social and political policies of
members, and in applying these principles the Fund shall pay due regard to the circumstances of
members” (IMF 2000).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

The regional development banks have increasingly adapted the policy guidelines of the
World Bank (Cook and Sachs 1999: 446; Culpeper 1997: 43-44). Both the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) adopted a
policy of governance in the mid-nineties (Bøås 1998). 4 As regards the
conceptualisation of the notion of good governance, the regional development banks in
many ways resemble the definition of the World Bank. Nevertheless, it is possible to
identify differences between these regional banks as regards the scope and profile of
the notion of good governance. Therefore, the regional Banks will be discussed
separately in the following. Contrary to the World Bank the regional development
banks are not organizations in which the industrialized countries exercise control as far
as the voting power is concerned (Culpeper 1997: 29-32).5

The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

According to the IDB, which is the oldest and largest regional multilateral
development organization, there is a “direct relationship between economic
development and the quality of government” (Santiso 2000: 14). For the IDB,
“governability implies political stability, which is tied to domestic socio-economic
conditions, the strength of democratic institutions, and citizen input into the decision-
making process” (ibid.). There is a growing realization that the IDB’s work should take
account of the notion of good governance. The main areas that the IDB addresses in
relation with the concept of good governance include the executive branch, the
legislative branch and democratic institutions, the justice system and the civil society
(ibid.). Compared with the World Bank, the IDB has a much more political governance
agenda. Against this background, the interpretation of the concept of good governance
to be found in the IDB can be labelled “democratic governance” (ibid. 11).

The Asian Development Bank (ADB). ADB’s policy on good governance can be seen as
a “balancing act” between Western donors, Japan, the borrowing Developing Member
Countries (DMCs) and the Bank itself (Jokinen 2001). The major western donors were
pressing for an explicit policy on good governance, but the Bank tries to satisfy Japan

4
The ADB was the first among the regional multilateral development banks to adopt a policy on good
governance. For a discussion of the cases of the African Development Bank and the Asian Development
Bank with special reference to governance as multilateral development bank policy, see Bøås (1998).
5
The IDB Articles, for instance, provide that the developing country members have at least 53,5 percent
of the total voting power in the IDB (Culpeper 1997: 30).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

and the MDCs to some extent (ibid). For the ADB, the concept of governance has both
political and economic dimensions (ADB 1998). The ADB defines governance as “the
manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s social and
economic resources for development…Governance has, therefore, political and
economic dimensions. Issues of political governance include the mechanisms by which
the public’s political preferences are ascertained and leaders chosen. These are
fundamental governance concerns, but are generally outside the scope of the Bank’s
work. But economic governance - sound development management - is at core of
sustainable development” (ADB 1998: 1). Four “governance-pillars” are accentuated
by the ADB, namely accountability which is “the capacity to call officials to account
for their actions”, transparency which entails “low-cost access to relevant
information”, predictability which primarily results from “laws and regulations that are
clear, known in advance, and uniformly and effectively enforced” and participation
which “is needed to obtain reliable information and to serve as a reality check and
watchdog for government action” (ADB 1998: 3). The ADB put forward the argument
that the quality of governance has “a significant impact on investment and growth”
(ADB 1998: 1). According to ADB, the four pillars are universally applicable. The
Bank recognizes that the notion of good governance entails political dimensions, but is
reluctant to deal extensively with these dimensions. The ADB was the first regional
development bank, which put the question of good governance on top of the agenda in
august 1995 by adopting an official governance policy (Santiso 2000: 13). Therefore,
governance as an issue area is well established in ADB with the formulation and
adoption of “a Board-approved policy on governance” (Bøås 1998: 130). For some
writers ADB’s policy is seen as an effort to make DMCs “compatible with the values
and practices of the North American and European donors” (Jokinen 2001). This
undeniably threatens ADB’s self-image as an impartial and technical institution.

The African Development Bank (AfDB)

The AfDB has been relatively inactive as far as the promotion of the concept of good
governance is concerned. In the beginning of the 1990s the concept of good
governance was almost not mentioned at all in the AfDB. In the mid-nineties the AfDB
took some small steps towards “an African approach to governance”, but the content of

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

this concept was ambiguous and unclear (Bøås 1998: 122).6 In other words, the notion
of good governance did not play a prominent role in the political debates in AfDB in
the beginning of the 1990s. In 1998 no policy paper on governance had been published
in the context of the AfDB (ibid.: 130). Nevertheless, this reluctance to deal with the
notion of good governance has changed in recent years. September the 22 nd 1999 “The
Board of Directors of the African Development Bank” adopted a “policy on good
governance” (AfDB 1999b: 1). According to the AfDB the adoption of this policy
reflects a consensus among the African member states that good governance is
fundamentally a good thing (ibid.). The concept of good governance is defined as “the
process referring to the manner in which power is exercised in the management of the
affairs of a nation and its relations with other nations” (AfDB 1999c: 3). As far as the
scope of the concept of good governance is concerned, good governance should
include “accountability, transparency, combating corruption, stakeholder participation
and an enabling legal and judicial framework” (ibid.: 5-6). The main objective of the
AfDB’s governance policy is to mainstream the concept of good governance into the
Bank’s operations on the African continent. How the agenda for good governance will
be operationalised remains to be seen.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Ever since the birth of the UNDP in 1965 its work and profile has been under intense
discussion among academics, politicians and aid practitioners. As one of the major
international development institutions, the UNDP has been able to set the development
agenda as far as the emphasis on the human dimension is concerned (Klingebiel 1999:
179). The Human Development Report (HDR), which has been published annually
since 1990, has attracted a great deal of attention in much of the debate on
development policy. At a conceptual level the UNDP has contributed enormously to
ideational innovation in the international development system. The UNDP has a high
profile on good governance. Furthermore, UNDP operates with a very broad definition
of good governance. According to the UNDP characteristics of good governance
include: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus of
orientation, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and strategic vision
(UNDP 1997a: 4-5). UNDP also plays a leading role in including the private sector and

