Governance Paradigm in Public Administration and The Dilemma of National Question in Nigeria
Governance Paradigm in Public Administration and The Dilemma of National Question in Nigeria
Governance Paradigm in Public Administration and The Dilemma of National Question in Nigeria
Received: 27 November 2016 Abstract: This paper reviews the developmental oscillations in the field of public
Accepted: 02 April 2017
administration or what scholars usually describe as paradigm shifts up to the one of
Published: 17 April 2017
the current emphasis described as the governance model, which subscribes to the
*Corresponding author: Okey Marcellus
Ikeanyibe, Department of Public use of stakeholders, networks, collaboration, and partnerships in policy and govern-
Administration and Local Government, ment processes. This paper examines how this core principle or tenet of the model
University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nsukka,
Nigeria relates to the broad issues of governance in Nigeria, a multi stakeholder, ethnically
E-mail: [email protected]
constituted polity. It is argued that the idea of quota, federal character and other
Reviewing editor: means of power sharing for inclusive government that have been tied to administra-
John Martyn Chamberlain, Swansea
University, UK tive law and practice from the Nigerianization policy of late 1950s till present have
not properly doused the aspirations of some major stake holders (ethnic groups) of
Additional information is available at
the end of the article the country. Hence, the recurrent calls for political and economic restructuring of
the country. As a result of this, far-reaching governance and public service reform
measures in the country have remained ineffective. The paper suggests that the
sticky point in a country like Nigeria about governance challenges is how to build
a consensus around some enduring socio-political and economic organisation and
interrelationship of various groups or stakeholders.
© 2017 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
1. Introduction
As the debate on the autonomy status of public administration as a field of study, and whether it is
more of management or political science remains unresolved, the discipline has continued to estab-
lish itself in every intellectual stream of the social sciences since its emergence as field of study.
Thus, since Woodrow Wilson’s (1887, 1953) seminal essay on politics-administration dichotomy, the
field has witnessed a handful of paradigm shifts which, preoccupations without exception has been
how to rationalize government administrative system to make it more efficient despite whether a
scientific managerial approach or a political valuational approach is emphasized. It must be said
that the paradigm shifts in public administration or what we see more appropriately as paradigm
oscillations, continue to play out along a continuum in which Management and Politics are the two
extreme poles. The pioneer epistemic community in public administration (e.g. Goodnow, 1900;
Wilson, 1953) who underscored the dichotomy between politics and public administration, and their
immediate successors (e.g. Gulick and Urwick, 1937) who moved further from separation to pro-
pound the principles of administration, had envisaged a science of administration fully separated
from politics, which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less un-
businesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness (Gale,
1968). But the other side to the contestation for the soul of public administration had argued that
those who propose a separation of public administration from politics failed to appreciate that their
rough separation of politics from administration did not preclude a valuational component in many
things they presumed they were treating scientifically. In fact, their principles typically represented
a conflation and a confusion of the two elements of fact and value (Simon, 1947).
Since its emergence as a separate field of study, various approaches or emphases have competed,
but none has succeeded in winning the general acceptance of scholars identified with the discipline;
no new synthesis has been achieved; no new orthodoxy has replaced the old, rather, public admin-
istration has grown tremendously in the sense of accepting data, concepts, and perspectives from
many sources, chiefly the various social sciences; but it has discarded little, and no organizing frame-
work into which everything will fit has been achieved—or, if achieved, has not been recognized and
accepted as such (Gale, 1968). The epistemology of public administration has also been driven by
the practice, which consequentially emanate from the existing challenges facing the world coun-
tries’ economic, political and socio-cultural changes. For instance, in the context of globalizing pres-
sure that became very encompassing from the 1970s, governments of both industrialized and less
developed nations engaged in extensive administrative reforms and reorganizations to streamline
their public sectors by shrinking their size, function, and activities (Farazmand, 2002). Thence
emerged the neoliberal paradigm shift with its concomitant strand of New Public Management
(NPM) in public administration. Today, the NPM approach is far spent as many countries, notably
championed by “the Latin American and some Asian nations, are realizing the fallacies of the pure
marketplace ideology and the private sector efficiency model” emphasized by NPM. Invariably, the
importance of values are once again tilting the balance as “the central issues of equity, fairness, and
market failure are resurfacing as government after government realizes that the lives of the major-
ity, the ordinary citizens, cannot be ignored in favor of the few, the powerful particularistic interest
group elites” (Farazmand, 2002, p. x).
