Where do inclusive institutions come from? Lessons from Asia

27th February 2017

Inclusion is the new buzzword in international development. The recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals are perhaps the most ambitious articulation of this consensus, with Goal 16 in particular calling for building more ‘effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels’.

And there are good reasons for such emphasis: the evidence consistently shows that, over the long term, states and societies with more open and inclusive institutions, both political and economic, are more peaceful and more resilient, and tend to be better governed. However, this says little about how countries get there. I have been looking at processes of institutional transformation in Asia in an effort to help unravel this puzzle.

Asia’s political systems are extraordinarily diverse. Many are in the midst of complex processes of transformation across not just one but multiple dimensions of change, such as:

  • from violent conflict towards peace;
  • from exclusionary political orders to more open and inclusive ones;
  • from a narrow and exclusionary sense of nation towards more inclusive nation-building;
  • from personalised systems of interaction to ones that are more impersonal and grounded in the rule of law;
  • from narrow-based economies towards shared growth.
Asia’s political systems are in the midst of complex processes of transformation across multiple dimensions of change.

Changes along some of these dimensions may reinforce one another. More often, however, they are likely to generate tensions and dilemmas and a need to compromise. So how do institutions that are more effective and inclusive emerge and evolve over time?

We know from historical experience that the “good governance” agenda embraced by the international development community since the 1990s is not likely to be the answer. Asia is a particularly compelling illustration: evidence from the region suggests that there is almost no correlation between development performance over the short to medium term and the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators. In effect, the World Bank’s newly launched World Development Report (WDR) 2017 on Governance and the Law provides a striking critique of an approach it once cherished.

So what factors have facilitated progressive institutional transformation? My analysis of Asia’s experiences highlights lessons that resonate with ongoing research and reflection in the field of politics and development.

Politics and power dynamics shape institutions and determine how and when development processes can become more inclusive. Policies matter, but where policies come from is even more important. This is also the central message emerging from the WDR 2017. This insight that politics matters is by no means new. However, it bears repeating since very often international efforts to foster more inclusive states and societies remain disconnected from the realities of how change happens.

The orientation and capacity of the state is essential in determining the prospects for more inclusive development - but this is not a technical issue. Rather, as the also WDR highlights, state effectiveness  is fundamentally shaped by the role of and dynamics between competing elites, in ongoing interactions, bargaining and contestation with social forces from below. But states can be effective (for instance, in terms of their penetration or coercive capacities) without being concerned about either development or inclusion. As the case of Asia suggests, elite commitment and political leadership, often based on a political vision anchored in a shared sense of national purpose, are also crucial elements of what works.

Binary distinctions between, for instance, democracy and non-democracy are too stark to help us understand a country’s institutional arrangements and prospects.

Development processes are not black and white. The Asian experience shows that binary distinctions between, for instance, democracy/non-democracy or the presence/absence of corruption are too stark to help us understand a country’s institutional arrangements and prospects for transformation. There will always be difficult trade-offs between equally compelling imperatives. For example, while elite capture of public resources in developing countries is generally condemned by the international community, rents can be an important informal institution providing stability and even redistribution in settings where formal institutions remain weak.

Political parties have played an instrumental role in shaping government incentives to adopt policies that can foster more or less inclusion. Their structure, organisation and strategy, as well as the context in which they operate and the nature of political competition, are all important in determining how effective they are at harnessing collective action towards inclusion or exclusion, and towards greater or lesser developmental aims.

Strategic coalition-building with well-placed actors and allies is essential to push for change. Unresolved processes of contestation and failed collaboration are some of the biggest constraints to promoting reform. Thus, how the politics of coalition-building play out has important implications for the prospects for inclusion.

International factors can also influence domestic incentives and dynamics of reform. During the Cold War, for example, when social mobilisation or contention took on especially threatening forms, foreign intervention proved essential in supporting the kinds of developmental and/or authoritarian regimes that emerged across Asia. China’s size, power and extraordinary developmental transformation, for its part, gives it immense influence throughout the region.

If the Asian experience teaches us anything, it is that there are no blueprints for change, and that multiple paths towards more inclusive states and societies are possible. This should be encouraging for international efforts to support institutional change more effectively. It suggests that there is room for flexibility in the short to medium term as countries seek to transform themselves in different ways, even if they are confronted with important institutional weaknesses.

What is needed is a more strategic approach that can help identify and prioritise the governance improvements that are most crucial at different stages to enable more inclusive development and political processes. This calls for a shift from “best practice”, based on idealised models of change, to a “good fit” that is based in contextual realities. The WDR’s emphasis of this very point suggests that this message is no longer as far-fetched as it once seemed – even if the real challenge remains how to put it into action.

Image: Dreaming (Photo: Sarah Schrauwen, Flikr)


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.


Alina Rocha Menocal

Alina Rocha Menocal

Alina Rocha Menocal is a Senior Research Fellow in ODI’s Politics and Governance Programme, and a Senior Democracy Fellow at USAID. She is also a DLP Research Associate. Her research interests focus on bridging the gap between research and policy, particularly using political economy analysis to inform governance issues. She holds an M. Phil in Political Science (Comparative Politics) from Columbia University, and a BA in Political Science from Yale University.

Read more

Related items

The seeds and roots of change

Guest post on leadership networks for Governance for Development

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver1st December 2014

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Somaliland's route to peace

What can we learn from Somaliland's approach to peacebuilding? 

Opinion by Sarah Phillips12th December 2013

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

The inclusiveness test: making change work

Guest post for openDemocracy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal4th November 2015

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

The politics of redistribution: we need you

Which are the key country cases? Help us shape new research.

Opinion by David Hudson16th October 2014
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

Inequality – the politics behind the policies

Discussion starter for the #polinequality conference

Opinion by David Hudson11th February 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

Guest post for Development Progress on 'post-conflict' DRC

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016
Opinion by Suda Perera19th December 2016

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Developmental leadership: putting inclusiveness first

Inclusiveness should be the first step towards building more robust states.

Opinion by Seth D. Kaplan24th September 2015