6
The suggestion for developing “an African approach” to good governance was put forward in a report
by the Bank’s African Advisory Council submitted to the Bank in 1994 (Bøås 1998: 122).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

civil society as parts of the good governance agenda (UNDP 1997b). Different
administrative units have organized a large number of activities in the 1990s. The
concept of good governance has been linked to UNDP’s core mission since the mid
1990s, namely the promotion of sustainable human development. Good governance is
widely considered to be the primary means for achieving sustainable human
development (UNDP 1997a: 1). It is, in other words, one of the core concepts of
UNDP’s development policy. In addition, the concept of good governance has given
rise to organizational changes within the structure of UNDP (UNDP 1998: 102). 7
UNDP has been at the forefront of the good governance agenda in recent years. The
notion of good governance seems to be one of the main features of a more profiled
UNDP with a sharper focus on a culture of cost-consciousness put forward by the
UNDP administrator Mark Malloch Brown. In promoting the notion of good
governance in the multilateral development system, UNDP acknowledge that notions
like sustainable human development and good governance are “theory-laden” and
“culture bound” (ibid.: 109). In the same vein UNDP encourages the developing
countries to develop their own views of good governance (ibid. 110). In other words,
UNDP somehow has a reflexive position as regards the notion of good governance.
Nevertheless, UNDP has elaborated an index, the Human Governance Index, which
measures economic, political and civic governance (St. Clair 2001).

Good governance and the multilateral development system

Summing up, this survey highlights the complex nature of the concept of good
governance in the multilateral development system.8 The notion of good governance
can be conceptualised in three interlocking dimensions; namely good political
governance, which relates to a genuine commitment to the achievement of good
governance; good economic governance, which relates to issues of efficiency and
public management; and good civic governance, which relates to corporate social
responsibility (HDC 1999: 31). It can be argued that the term is being used so vaguely
that it doesn’t mean anything at all.

7
The MDP has been integrated with the Public Sector Management Group to strengthen the governance
agenda. For an introduction to these structural rearrangements, see UNDP (1998).
8
For a presentation of the conceptualisation of good governance in other international organisations, see
Weiss (2000: 797-798).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

The present examination of the good governance agenda in the multilateral

development system makes clear that two common problems can be observed with
regard to the adoption of good governance. First, the notion of good governance can be
used as an instrument of inter-organizational competition. The interests of the
multilateral development organizations may differ, compete and conflict. The
multilateral development institutions compete among themselves for influence and
resources. Ideational innovations can be a part of this struggle. Especially the UNDP,
which to a relatively large extent is dependent on resources from member
governments, has been in a financial crisis the recent years (Klingebiel 1999). 9 Pressure
from donors has been crucial as far as the relatively quick adoption of new ideas in the
UNDP is concerned (Weiss 2000: 806). At the same time, there is evidence of co-
operation within the aid policies of good governance. The World Bank and the UNDP,
for instance, have joined together to establish a strategic partnership aiming at
promoting good governance reforms in Indonesia (Santiso 2000: 10). Second, the
multilateral development organizations can be put on a collision course with their
charters and statements of political neutrality when committing themselves to promote
good governance. One could argue that there is a discrepancy between the good
governance agenda and the mandates of all the multilateral development
organisations.10 This question whether the good governance agenda is incompatible
with the official mandates will be one of the main challenges in the years ahead.
Therefore, the concept of good governance is a very ambivalent one.

This survey was a very preliminary look at the notion of good governance in the
multilateral development system. It is evident that the idea of good governance is a
powerful one that draws strength from several organizations. What follows is a map of
the above-mentioned conceptualisations of the notion of good governance. The map
gives us a preliminary overview of how the issue of good governance is incorporated

9
Compared with other multilateral development institutions, the UNDP has a moderate financial
potential (Klingebiel 1999: 115). UNDP’s financial volume is in crisis and need substantial increase
(The Nordic UN Reform Project 1996).
10
One example is Article 38, Prohibition of Political Activity; the International Character of the Bank,
in “Agreement Establishing the African Development Bank” which states that “The Bank, its President,
Vice-Presidents, officers and staff 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 concerned. Only economic
considerations shall be relevant to their decisions. Such considerations shall be weighted impartially in
order to achieve and carry out the functions of the Bank” (AfDB 1999a: 19).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

into the institutional structure of the organizations, and how the concept of good
governance is conceptualised.

Priority

High
UNDP
ADB World Bank
IDB

Scope Narrow Broad

? ?

AfDB
IMF
Low

Figure 1: The scope and political priority of the notion of good governance
in the multilateral development system.

Organizations in the lower-left quadrant have a moderate attitude towards the notion of
good governance. Organizations in the upper-right quadrant link the concept of good
governance to other concepts as sustainable human development, democracy etc. A
look at this figure suggests that the UNDP, which is to be found in the upper-right
quadrant, operates with a very broad conception of good governance, and at the same
time gives the topic of good governance high political priority. 11 My purpose here is
only illustrative; I will not discuss these differences any further. Now that these
different conceptualisations in the good governance agenda have been positioned, the
question is how we should think about the adoption of ideas in the multilateral
development system.

