VII-e. The Obligation of Good Governance

We have been especially concerned with governments' obligations with regard to food and nutrition programs. Obligations with regard to specific programs should be seen in the context of a prior obligation of general good governance.

The fundamental question of governance is, what is the proper role of the state, and thus of the government that represents it? The extended version is: what is the proper role of governing bodies at every level, subnational (e.g., provincial, county), national, regional, and global? Governing bodies may be parts of integrated governments, as they are in national and sub-national governments, or they may be separate bodies with specific functions operating more or less independently, as they are at the regional and global levels. There is no global government, but there is global governance exercised through organizations such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the United Nations Environmental Program. The authority of these bodies is limited, but they do have some specific powers delegated to them by their member nations. Governance at the global level is discussed further in Subsection IX-d.

For much of human history there was very little governance. Most human needs were met by the family and the local community. With the advent of the modern nation-state system in the seventeenth century, the state’s primary function was to provide security from attack from the outside. What went on within the boundaries of the state was not the business of government.

Then the state began to become more involved, first as a minor participant, but later as the dominant provider of various services. In the eighteenth century there was a backlash in the economic sphere, expressed in Adam Smith’s call for laissez-faire policies toward commerce. Even so, the role of government continued to grow. By the middle of the twentieth century government had become the primary provider not only of defense but also of health, education, and numerous other services. The process was fueled by rapidly increasing taxation, especially by the taxing of personal incomes. France had an income tax in 1793 and Great Britain had one in 1799. In the United States, an income tax was levied during the Civil War, 1860-1865, but dropped after a few years. The two percent income tax approved by the U.S. Congress in 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. It was not until 1913 that Amendment XVI to the Constitution stated that:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The taxation of personal incomes in periods of vigorous ecomic growth helped to fuel the growth of central goverments. It all worked reasonably well in the "developed" countries. Governments were able to take on more and bigger functions by demanding more taxes from individuals and corporations under their jurisdiction.

But what happened when these large-scale services were expected from governments that did not have the resources—the tax base—to provide them? Previously self-sufficient countries that had functioned on the basis of strong communities became incapable, not so much because their resource levels had declined as because the demands on their governments had increased. Because of new expectations, imported from the outside, they were now labeled as poor and in need of assistance and advice—from the outside.

Perhaps poor countries never should have taken on extensive duties regarding social services, but such detachment by national governments is feasible only if families and communities can adequately fulfill people’s needs. Local capacities to provide for basic health and education services often have been undermined by the intrusion of outside influences, particularly the influence of the market system. The market is seductive because it provides enormous benefit to some, but in the competitive race many others are left behind, and some become even worse off than they had been earlier. The current globalization of the world economy shows that rather than raising all ships, the rising economic tide can engulf the less seaworthy ships.

It is fascinating to reflect on what life and governance in poor countries might have been today if there had been no intrusion by outsiders. But we cannot rewind the tape of history. It is now more important to think out the proper role of the state and of governance at every level in our own times, in the face of social and economic situations as they are.

There is a direct linkage between human rights and governance. Following John Locke, Jack Donnelly sees governments as bound by the rights of those over whom they have jurisdiction:

Government thus can be considered legitimate insor as it furthers the effective enjoyment of the human rights of its citizens. And citizens are entitled to such a government (Donnelly 1989, p. 63)

With good governance, there is general accountability of the government to all the people, through the media and other more formal arrangements. With good governance, broad government accountability arises out of the fact that government officials who do not perform satisfactorily can be removed by the people. If this works well, there may be no need for special mechanisms of accountability dedicated specifically to assuring the realization of the human right to food and nutrition or any other specific human right.

Food security is a good, concrete test of the quality of governance generally. It is easy to present data on food security in a given area. Numbers can be assembled to show, more or less accurately, the average calorie intake, specific micronutrient deficiencies, the numbers of children underweight, and so on. Many of these things may be seriously problematic from the nutritionist’s point of view. However, it does not automatically follow that the government should take on each of these issues. It does not follow that if I am hungry the government should provide me with lunch. The question is, which of the many issues of concern should be regarded as matters for government? And how far should governments, with their limited resources, be expected to go in addressing these concerns? The raw descriptive data do not answer those questions.

In the four categories of obligation identified in Subsection VII-b, the third category, facilitation encompasses the broad obligation of national governments to assure that there are sound institutional arrangements for the functioning of the society as a whole. With good governance, there are enabling conditions that allow people to work effectively and productively, and thus provide for themselves. Under good governance, governments do not need to pay much attention to food and nutrition (except for safety measures) because most people take care of themselves, and there are no serious and widespread food and nutrition problems. With good governance, most people are not much concerned about their human right to food and nutrition because that right is not violated.

Continue to VII-f. Obligations of Non-State Actors

Skip to Contents

Subsection VII-e last updated on September 26, 1999