The new governance paradigm calls for use of stakeholders, networks, collaboration, and partner-
ships. How does this core tenet relate to the broad issues of governance in Nigeria? How does the
paradigm correlate with the multi-ethnic nature of Nigeria and the recurrent calls for restructuring?
This paper basically reviews the global trends in public administration paradigms up to the emer-
gence of the new governance paradigm. It then examines how this paradigm correlates with broad
issues of governance in Nigeria especially in the recurrent calls for restructuring of the country as a
way to improve on its developmental, political and administrative failures.
Page 2 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
The article is organised in four sections, including this introduction. Section two briefly examines
the key paradigm shifts in public administration to provide a background for the emergence of the
governance paradigm. The third section examines various models of the governance paradigm, con-
cluding with the new governance paradigm of collaboration, and what it stands for in public admin-
istration. The fourth section considers the governance paradigm in relation to Nigeria’s national
question, arguing that effective governance should derive from mutual consensus of stakeholders
not just in terms of organizational processes, but fundamentally in relations to the fundamental
basis of nationhood. The next section concludes the essay.
Each of these paradigm or stage of development entails an emphasis of what should constitute
the focus and the locus for the study of public administration.
The net result of Paradigm 1 was to strengthen the notion of a distinct politics/
administration dichotomy by relating it to a corresponding value/fact dichotomy. Thus,
everything that public administrationists scrutinized in the executive branch was imbued
with the colorings and legitimacy of being somehow “factual” and “scientific,” while the
study of public policy making and related matters was left to the political scientist
Page 3 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
The above two early paradigms represent what is usually described as the traditional public ad-
ministration model that focuses on the career, neutrally competent civil servant working within a
structure of hierarchical authority as the best means, in both normative and empirical terms, of
translating policies into action (Derlien, 1999; Peters, 2003). Walsh and Stewart (1992) as repre-
sented by Peters (2003, pp. 8–9) more elaborately provide the features or assumptions of the tradi-
tional model as consisting in:
(1) An assumption of self-sufficiency: government is a self-sufficient actor that can act autono-
mously on the economy and society.
(2) An assumption of direct control: government is internally structured by authority and hierar-
chy, so that the individuals at the top of organizational pyramids were assumed capable of
exercising control within their own organizations.
(3) An assumption of accountability upward: Accountability was to flow upward, with career offi-
cials answering to their political “masters” and those ministers answering to legislatures. This
mode of accountability was to be the principal form of connection of administration with the
political system, and with the surrounding social system.
(4) An assumption of uniformity: Government was supposed to treat all citizens equally and to
provide the same benefits and deprivations to all similarly situated people. This was seem as
a fundamental conception of fairness.
(5) An assumption of a civil service system: That is, standardized establishment procedures, in
which the personnel in the public sector were to be governed through a formalized civil service
for recruitment, pay, grading, and other aspects of internal management.
These assumptions and their fallouts for public administration have been challenged by other
paradigms starting with the next two stages.
Page 4 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
regarded as more than proverbs (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968). Public
administration at this phase of its development was merely defined as an emphasis’ or “area of in-
terest” or even as a “synonym” of political science (Landau, 1962). The approach continued to em-
phasise the bureaucratic approach, but certainly led to the over-bureaucratisation and the diffusion
of public administration to virtually every aspect of government ranging from policy determination
to its implementation, services and the economy. Farazmand (2002, p. ix) remarks that public ad-
ministration during this period “emphasized institution building, bureaucratization, nationalization,
and a wide variety of organizational and administrative capacity building for national and economic
development.” The end product was the enthronement of the welfare state.
NPM like approaches or paradigms before it, emerged to confront the same problem of inefficiency
in administrative system. It originated from the fusion of economic theories and private sector man-
agement techniques. Its teachings were anchored on state withdrawal. Other assumptions of the
traditional public administration such as the claim of the Weberian bureaucracy as the most appro-
priate structure for effective administration were all challenged by this paradigm.
The traditional or Conventional public administration basically regards the government alone as
the autonomous and authoritative actor through its bureaucratic, hierarchical structures and pro-
cesses as far as public service is concerned; the NPM paradigm was a shift to use the private sector.