11
In 1995 as much as a third of the resources of the UNDP were allocated for governance (UNDP 1997a:
11).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

The above-mentioned differences are often referred to as a result of tangible variables

as the organizations constituency, agenda and policy priorities (Santiso 2000: 14).
Despite the intuitive plausibility of these “organizational explanations”, it can be
argued that they fail to grasp the process in which new ideas are adopted in the
multilateral development organizations. Despite the fact that the idea of good
governance has been able to establish a dominant position and more or less has become
a widely shared conviction in the multilateral development system, the question of how
ideas are adopted is severely under-theorized. By arguing for such an investigation,
moreover, we can get a better understanding of how the multilateral development
system works.

3. Good governance and the “ideational literature”

It seems appropriate to divide the multilateral development system into at least three
levels, namely a structural level, an organizational level and an individual level. In the
following I shall deal with these levels briefly before reflecting upon how to study the
notion of good governance in the multilateral development system. On the level of
agency we find individual bureaucrats, administrators, leading political figures,
prominent members of epistemic communities etc. The level of structure includes both
material (e.g. treaties and legal prescriptions) and ideational features (intersubjective
meanings). This figure does not assume the middle level to be constituted merely by
organizations and their legal prescriptions, but instead includes the interaction between
agency and structure. Therefore, these organizations are the arena where agency and
structure interact. Figure 2 summarizes the above-mentioned analytical levels:

Structure
Multilateral Development System

Agency/
IMF WB UNDP ADB IDB AfDB
structure

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Agency

Figure 2: An overview over agents and structures within the multilateral

development system.

The role of ideas is a hard case for theories of international relations. In many respects
the good governance agenda encapsulates a central and up-coming debate in the study
of international relations, namely the debate concerning the adoption of new ideas. One
cluster of theories neglects these “ideational” aspects altogether; another tries to co-opt
the role of ideas. The purpose of the following section is to discuss how to establish an
analytical framework for a study of how ideas are adopted in the multilateral
development system. A clear theme that runs through this discussion is whether agency
or structure is given analytical priority. It will be argued that existing literature is
biased towards either focusing primarily on agency or on structure, and that they
thereby neglect a range of issues, which could be dealt with in this context.

It is possible to identify at least three approaches dealing seriously with the adoption of
new ideas, namely institutionalist approached, expert-group approaches, neo-
gramscian theory and social constructivism (Weiss and Carayannis 2000: 5). Rather
than going into details of these approaches, the following section will discuss them
briefly with special reference to the agency-structure debate. In this paper I cannot do
justice to the variety of analyses and theories to be found within each of the approaches
outlined. Nonetheless, my primary purpose is to distinguish between these approaches
and the constructivist approach. What combines all these perspectives is that they take
ideas seriously. A closer look at the traditional hegemonic positions in the study of
international relations reveals a widespread inattention to the role of ideas and norms.
Waltz’s neo-realism, for instance, only gives explanatory status to the relative
distribution of material capabilities (Waltz 1979). Contrasting with these perspectives,
the following approaches all tries to incorporate ideas in the analyses.

The institutional approaches

The institutional approaches stress how ideas are taken up in political institutions. The
main focus is on the political elite at the individual level. An example of an applied
institutional approach is Kathryn Sikkink’s book Ideas and Institution (Sikkink 1991).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Sikkink discusses the adoption and implementation of developmentalism introduced

under U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America in Argentina and Brazil in the
1950s and 1960s.12 According to Sikkink, ideas are invariably held by agents, thus not
upholding any sui generis existence: “The adoption of new models is the result of the
ideas of top policy makers, who respond to what they perceive as the constraints and
opportunities in the international and domestic economic situation. Ideas held by
powerful individuals are the key to understanding the adoption of policies” (Sikkink
1991: 26). Nevertheless, ideas have to become embedded in state institutions by
finding “a institutional home or sponsor” (ibid.: 2). This “institutional link” can be
found both at national, regional and international level (ibid.: 24). Sikkink call into
question a number of alternative explanations that have been used to explain the
process of economic policy making in the Third World (economic interest group
theories, relative autonomy of the state theories, theories on discourse and power, and
rational choice/political survival theories). These alternative approaches identify
international and domestic constraints and opportunities, but Sikkink concludes these
“do not exist outside of individual cognition; rather, they are perceived by policy
makers based on their conceptual frameworks” (ibid.: 19). Furthermore, Sikkink argues
that developmentalism had “a stronger institutional capacity in the Brazilian state and
the way developmentalist ideas became embodied by institutions in Brazil” (ibid.: 21).
Although Sikkink stress the importance of how ideas become “embedded” in
institutions, she concludes that “ideas become embodied in institutions but are often
symbolized by the leader who is the most important spokesperson and representative of
the idea” (ibid.: 27). Summing up, the institutional perspective put forward by Sikkink
with its focus on ideas carried by specific individuals has a bias toward agency.
Although domestical institutional structures are taken into consideration to explain
variances in state responses to international pressures, ideas are carried by individuals
with a privileged access to the political system.

