The Standardization of “Good Governance” in the Age of Reflexive Modernity

Abstract

Standards, indicators, and benchmarks are well-studied instruments of global governance. What has received less attention so far is the trend toward the standardization of governance itself. Catalogs of “good governance” are drawn up for universal use and promise to optimize the processes of governance. International organizations, development agencies, and academics compile such catalogs to make the quality of governance measurable, comparable, and “rankable.” Good governance standards have attracted sustained criticism. They project normative concepts from the West, where they are usually formulated, to other parts of the world. As societies and cultures are not standardized, it is problematic to expect standardized tools to have uniform and beneficial effects regardless of local context. Good governance as a ready-made toolbox also is at odds with the very ideal of democracy as self-determination. On the other hand, good governance standards can have empowering effects when they enable societal actors to challenge oppression, corruption, or violations of human rights. How can we make sense of this ambivalence? In this article, we argue that the contested standardization of governance, with all its ambivalences, represents one of the typical reflexive loops that characterize the radicalization of the modernization process that sociologist Ulrich Beck described. Standardization, as a practice of modernity, has become highly self-reflexive and the debates over good governance catalogs show how, in modern functionally complex societies, different ideals of modernity can be at odds with each other.