For Peters (2003), the whole idea of generic management portends the NPM paradigm. The para-
digm shift to this approach was from the Conventional Public Administration and it gradually gave
way for the Governance paradigm. In fact, he has also argued that many practitioners tend to in-
clude the Governance paradigm as part of the NPM. He avers, (Peters, 2003, p. 8):
I should also point out here that although much of the change in public administration can
be characterized as the NPM, some changes also have arisen from a rather different set of
practices and ideas. At the same time that some practitioners were moving public sector
management in the direction of that found in the private sector, with an implicit business
model of administration in mind, other practitioners were moving toward a very different
conception of relationships with the private sector. This relationship between the public and
private sectors has come to be known as “governance”
Page 5 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
A number of facts can be underscored at this stage: (1) it is not always clear to draw a timeline for
the emergence of the governance paradigm which according to Henry (1975) chronology, began
from 1990 to present; (2) some would regard the governance paradigm as part of the NPM, and (3)
Paradigm shifts in public administration are usually driven by practice rather than ideas, while ideas
that reside at the heart of the practical changes are teased out later (Peters, 2003). In all, the gov-
ernance paradigm, has become a distinctive era or more appropriately orientation in public admin-
istration practice and scholars have clearly provided intellectual explanation for why it should
currently be the preferred paradigm in public administration theory and practice.
However, the governance paradigm, which is the focus of this paper has similar origin and concep-
tual connation with the NPM which it is believed to succeed. Both were public administration streams
of the neoliberal ideology that most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) countries embraced in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The two paradigms according to
Peters (2003, p. 18) in some ways do fit together well, both attempting to break down the hierarchi-
cal, top-down system of governing inherited from the past. Thus,
Some of the recommendations coming from the two approaches are almost exactly the
same, e.g. the decentralization of government functions. Further, the two versions of
change make some recommendations that are compatible, and even complementary. For
example, the ideas in the NPM about the performance management and an emphasis on
the measurement of outputs from government may facilitate the use of non-governmental
actors to deliver programs.
Some scholars though, believe that the governance approach came much later and marks an impor-
tant break with neoliberalism. For instance, Archer (1994) argues that whereas neoliberalism recog-
nizes that markets are the whole answer, the governance approach does not. It rather recognizes
the importance of collaboration of government and other sectors including the private and civil so-
ciety or the third sector in service provisioning (Ikeanyibe, 2016). In this instance, while the NPM can
be said to be the core administrative stream of neoliberalism, governance was a reaction against the
excesses of this approach. Peters (2003, p. 18) provides a more clear distinction between the NPM
and the Governance paradigm thus:
In the NPM world the use of non-governmental actors is to reduce costs, increase efficiency,
and limit the power of the State. In the governance approach there are some elements of
efficiency but the principal justification is to involve the civil society, enhance participation,
and recognize the capacity of networks in civil society to provide at least a certain degree of
self-management in their policy areas.
Let it be known at this point that the reaction against the NPM has first emerged as what Moore
(1995) has articulated as public value. While some scholars regard the Public value as a separate
paradigm in public administration, we are inclined to view it as the mainstream paradigm of which
governance belongs. The core argument that pervades the entire public value paradigm including
the governance orientation is that the reform initiatives guided by NPM have undermined other fun-
damental values in governing public affairs, such as fairness, justice, representation, and
Page 6 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
participation, in the name of improving efficiency (Wu & He, 2009). For instance, among the orienta-
tions in the public value is the rekindling of interest in the “old” bureaucratic paradigm (Wu & He,
2009). Indeed, all the paradigmatic oscillations in public administration is to and fro the traditional
bureaucratic paradigm. As noted by Lane (1994) as cited by Wu and He (2009, p. 21), “while various
“new” paradigms may introduce new dimensions, the bureaucratic paradigm continues to provide
an indispensable foundation in the field. The governance orientation therefore, provides the new
dimension of participation and working with various networks. The government therefore governs
through collaboration of the hierarchical bureaucracy and networks to achieve not only efficiency
but other important values that should be the concern of government.