12
Developmentalism was a set of ideas with following policy components: “(1) a policy of intensive
vertical import-substituting industrialisation focused on priority basic industrialised sectors such as steel,
energy, chemicals, machinery, vehicles, and capital goods; (2) attempts to expand capital accumulation
rapidly to support the industrialisation effort, which emphasised reliance on foreign private and public
sources of capital; (3) expanded involvement of the state in directing the development effort, generally
by utilising some form of indicative planning to channel private initiative into priority areas” (Sikkink
1991: 4).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

It seems to me that this institutional approach, stressing a strong connection between

individuals and ideas, leaves a lot of questions unanswered with regards to how the
notion of good governance is adopted in the multilateral development system. What
this approach cannot convincingly account for is why organizations come to hold new
ideas. According to Sikkink “the individuals and institutions responsible for
introducing new ideas shape the way these ideas are received and play a crucial
intermediary role in interpreting them” (Sikkink 1991: 253). Instead, it seems relevant
to focus on the interaction between agency and structure and operate with the process
as the main unit of analysis. In the UNDP case, for instance, the concept of good
governance has been related to the core mission of the organization, namely to provide
sustainable human development. Thereby, a broader organizational mission and “self-
image” have encapsulated the concept of good governance. In order to shed light on
how the notion of good governance is “embodied within the institution”, a contextual
analysis of UNDP and the social construction of the core mission in the organization
must be taken into consideration. With special reference to UNDP this means that an
unawareness of shared knowledge and intersubjective understanding of what good
governance is, results in an inadequate understanding of the process at hand. An
approach recognizing that structure is also constituted by shared ideas and an
intersubjective understanding of the role of the organization, provide a more
comprehensive picture of how the notion of good governance is adopted in the
multilateral development system.

In sum, we need to know more about how the agents define the organization and its
core mission. An approach, according to which ideas consist only of individual-held
perceptions, is very “thin”. The fact that UNDP as an organisation has become more
normative over time and somehow represents a specific moral standpoint in the
development debate, must be taken into consideration in order to explain the adoption
of new ideas. Furthermore, we need to know more about the relationship between the
different organizations in the multilateral development system. Finally, we need to
investigate whether it is possible to identify certain norms and values in the multilateral
system with importance to the adoption of new ideas in the different organisations.

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Expert-group theories13
The second cluster of theories, expert group theories, also emphasizes individuals, or
group of individuals, as bearers of ideas. These theories take for granted that expert
groups with special knowledge in a specific field can frame a debate and prepare the
way for national and international coalitions. Peter M. Haas, one of the leading figures
in the expert-group theories, defines an epistemic community as “a network of
professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an
authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area”
(Haas 1992: 3).14 Because of their authority as knowledge-producers, epistemic
communities are listened to in political processes. The concept of “epistemic
communities” has attracted a great deal of attention in the study of international
relations the recent years. Nevertheless, expert group theories have primarily been
applied in areas such as the environment (Weiss and Carayannis 2000: 8). Expert group
theories in many ways suffer from the same shortcomings as the institutional theories.
Peter M. Haas put forward the argument that members of an epistemic community are
a concrete collection of individuals that “function more or less as cognitive baggage
handlers as well as gatekeepers governing the entry of new ideas into institutions”
(Haas 1992: 27). In other words, the analysis is located on the actor-level. It can be
argued that the focus on expert groups only covers a part of the process in which new
ideas are adopted: “We must look at the entire cognitive evolutionary process, trying to
explain how knowledge is constructed twice – first by members of epistemic
communities and later by individuals and institutions interacting in domestic and
international political systems” (Adler 1997: 344).

As far as the UNDP case is concerned, it seems evident that the concept of good
governance is not a body of scientific knowledge carried into the organization by
development experts. Good governance, as an influential idea in the multilateral
development system, was framed very differently in different institutions. Questions of
how agents and structure interact are not dealt with adequately in expert group
theories. Expert-group theories implicitly assume that the consensus among experts

13
In the end of the 1990s several authors argued that the study of epistemic communities brought
research on international regimes nearer to some of the key arguments of the constructivist position
(Adler 1997: 343-344; Checkel 1998: 329).
14
John Ruggie introduced the Foucault-inspired term “epistemic communities” in political science
literature (Wæver 1997: 170).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

automatically generate political consensus (Litfin 1994: 4). As far as the good
governance agenda in the multilateral development system is concerned, it is evident
that no predominant consensual understanding of good governance exists. Only
detailed contextual analyses of the organizations can provide information about how
the notion of good governance is perceived and taken up in the different organizations
in the multilateral development system. With special reference to UNDP, the concept
of good governance can be seen as an effort to consolidate and implement so-called
human development (St. Clair 2001).

Neo-gramscian theory
In recent years an “Italian School” and a “Gramsican Turn” has been identified in the
study of international relations (Germain and Kenny 1998). 15 Robert Cox, who often is
characterized as a pioneer in this research field, provides the most rigorous application
of Gramsci’s thoughts in the study of international relations (Burnham 1991: 74;
Rupert 1995: 14). In contrast to institutionalist theories and expert-group theories, neo-
gramscian theory does not reduce ideas to possessions of specific identifiable
individuals. Theoretically, Cox’s point of departure is so-called historical structures,
which consist of a configuration of social forces that interact, namely material
capabilities, ideas, and institutions (Cox 1996: 98). Ideas can be both intersubjective
meanings taken for given by more or less all people in a particular historical structures,
and collective images that are numerous and heterogeneous. According to Cox, any
historical structure is a result of interaction between material capabilities, ideas and
institutions, which “does not determine actions in any direct mechanical way but
imposes pressures and constraints” (Cox 1996: 97-98). An example of a historical
structure that can illustrate this way of thinking is the Cold War, which gave rise to
certain institutions (e.g. NATO), anti-Communist ideas (e.g. McCarthyism) and certain
material capabilities (e.g. so-called military-industrial complexes) that all interacted
(Sinclair 1996: 12). Cox makes a distinction between hegemonic and non-hegemonic
historical structures. In a hegemonic structure power has a consensual form in contrast
to a non-hegemonic order, in which rival ideas are confronting each other (Cox 1996:

15
It is possible to identify a series of problems related to the application of Gramsci in the study of
international relations. For an introduction to this discussion, see Germain and Kenny (1998).
Nevertheless, Cox somehow meet this critique: “It does not purport to be a critical study of Gramsci’s
political theory but merely a derivation from it some ideas useful for a revision of current international
relations theory” (Cox 1996: 124).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

120). In other words, the legitimisation is of crucial importance. Cox’s concept of

hegemony is not only applicable to states (as in realistic versions of the concept of
hegemony); the dominant power can be a state or a group of states in combination with
other actors (Cox 1996: 120).

As regards the notion of good governance in the multilateral development system, the
most important thread running through this neo-marxist approach is the assertion that
ideas are a part of a broader (hegemonic) structure that can be identified in the
international system. Ideas are not only held by agents; they are seen as constitutive
elements of broader historical structures. This historical dialectic method has been
applied with special reference to multilateralism, which is perceived as “the
institutionalisation and regulation of existing order” (Cox 1996: 514). Cox put forward
the argument, that ideas and understandings are “the intersubjective meanings that
constitute the order itself” (Cox 1996: 517). To some of the most noticeable critics,
Cox never breaks away from “watery marxism” with its notions of “class forces” and
“counter-hegemony”. Others argue that there are no elements of over-determination in
Cox’s theoretical scheme (Sinclair 1996: 13-14).

The concept of historical structures might serve as a theoretical model illustrating the
function of the idea of good governance in the multilateral development system, but it
does not shed much light on actual processes as regards the adoption of this idea in the
different organizations. In the context of the multilateral development system, aspects
of how ideas are taken up are not dealt with at all. As regards the UNDP case, Cox’s
theoretical framework does not deal with the relationship between the three levels in
figure 2. In this sense, there is somehow a structural bias in Cox’s method of historical
structures. In order to get a better understanding of how ideas are adopted, we need to
take the interaction between agents and structures into account. One could argue that
Cox generally overlooks agents in an effort to understand multilateralism within the
analysis of global power relations. Longer-term questions of global structural
transformation, which sometimes seems to be the raison d’être in Cox’s writings,
neglect the role of agents to a very large extent. Cox might be right in his assertion that
“international institutions embody rules which facilitate the expansion of the dominant
economic and social forces” (Cox 1996: 138). Nevertheless, the changing of world
orders begin with individuals carrying out certain actions based on ideas about the

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

world they are living in. In order to analyse the good governance agenda in the UNDP,
it seems necessary to take into account the role played by individuals in the
organization as well as countries that in an increasing number requested UNDP to
support good governance programs in the beginning of the 1990s (UNDP 2000: 22).

Social Constructivism
This section does not intend to present the multifaceted internal nuances and
discussions of social constructivism. Instead, a rather uncritical presentation of some of
the key arguments is given. This can be seen as an effort to identify an unspoken
commonality of the social constructivist position in the IR discipline by stressing
certain features characterizing a constructivist approach.16 Up to date the social
constructivism has been more or less controversial in the IR discipline upholding a
radical profile. Mainstream IR scholarship often wrongly assume that constructivism
attack the very notion of reality. In contrast with this view, constructivism can be
characterized as “the view that the building blocks of international reality are
ideational as well as material; that ideational factors have normative as well as
instrumental dimensions; that they express not only individual but also collective
intentionality; and that the meaning and significance of ideational factors are not
independent of time and space” (Ruggie 1998: 33).

Social constructivism cannot be characterized as a particular theory of international

politics (Adler 1997: 323; Wendt 1999: 7). Constructivism is a method (Checkel 1998:
325) or a social theory containing assumptions about the relationship between social
structures and actors (Börzel 1997: 19). Recently authors have tried to present surveys
of constructivism in international relations theory (Adler 1997; Checkel 1998; Wendt
1999).17 Inspired by these efforts a social constructivist position in the IR discipline
can be identified as an approach, according to which the world ontologically is
constituted by both social and material dimensions (Checkel 1998: 325). Agents, as
well as structure, are constituted by this fact (ibid.). Therefore, both agents and
structures are partly constituted by social conditions. Furthermore, agency and
16
The term constructivism has multiple meanings in the study of international relations (Adler 1997;
Albert 1997; Jørgensen 1997). This discussion leads some authors to define constructivism by what it
not is rather than what it is (Börzel 1997).
17
It is important to keep in mind that constructivism, post-structuralism and postmodernism is not all the
same (Adler 1997: 320). Recently, a distinction is made between constructivists on one side and post-
structuralists on the other side (Fierke 1997: 43).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

structure is given equal weight (Wendt 1999). More or less all authors subscribing to
constructivism systematically acknowledge the notion of structuration (Onuf 1989: 52-
63; Wendt 1992: 394).18 Finally, all of the positions within the constructivist approach
agree that the meaning of social reality is crucial for the analysis of international
relations. This means that the explanatory method of natural science emphasizing
causal mechanisms must give place to an increasing focus on understanding.19

