DIVERGING PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONCEPT OF “GOOD GOVERNANCE”

Abstract

The notion of “good governance” enjoys a broad normative consensus while remaining one of the most contested concepts in the public sciences. This article systematizes the definitions advanced by the principal international organizations (the World Bank, the UN/UNESCAP, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the OECD) and traces the scholarly debates surrounding the concept (Grindle, Rothstein, Fukuyama). On this basis it argues that behind a seemingly shared list of principles lie substantially different priorities, which each type of actor orders in its own way. It examines the perspectives of international organizations, public organizations, politicians, the public administration, entrepreneurs, local government, ordinary citizens and – separately – the residents of large cities and of the provinces. The Bulgarian case serves as an illustration. The conclusion is that “good governance” is useful as a common framework but problematic as a single practical standard, because its content is determined by the position of the observer.