16th Global Forum for Reinventing Government Seoul May 24 – 27, 2005 Tri-sector Governance: From Hierarchical Government to Co-Produced Governance Gowher Rizvi Ash Institute for Democratic Governance & Innovation Harvard University The simple recognition that ‘government’ and ‘governance’ are not the same thing, although now obvious and commonplace, has enabled us to shake out of the intellectual straight jacket, and has helped to alter the parameters of our discourse on governance. We now recognize that governance of the society is much larger than the government, and that governance is not the exclusive preserve of the government. Governance consists of both the processes and the institutions that manage and control the will and the collective affairs of the society. At its broadest, governance includes the activities of the institutions of the government, the civil society and the market. They may include organizations like religious establishments and houses of worship, the non-governmental organization (NGO), private and commercial firms working for profit, the networks and associations, the trade unions, and so forth. These organizations all function within the laws laid down by the government, sometimes in collaboration with, and at other times independently of the government, and, not infrequently, even against the government. The pre-eminence of government is not challenged. It is only the government that can act with legitimate authority, exercise coercive powers, and can create formal obligations for its citizens. In retrospect, it might be argued, that what was seen as a radical re-conceptualization of the role, scope and function of the government, had already begun to happen on the ground long before the academics and reformers picked up the idea. Two compelling factors had already forced many of the functions of the government to be transferred to the non-governmental agencies: the religion-based organizations, the civil society organizations and the market. In the first place, the governments faced with budgetary constraints cut out many of the social welfare services (often referred to as ‘entitlement programs’ in the USA) or devolved those responsibilities to state or local governments. But the local governments2were scarcely in any better position to meet these unfunded mandates, and increasingly looked to the voluntary organizations to take on the responsibilities. In the developing societies, the situation was particularly dire – to the problem of scarce resources was added the usurpation of the governmental powers and resources by a rapacious elite. In the three decades starting in the late 1950s, the military had overthrown civil governments and usurped power in many countries. Lacking in popular legitimacy, the authoritarian regimes tried to shore up their support by creating cliental regimes in which they bought off powerful groups, mostly in urban areas, through an elaborate patronage network, in order to compensate for their lack of popular support. With the bulk of the revenue siphoned off for patronage and to keeping the military happy, these authoritarian regimes abdicated much of their governance responsibilities outside main urban metropolitan areas where the government had ceased to exist. The citizens, especially the poor and those in the rural areas, were left to fend for themselves. Many of the functions and services that governments are normally expected to provide – health care, drinking water, sanitation, basic education, provision of credit, agricultural extension services – were either neglected or defaulted, or not provided at all; and it was left to charitable and voluntary organization to fill the vacuum. In many countries the government was scarcely visible in the countryside. The non-governmental organizations and charitable institutions filled the vacuum created by this abdication of responsibilities by the government. Long before the new governance or the new public management paradigm was articulated, the tri-sector governance arrangement – government, civil society and the market - had in practice, already begun to take shape. The academic reformulation distinction between government and the governance of the society was in large part recognition and refinement of the ground reality. The enhanced role of the civil society and the market in the governance of the society – sometimes with the assistance and encouragement of the government, but often in opposition to it – also raised important questions about the means of achieving government’s public purposes. The question began to be posed as to whether it was appropriate for the government to deliver many of the services that the government was3expected to provide, or whether there were alternative mechanisms for delivery, which were both cost effective and responsive to the differentiated needs of the citizens. In the new governance paradigm, and in large part reflecting the changed and new circumstances, the governments have moved away from being operational agencies to being regulatory authorities. Most governments now recognize, albeit in varying degrees, that the appropriate role of the state is to regulate, facilitate and create an enabling environment that fosters development and empowers citizens (but does not stifle initiative or enterprise), leaving citizens the room to manage and shape their own communities. More importantly, it is now recognized that the government is only one part of the tripartite structure – albeit the most important and the most resourceful one – and shares with the others the responsibility for the ordering of the society. The three sectors, while each has its own sphere of action, together provide the governance of the society. In this arrangement governance is a shared endeavor, or a partnership; and in this multi-sector governance arrangement, each sector does those things that it does best, but without detracting from the government’s role as guarantor of social justice. Governments in most societies control large resources and expertise, but invariably these are never enough to meet all the needs and demands of the citizen. Public problems are therefore best solved through collaborative governance by bringing together the resources and expertise of the different segments of the society to address a common public issue. Increasingly, and not surprisingly, a