Expert-group theories hold that ideas are held by certain groups of individuals. On the
other hand neo-gramscian approaches put forward the argument that ideas are part of
broader historical structures. A principal contribution to this debate can be found in the
social constructivist position, which can be positioned in the intersection between the
agency-biased and the structure-biased approaches (Adler 1997). Constructivism
explicitly deals with the agency-structure puzzle intending to give equal weight to
agency and structure. Therefore, constructivism’s added value for the study of the
notion of good governance in the multilateral development system is the focus on how
agents and structure interact. A constructivist approach states that the good governance
agenda in UNDP is created via certain (social) mechanisms, which should be granted
theoretical prominence. According to a social constructivist perspective, the notion of
good governance is not only held by individuals, but is to be seen as a social
construction, which put pressure on multilateral development institutions. In this view
UNDP, for instance, promotes good governance as a part of its development policy in
order to guard itself against accusations of working in discordance with adopted
“truths” of development policies.20

Contrary to the agency-biased approaches, the social constructivist approach gives a

collective or social quality and a broadened ontological status to ideas. According to
this approach, ideas should be viewed as self-contained entities. Good governance
18
The “agent-structure problem” has for a long time been a comprehensive discussion in sociology.
More or less all of the constructivist IR authors draw explicitly on Anthony Giddens, who originally
coined the structuration term. Later on a mass of second-hand interpretation of structuration has surfaced
in the study of international relations. Nevertheless, it can be argued that IR constructivists to a large
extent neglect agency in empirical research. For a further discussion of agency and constructivism, see
Checkel (1998). Giddens structuration theory has only seen little application in the study of the
multilateral development system.
19
Max Weber has with the notions of erklären and verstehen been the leading figure as far as this old
binary contradiction between “explaining” and “understanding” forms of science is concerned.
20
Compared with other multilateral development institutions, the UNDP has a moderate financial
potential (Klingebiel 1999: 115). UNDP’s financial volume is in crisis and need substantial increase
(The Nordic UN Reform Project 1996).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

exists as collective knowledge in, and to a certain extent between, multilateral

development organizations. Moreover, the constructivist approach call our attention to
how the multilateral development institutions reproduce the idea of good governance
by continuously working with and promoting the notion of good governance. UNDP,
for instance, has taken the concept of good governance to the forefront of the
development field by linking it with its core mission, namely to promote sustainable
human development. According to the constructivist approach the multilateral
development organizations are not only “receivers” of the good governance agenda,
but at the same time “producers” of this idea. UNDP, for instance, is under structural
pressure to adopt the notion of good governance. On the other hand UNDP contributes
significantly to the consolidation and reproduction of the notion of good governance by
linking it with the concept of sustainable human development and broaden the meaning
of the concept to a great extent. The other perspectives lined out in this paper explain
relatively little as far as these processes are concerned.

Constructivism tries to take the debate on ideas in the multilateral development system
to a qualitatively new level: There are more than individuals bearing ideas, and there
are more than broader structures partly consisting of ideas. Agents and structures are
linked, and it gives no meaning to separate them. The properties of the good
governance agenda are therefore continuously reproduced by an interaction between
structure and agency in the multilateral development organizations.

Three central points of criticism are relevant here. First, social constructivism only
contributes with predictions of form and no presumptions whatsoever about the
contents of international politics. In the UNDP, for instance, the concept of good
governance has been connected with the notion of sustainable human development. In
the World Bank good governance represent “a refinement of the Washington
Consensus” (Santiso 2000: 2). This is one of the central challenges for social
constructivism: “Having demonstrated that social construction matters, they must now
address when, how, and why it occurs, clearly specifying the actors and mechanisms
bringing about change, the scope conditions under which they operate, and how they
vary across countries” (Checkel 1998: 325). Second, it seems impossible to avoid some
sort of analytical separation of agency and structure in analyses of how both agents and
structures are altered and reproduced over time and space. As one prominent critic

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

states: “…it has proved very difficult to apply mutual constitution in empirical research
(ibid.: 340). Third, a constructivist analysis focusing on ideational factors and taking
both agency and structure into consideration should include the question of power
relations (Hentz 2001). The good governance agenda in the multilateral development
system is not all about ideas and conceptualisations. Accordingly, a big challenge for
the constructivist approach is to include aspects of power relations in the analyses. A
failure to engage in the discussions concerning for who ideas are promoted and adopted
in the multilateral development system makes the approach inadequate framework for
studying the role of ideas in the international system. Work towards a framework for
the study of ideas in the multilateral development system has to address questions
concerning possible power relations underlying the promotion of good governance.
One example is the promotion of good governance by the International Monetary
Fund, which can be interpreted as an effort to pave the way for international capital
investments in third world countries (Taylor 2000). To arrive at a better understanding
of the role of ideas in the multilateral development system, the constructivist approach
has to consider both material and ideational aspects of power relations.

Whatever its drawbacks, constructivism has turned our attention to the role played by
both agents and structures. One implication of this position is that process is the subject
for analysis. The request for taking both agency and structure into the analyses seems
almost a trivial point, but it seems that very little attention has been paid to this insight.
Nevertheless, these challenging viewpoints are characterized by a lack of analytical
operability and therefore exhibit severe practical difficulties for empirical analysis.
Conceptual adhocery can be inspiring, but does not expand our knowledge about why
certain ideas are taken up in the multilateral development system.21

4. Tentative conclusions
The role of ideas has not received much attention in the study of the multilateral
development system. Instead much of the literature has predominantly focused on
formal institutional features. In dealing with the issue of good governance, this paper
has attempted to discuss the differences of conceptualisations flourishing in the good
governance agenda. It was argued that the UNDP operates with a relatively broad
21
To avoid an eclectic approach to constructivism, Stefano Guzzini suggests a reconstruction of
constructivism as a “reflexive meta-theory” based on a coherent meta-theoretical position. For a further
discussion of this approach, see Guzzini (2000).