The term governance is, therefore, employed to describe some fundamental processes of modern
government that are distinct from the way “governments” traditionally operate. It consists of broad
political processes where citizen and group participation in government policy and programmes is
vital (Ikeanyibe, 2016). Stoker (1998) explains that the Anglo-American administrative culture uses
the term government to refer to the formal institutions of the state and their monopoly of legitimate
coercive power, while governance reflects a shifting pattern in styles of governing in which the bound-
aries within and between public and other sectors have become blurred. Like the NPM, the role of
government still rests on steering not rowing (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). This, according to Ikeanyibe
(2016), entails the use of other sectors (profit and not-for-profit) for the actual rowing of the boat
(provision of services) while the government steers (regulates and coordinates). Significantly, the op-
erating mechanism in governance orientation does not rest on the recourse to sanctions and author-
ity and suggests that the institutional/constitutional governing perspective is limited and misleading
(Ikeanyibe, 2016). Unlike the NPM however, the governance orientation rather than rely solely on the
efficacy of the private sector and business managerialism, focuses on the role of non-governmental
actors and networks in producing public goods and services. It seeks to reconfigure the role of the
public sector through citizen participation and network governance (Wu & He, 2009). The perspective
challenges conventional assumptions which focus on government as if it were a “stand-alone” insti-
tution divorced from wider societal forces, and draws attention to the increased involvement of the
private and voluntary sectors in service delivery and strategic decision-making, responsibilities that
were previously the near exclusive responsibility of government have been shared.
(1) A network of institutions and actors from within and beyond government.
(2) The blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues. This
shift in responsibility goes beyond the public–private dimension to include notions of commu-
nitarianism and social capital.
(3) Power dependence among institutions involved in collective action. Organizations are de-
pendent upon each other for the achievement of collective action, and thus must exchange
resources and negotiate shared understandings of ultimate program goals.
(4) The autonomous self-governing networks of actors.
(5) The capacity to get things done which does not rest on the power of government to command
or use its authority.
These more or less reflect in various orientations that are qualified as governance. However, in spite
of this generalised conception of governance, it will be academic incontinence to admit consensus
Page 7 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
in usage of the term governance or even practical applications, hence the variants of governance in
such strands like good governance, network governance, and collaborative governance.
3. Models of governance
As noted above, despite the agreement about a shift to the governance paradigm and what it en-
tails, the term has appeared in literature with a number of meanings. This is on account of the di-
verse views of analysts (as well as practitioners) of how the basic thrust of governing or steering the
economy and society should be done and the range of possibilities for providing that steering (Peters,
2003) and the background of the various usages of the term which cut across most social sciences.
The literature contains a number of significant models of governance as applied to public adminis-
tration. Indeed, in the tradition of NPM some analysts have sought to apply various usages of the
term in private sector usually discussed as corporate governance) to the public sector. For the public
sector specifically, Gibson (2011) observes that multitude of additional forms of governance are
documented in the literature, including good governance (Leftwich, 1994; Weiss, 2001), partnership,
collaboration and networks (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Stoker, 1998), and contemporary governance
(Magnette, 2003). Each model of governance proposes a slightly different emphasis, which makes
the models more or less appropriate depending on the local context. We share briefly explain the
following:
(1) Governance as government.
(2) Good governance.
(3) Governance as good enough governance.
(4) Collaborative, partnership, network governance.
In recent years, several African countries have implemented far-reaching governance and
public service reform measures. These measures have touched almost every aspect of the
continent’s political life—from the way governments are elected and changed, through
the workings of the three (i.e. the executive, the legislative and the judicial) branches of
government, to the role that civil society plays in holding state functionaries to account. The
reforms have not stopped with the expansion of the political space, but have moved further
to promote and/or accelerate the revitalization of the public service.
Page 8 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
a developmental path for countries of the Sub-Saharan Africa and the new countries that emerged
following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in Europe. Maldonado (2010) recalls that the col-
lapse of the Berlin wall on 9 November 1989 set off the disintegration of the Soviet Union which as a
consequence thereof also led to the decay of the political and economic alliances of the Eastern
bloc. These political changes created the breeding ground and gave way for a serious discussion on
how a state has to be designed in order to achieve (economic) development, i.e. a discussion on
good governance. Similarly, he posits that in the 1980s, the economic performance of the countries
in Sub-Saharan Africa had worsened despite the implementation of the World Bank’s Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAP) leading to a shift in the Bank’s and other international donors’ lend-
ing policy. These conditions essentially stressed the importance of political leadership, democracy,
human rights and transparency and accountability reforms. Maldonado (2010) remarks that the
term “governance” was first used to describe the need for institutional reform and a better and more
efficient public sector in Sub-Saharan countries. It was not just less government as pushed by the
SAP and NPM reform paths but better government. The term therefore appeared mainly as a political
and technocratic reform term and suggests that governance should be “good” and not “bad” (Ladi,
2008). To realise this “goodness” requires adopting certain principles, some of which have been
tested in developed Western countries. These principles according to The Chartered Institute of
Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)
(2013) consist the following:
(1) Acting in the public interest: government entities should act in the public interest at all times,
which entails strong commitment to integrity, ethical values, and the rule of law and openness
and comprehensive stakeholder engagement.
