Governance is a ruling concept in private-owned companies, whose objective is to get the most profit with the minimum cost, which some seek to install in the public sector, prior to its privatization

It has been only two decades since the Anglo-Saxon term governance started to appear in the jargon of economists and the leaders of international organizations, and later in governmental spheres. Likewise, it extended itself in fields related to political sciences and sociology, as well as among professionals and specialists related with “development”. Nonetheless, etymologically, this word turns out to be the recovery of a medieval archaism which had fallen into disuse. In any case, governance is a polysemous term which is strongly influenced by ideology, which has been used by the dominating forces of this world that some want to globalize following the “neoliberal” model, seeking an economic, political and social model focused on the market.

It appears in the sphere of private companies and then it moves, via Washington Consensus to the sphere of what was originally called structural adjustment programs and later strategies for the struggle against poverty, forced upon highly indebted and credit-needy Third World countries by the international financial institutions (International Monetary Fund and World Bank). It finally seems to reach its peak when the European Commission adopts it as a model for the operation of the institutions.

Indeed, governance is a notion that comes from the business world to refer to certain forms and proceedings for the administration and management that operated in private companies, whose objective is focused on obtaining the highest profit at the lowest cost, and which seek to install in the public sector, prior to its privatization; and if this is not achieved, make them work like a private company, and thus become “competitive”. Thinking of ruling, administrating or managing a country, a municipality or a public institution which gives welfare assistance as if they were an automobile or canned food industry might seem surprising, even crazy at the beginning; however, this is exactly the objective.

Lately the notion of governance has achieved the presence it has today in the field of social sciences thanks mainly to the bet in favor of the international financial institutions (mainly the World Bank, WB and the International Monetary Fund IMF) as a requisite or precondition for granting loans to heavily indebted Third World countries starting in the 90s, parallel to the application of what was called structural adjustment programs, or more recently strategies for the struggle against poverty, in such a way that governance refers to political, administrative or institutional structures that are appropriate for the application of the said programs or strategies.

However, governance promoters haven’t lacked efforts to try and give it a certain legitimacy by naming it democratic or good governance, based fundamentally in publicizing the alleged interaction between the public, private and civil sectors not only in the elaboration of the measures and in how the political and economic decisions are taken, but also in the application or implementation of these measures. For example, for the UNDP (United Nations Development Program), one of the objectives of governance is to decentralize the intervention of the state and reduce its “verticality”, in order to facilitate the “horizontality” of the administration of public goods through a greater participation of the private and civilian sectors.

This could be attained through procedures for the taking of decisions where there is interaction between the public sector, although it would still keep its directing role, the private sector (including transnationals) and the civilian sector (third sector), that is to day, that of the citizens and the organizations that represent them (ONGs, communal associations, unions, parties, etc.). All of this for the benefit of human sustainable development. Well now, how does the WB and the IMF interpret and apply this?

What they are really after is what is called the neoliberal-style “minimal State”; that is a State that reduces its welfare assistance and redistributive role to the minimum, but not in its repressive function in order to defend “law and order” as long as they don’t touch the ruling classes and their properties. Thus, their model of governance implies the adoption of public policies of reduction of public expenditure, reduction of the intervention of the State, the privatization of state-owned companies and services; finally, the adoption of policies guided by and for the market.

The notion of governance seems to reach its peak when the European Commission decides to refer to it to indicate the ideal functioning of the European institutions, and therefore, of all public institutions, from local, state and continental ones, to world or international organizations. All of it announced at the time by a document that was in all the media, called European Governance. A White Book.

However, it is in a latter document titled Governance and Development where the concepts and objectives are more clearly outlined. Thus, for example, it sustains that “governance refers to the rules, the procedures and the conducts through which interests are articulated, resources are sought and power is exerted, and is a key factor in the strategies for the struggle against poverty” (paragraph 91). Thus, “governance has become an essential component of the cooperation for development and is now part of the processes of the strategy for the reduction of poverty”.

Thus, governance becomes part of the “globalizing” discourse that enhances the values related to competitiveness and the individualism of the private sector and a market whose motor is the desire for profit. In the end, even if this discourse refers to “democratic governance” or “good governance”, it is historically and conceptually associated to economic and political programs where the private is enhanced to the detriment of the public, whose compatibility with democracy and human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights as well as environmental rights are downright debatable. The increasing economic and social inequality, as well as the progressive destruction of the ecosystems and the biodiversity in the entire planet tells us so.