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

conception of good governance including both civil society and the private sector. At
the same time, the good governance agenda has a high profile in the UNDP compared
with other institutions. Thus, UNDP has played a leading role in the promotion of good
governance. Moreover, it is highly likely that the rest of the UN system will adopt
UNDP’s conceptualisation of good governance due to UNDP’s prominent role in
development policy debates (Weiss 2000: 804).

The current debate on good governance has a number of theoretical implications. This
paper sought to draw a distinction between agency-biased approaches, structure-biased
approaches and constructivist theory. It was argued that the IR discipline has
approached the adoption of ideas trough either an individualist framework (expert-
group theories and institutional theories) or a structural framework (neo-gramscian
theories). Contrary to these perspectives, the constructivist approach attempts to come
to terms with how agents and structures constitute each other. Constructivism
represents a promising route to a better understanding of the role of ideas in the
multilateral development system. Nevertheless, constructivism undeniably has a
slippery quality. The theoretical ambition of constructivist approaches is soaring and
ambitious, but few constructivist theories have been formulated and subsequently
applied. Further investigation of the complex ways in which agents and structure relate
and interact will contribute to a deeper understanding of the adoption of ideas in the
multilateral development system.

5. References

Adler, Emanuel (1997): “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World

Politics”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3 (3), pp. 319-363.
AfDB (1999a): Agreement Establishing the African Development Bank, 5th Edition,
September 1999, Internet website:
http://www.afdb.org/about/cleg.agrmt_adb.pdf.

AfDB (1999b): African Development Bank Policy on Good Governance Adopted by

Board of Directors, Abidjan, 22. September 1999, Internet website:
http://www.afdb.org/news/releases/pr1999/99adbrel32.html.

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

AfDB (1999c): About Good Governance, African Development Bank, Internet

website: http://www.afdb.org/about/ocod/governance.pdf
ADB (The Asian Development Bank) (1998): “Governance in Asia: From Crisis to
Opportunity”, pp. 15-36 in Asian Development Bank, Annual Report 1998,
Manila, Philippines: AsDB, 1999). Internet website:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Governance/gov010.asp?p=gvrnance .

Albert, Mathias (1997): “What Is Constructivism?”, The Aarhus-Norsminde Papers:

Constructivism, International Relations and European Studies, papers
presented at a Workshop, 10-12 October, 1997 in Norsminde/Aarhus, Denmark,
organised by Knud Erik Jørgensen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus
University.
Bull, Benedicte (2000): The Multilateral Development Banks and Governance
Reforms. A proposed approach, Oslo: Centre for Development and the
Environment. Paper.
Burnham, Peter (1991): “Neo-gramscian hegemony and the international order”,
Capital and Class, 45, pp. 73-93.
Bøås, Morten (1998): “Governance as Multilateral Development Bank Policy: The
Cases of the African Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank”,
The European Journal of Development Research, 10 (2), pp. 117-134.
Bøås, Morten and Desmond McNeill (2000): Creation, Adoption, Negation,
Distortion of Ideas in Development: The CANDID-project. Oslo: Centre for
Development and the Environment. Paper.
Börzel, Tanja A. (1997): “Deconstructing Constructivism in International Relations”,
The Aarhus-Norsminde Papers: Constructivism, International Relations and
European Studies, papers presented at a Workshop, 10-12 October, 1997 in
Norsminde/Aarhus, Denmark, organized by Knud Erik Jørgensen, Department
of Political Science, Aarhus University.
Camdessus, Michel (1998): The IMF and Good Governance, Address by Michel
Camdessus, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund at
Transparency International (France), Paris, January 21, 1998. Internet website:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/1998/012198.htm.

Campbell, Bonnie (2000): “Governance, Institutional Reform and the State: The

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Responsibility of the IFI’s in Political Transition in Africa”, paper presented at

the 25th Annual Conference, British International Studies Association, hosted by
Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford 18-20 December 2000.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1998): “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations
Theory”, World Politics, Vol. 50, pp. 324-48.
Cook, Lisa D. & Jeffrey Sachs (1999): “Regional Public Goods in International
Assistance”, pp. 436-449 in Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern,
Global Public Goods. International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cox, Robert W. with Timothy J. Sinclair (1996): Approached to World Order,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, Gordon (2000): “Promoting Democratic Governance in the South”, The
European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, June 2000, pp. 23-
57.
Culpeper, Roy (1997): The Multilateral Development Banks. Titans or Behemoths?,
Volume 5, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Fierke, Karin M. (1997): “At the Boundary: Language, Rules and Social
Construction”, The Aarhus Norsminde Papers: Constructivism, International
Relations and European Studies, papers presented at a Workshop,10-12
October, 1997 in Norsminde/Aarhus, Denmark, organized by Knud Erik
Jørgensen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University.
Forster, Jacques and Olav Stokke (1999): “Coherence of Policies Towards
Developing Countries: Approaching the Problematique”, pp. 16-57 in Jacques
Forster and Olav Stokke, Policy Coherence in Development Co-operation,
London: Frank Cass, EADI Book Series 22.
Germain, Randall D. and Michael Kenny (1998): “Engaging Gramsci: international
relations theory and the new Gramscians”, Review of International Studies, Vol.
24, No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Guzzini, Stefano (2000): “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International
Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 147-
182.
Haas, Peter M. (1992): “Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy
coordination”, International Organization, 46, 1, Winter 1992, pp. 1-35.