(2) Defining outcomes in terms of sustainable economic, social, and environmental benefits;
(3) Determining the interventions necessary to optimize the achievement of intended outcomes;
(4) Developing the capacity of the entity, including the capability of its leadership and the indi-
viduals within it;
(5) Managing risks and performance through robust internal control and strong public financial
management; and
(6) Implementing good practices in transparency and reporting to deliver effective accountability.
Thus while recognising the need for stakeholder engagement or involvement of non-governmental
bodies in government processes as the other models of governance, the good governance model
emphasizes the importance of the role of government officials to act in the public interest through
effective and visionary leadership, integrity, transparency and accountability. Hence the definition of
the term by World Bank (World Bank, 1994, p. vii) as follows:
Most good governance measures enforced by international donor agencies through their lending
conditions therefore required the establishment of democratic ethos, corruption fighting measures,
accountability and transparency reforms. These more than anything else, have driven the sundry
reforms that are witnessed in most of these countries since the 1990s. The good governance model
has some relationship with the traditional meaning of governance as the responsibility of govern-
ment. It only re-accredits important ingredients for this role in a new world order of triumphant lib-
eral democracy and markets.
Page 9 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
Getting good governance calls for improvements that touch virtually all aspects of the
public sector—from institutions that set the rules of the game for economic and political
interaction, to organizations that manage administrative systems and deliver goods
and services to citizens, to human resources that staff government bureaucracies, to
the interface of officials and citizens in political and bureaucratic arenas. Getting good
governance at times implies changes in political organization, the representation of
interests, and processes for public debate and policy decision-making. Not surprisingly,
advocating good governance raises a host of questions about what needs to be done, when
it needs to be done, and how it needs to be done
Achieving these tasks are overwhelming in the complex environment of most of the countries re-
quiring speedy development especially where “there is little guidance about what’s essential and
what’s not, what should come first and what should follow, what is feasible and what is not.” (Grindle,
2002). Yet development, service delivery, policy formulation and programme management, and
poverty reduction cannot wait until all these reform necessities are put in place. Experts and donor
agencies therefore, have come to recast the good governance as the good enough governance, a
“condition of minimally acceptable government performance and civil society engagement that
does not significantly hinder economic and political development and that permits poverty reduc-
tion initiatives to go forward” (Grindle, 2002, p. 2). She (Grindle, 2010, pp. 4–5) further advises that:
The World Bank (see Fritz, Kaiser, & Levy, 2009) and other international donor agencies have begun
to appreciate in good measure the need for incremental problem-driven solutions to the multifari-
ous challenges facing public policy and development generally in the poorer countries of the globe.
Fritz et al. (2009, p. viii) on behalf of the World Bank advance what they describe as “Good Practice
Framework” (GPF) or the Governance Political Economy (GPE) Analysis which in the main recognises
that “politics and political economy influence whether and how reforms happen—in developing as
well as developed countries” and therefore, fast tracking development in developing countries re-
quires not quick fixes but problem driven approach that focuses on particular challenges. Grindle
(2007, p. 554) equally explain “that not all governance deficits need to be (or can be) tackled at once
and that institution and capacity building are products of time … Good enough governance means
that interventions thought to contribute to the ends of economic and political development need to
be questioned, prioritized, and made relevant to the conditions of individual countries.” The good
enough governance, does not necessarily provide any short circuit to development, policy develop-
ment, programme implementation or service delivery or to issues of good governance. It is merely
advocating for the use of incremental and contingent approach and prioritization in the pursuit of
good governance given the reality of limited resources of money, time, knowledge, and human and
organizational capacities. Grindle (2005) tries to bridge the gap between the good governance mod-
el and the good enough governance model by suggesting that the utility and feasibility of particular
Page 10 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
governance interventions can be assessed by analyzing the context for change in governance and
the implications of the content of the intervention being considered. The model aligns with the politi-
cal economy approach which according to Brown (2009), matters more than technical issues. He
explains that a political economy analysis is not the same as the conventional good governance
considerations which look at how a country is doing, whether it has transparent finances, respects
human rights or the rule of law, and whether it provides access to justice. While these issues may be
important, they do not constitute essential conditions for the success of governance. What does is
politics. In his insightful remark regarding aid grants and administration to poor countries, Brown
(2009, p. 1) avers,
Development changes the ways in which wealth and resources are produced, used and
distributed. In doing so, development transforms existing social and power relations; it
creates winners and losers. Pro-poor development challenges vested interests and interest
groups. Countries seldom urbanise and industrialise without political conflict and ideological
struggles. And as countries “develop”, new classes are formed, new expectations are created
and new political settlements are wrought. Given this political context, effective aid is
politically savvy aid. Our development programmes, projects and policies will deliver more
development, help more people escape poverty and help more people realise their rights if we
embed our engagement in the political economies of the countries in which we work.
The good enough governance model therefore does not only advocate for paying attention to condi-
tion of minimally acceptable government performance and civil society engagement that does not
significantly hinder economic and political development as Grindle (2002, 2007, 2010) proposes, it
underscores the importance of contextualizing the content of governance or development issues by
“asking more politically astute questions” (Brown, 2009). The model therefore, further underscores
the relevance of politics and value issues as vital elements of public administration.
Page 11 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
The Partnership Governance and Accountability General Report (Accountability, 2006, p. 7) shows
that the reasons for the use of governance partnerships or networks include:
(1) Improved efficiency, such as: optimizing the division of labor or delivering on development
impacts of scale;
(2) Improved effectiveness, such as: leveraging skills and resources and innovating on methods
and means of delivery of public goods;
(3) Increased equity in process and outcome such as: building community-level institutional
structures, networks and capacities to enable local control, as examples.
Thus, partnerships, offer the potential to deliver outcomes that single organizations cannot, or to do
so more efficiently. Like other governance models, the aim of governance partnership is to achieve
good governance or effective and efficient public administration. Processes aim at securing defined
mission by participatory decision-making of all stakeholders, accountability directly linked to perfor-
mance standards and assessments, accountability of partners to their own stakeholders; partner to
partner accountability and accountability of the partnership to its stakeholders and beneficiaries
(Partnership Governance and Accountability General Report, 2006). This is essentially why these new
approaches are also described as the public value management model (Moore, 1995). Public value
can be created in different ways, but more importantly, by starting with the group of people in ques-
tion and involving them in discussing and defining how they can contribute to and benefit from the
creation of public value (Todorut & Tselentis, 2015). The model fundamentally emphasize the fact
that public administration is insufficiently flexible, innovative and creative. And this missing link
could well be realised through use of networks, collaboration and partnerships. The perspective re-
flects the perception that the previous organizing models of the public sector neglected the civil
society and public positioning as a passive receiver of public goods or as a simple consumer on a
huge market (Todorut & Tselentis, 2015).
Page 12 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
Development Programmes funded by International Donor Agencies since the 1990s operate in ac-
cordance with this international fad. See for example the collaborative governance of Water,
Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) programmes in some states in the country by World Bank and
WaterAid Nigeria (World Bank, 2000; WaterAid Nigeria, 2013).