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Hentz, James J. (2001): “The Power of Ideas: Across the Constructivist – Realist
Divide”, in Morten Bøås and Desmond McNeill (eds.): The Role of Ideas in
Multilateral Institutions, forthcoming.
HDC (The Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre) (1999): Human
Development in South Asia 1999. The Crisis of Governance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hydén, Göran (1999): “The Shifting Grounds of Policy Coherence in Development
Co-operation”, pp. 58-77 in Jacques Forster and Olav Stokke (eds.), Policy
Coherence in Development Co-operation, London: Frank Cass. EADI Book
Series 22.
IMF (2000): Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, International
Monetary Fund, Internet website: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/aa04.htm#3
Jokinen, Janne (2001): “Balancing Between East and West: The Asian Development
Bank Policy on Good Governance”, in Morten Bøås and Desmond McNeill
(eds.): The Role of Ideas in Multilateral Institutions, forthcoming.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik (1997): “Eleven Truths About Constructivism and International
Relations”, The Aarhus-Norsminde Papers: Constructivism, International
Relations and European Studies, papers presented at a Workshop, 10-12
October, 1997 in Norsminde/Aarhus, Denmark, organised by Knud Erik
Jørgensen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University.
Keynes, John Maynard (1936): The General Theory of Employment, Interest and
Money, London: MacMillan.
Klingebiel, Stephan (1999): Effectiveness and Reform of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), London: Frank Cass. Published in
association with the German Development Institute, Berlin.
Litfin, Karen T. (1994): Ozone Discourses. Science and Politics in Global
Environmental Cooperation, New York: Columbia University Press.
Ruggie, John Gerard (1998): Constructing the World Polity. Essays on international
institutionalization. London: Routledge.
Rupert, Mark (1995): Producing Hegemony. The Politics of Mass Production and
American Global Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santiso, Carlos (2000): “The World Bank and Good Governance: Crossing the
Rubicon of Politics? Rethinking the Development Paradigm Beyond the
Washington Consensus”, Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

the Academic Council of the United Nations System (ACUNS) hosted by the
Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI) “The Erosion of
Traditional Paradigms. Transnationalism versus Sovereignty in the New
Millenium”. Oslo, Norway, 16-18 June 2000.
Sikkink, Kathryn (1991): Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Argentina and
Brazil, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Sinclair, Timothy J. (1996): “Beyond international relations theory: Robert W. Cox
and approaches to world order”, pp. 3-18 in Cox, Robert W. with Timothy J.
Sinclair (1996): Approached to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
St. Clair, Asuncion (2001): “The Role of Ideas in the United Nations Development
Programme”, in Morten Bøås and Desmond McNeill (eds.): The Role of Ideas
in Multilateral Institutions, forthcoming.
Taylor, Ian (2001): “Hegemony, Neo-liberal ‘Good Governance’ and the
International Monetary Fund: A Gramscian Perspective”, in Morten Bøås and
Desmond McNeill (eds.): The Role of Ideas in Multilateral Institutions,
forthcoming.
UN (2000): United Nations Intellectual History Project: Ideas and Concepts in Action
in the World Economy, Revised Proposal, June 2000, Internet website:
http://www.unhistory.org/unihp_proposal.htm.

UNDP (1997a): Governance for sustainable human development. A UNDP Policy

Document, New York: United Nations Development Programme, 1997.
UNDP (1997b): Reconceptualising Governance. Discussion paper 2, New York:
Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and
Programme Support, United Nations Development Programme, January 1997.
UNDP (1998): Public Sector Management, Governance, and Sustainable Human
Development, Discussion Paper, New York: Management Development and
Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, UNDP.
Internet website: http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/!UN98-21.PDF/psm.htm.
UNDP (2000): UNDP and Governance. Experiences and Lessons Learned, New
York: Management Development and Governance Division, Lessons-Learned
Series No. 1. Internet website: http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/gov/lessons1.htm.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979): Theory of International Politics, Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001

2nd MULTI-conference 4th session: Governance

Weiss, Thomas (2000): “Governance, good governance and global governance:

conceptual and actual challenges”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.
795-814.
Weiss, Thomas G. and Tatiana Carayannis (2000): “The UN, Its Economic and Social
Ideas, and Their Agents: Toward an Analytical Framework”, Paper presented at
the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Academic Council of the United Nations
System (ACUNS) hosted by the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs
(NUPI) “The Erosion of Traditional Paradigms. Transnationalism versus
Sovereignty in the New Millenium”. Oslo, Norway, 16-18 June 2000.
Welch, Carol (1998): “In Focus: The IMF and Good Governance”, Foreign Policy in
Focus, Vol. 3, Number 33, October 1998, Internet website:
http://www.igc.org/infocus/briefs/vol3/v3n33imf.html.

Wendt, Alexander (1999): Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Woods, Ngaire (1999): “Good Governance in International Organizations”, Global
Governance, 5 (1999), pp. 39-61.
Wæver, Ole (1997): “John G. Ruggie: transformation and institutionalization”, pp.
170-204 in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver, The Future of International
Relations. Masters in the Making?, London: Routledge.
Quizon, Antonio B. (1995): Multilateral Development Banks: Who’s the Real Boss?,
Internet website: http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/1995/multidev.htm.

Vettre, 18-19 January 2001