Nigeria is a very complex country with intense diverse ethnic constitution and diverse interests. Of
course accommodating the interests of all these sundry groups in policy and government processes
and services is no mean task. The idea of quota and federal character as means of power sharing
and employment have been tied to administrative law and practice from the Nigerianization policy
of late 1950s. Yet this fundamental approach towards inclusive government have not provided ad-
equate benefits of participatory governance. According to Kendhammer (2014, p. 1), both quota and
federal character principles “enforce a highly discriminatory ‘indigeneity’ system that privileges eth-
nic origins over federal citizenship”. Despite the efforts made by the military elite during the long
military rule in the country to diffuse the importance of ethnic origins by artificially structuring the
federation according to some arbitrarily created states and local governments, primordial cleavages
still dominate government processes. The cries of marginalization along ethnic lines persist and the
calls for resolving what has become commonplace as the national question much more frequent
than even in the early history of the country as an independent nation. Yet, a governance as collabo-
ration/partnership model should aim at integrating all these cleavages. Though governance within
the realm of public administration applies to organizational processes, we are prone to believe that
if the political structure of government cannot be settled, then the challenge of the structure of
governance at the organizational level could be at risk. This is because it is still the interest of those
stakeholders that have not seen themselves as being part of the nation that the government organi-
sations are to preserve and serve. Governance practice should be seen to radiate from the very
foundation in which a state is structured down to the processes and methods employed by state
institutions. Just as the new governance paradigm entails the involvement of private sector organi-
zations and civil society actors as crucial elements of service delivery and permits the actors involved
to have some say over the manner in which the services are delivered, if not necessarily in the actual
content of the services to be delivered (Peters, 2003), so should the government of a country or
state/provincial level recognise the involvement of all the groups that are part of the constituents. A
key question about the issue of governance in Nigeria therefore is whether the willingness and col-
laboration of all parties and stakeholders to the country’s sovereignty have been properly secured?
To what extent has the federal structure been accepted by all stake holders in respect of the recur-
rent call for the restructuring of the country?
The issue of restructuring the Nigerian federation has been recurrent. Some constitutional confer-
ences have been commissioned by government to address some of the issues, albeit with the usual
caveat of “no go areas”, that is, issues that cannot be discussed by such conferences. We consider
this caveat and even the failure to take serious the recommendations of such conferences as hin-
drance to the governance question in general, and more restrictively to governance as network/
partnership/collaboration in Nigeria. Governance model advocates for responding to stakeholders’
concerns in a legitimate way. A key challenge of the country’s government and governance pro-
cesses has been that pre-colonial autonomously living groups were welded together as one country
through the brute power of colonialism and had since then been forcefully kept as such with little
room for negotiation of the basis of unity and governance under the long military rule and its legacy
of no negotiation to the unity of the country. The military distorted the federal structure of the coun-
try. While the creation of states and local governments are meant to enhance the country’s federal-
ism by granting autonomy to various groups beyond the three major regions defined under the
colonial government, the truth remains that this approach has succeeded in balkanizing and wors-
ening the cleavages in the country by compounding the problem of boundaries (Ikeanyibe & Njoku,
2006). The new federalism in Nigeria based on multiplicity of states and local governments was de-
fined under the centralising rationale of various military regimes. Now the contention of constitu-
tional supremacy between the federal government and states over the local governments have not
helped matters. Despite the so called third tier status of local government, experts still find the
Page 13 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
Nigerian local governments as better described as an arm of the state governments. This is a fallout
of the military style of centralized decentralisation where it is assumed that it is the federal govern-
ment that can properly delegate and decentralize powers, functions, and resources. In a federation,
this is supposed to be negotiated rather than unilaterally doled out by a federal government that
was formed from bottom-up conscription of groups.
Invariably the federal structure of Nigeria, which is constantly challenged by the call for restruc-
turing draws attention to the poor foundation of governance base for the country. Ryan Gibson
(2011) avers that governance, whether in rural or urban areas, emerged principally from the criti-
cism of large central governments’ inability to accommodate the preferences of diverse communi-
ties or regions. The multiplicity of opinions represented throughout rural communities in large
jurisdictions, such as a province or country, has proven difficult for central governments to address.
At the local and regional level, residents, community-serving organizations, and the private sector
have sought new forums of decision-making. The Nigerian governance dilemma not just in terms of
the most recent paradigm oscillation in public administration but in terms of broad issues of govern-
ance of the country, must be founded on clear principles of consent and inclusiveness.
Kauzya and Balogun (2005) observe that though several African countries, Nigeria inclusive, have
implemented far-reaching governance and public service reform measures in recent years (these
measures have touched almost every aspect of the continent’s political life—from the way govern-
ments are elected and changed, through the workings of the three (i.e., the executive, the legislative
and the judicial) branches of government, to the role that civil society plays in holding state function-
aries to account), much more remains to be done to reposition governance and public administra-
tion institutions for the emerging challenges. Our take is that a major governance issue that needs
to be attended to is to re-negotiate the basis of most states in Africa.
8. Conclusion
Despite the use of the term governance to refer to the new approach to public service processes
since the 1990s that entail the use of networks and partnerships in public service delivery, the con-
cept remains key to understanding the foundation of the relationship between the government and
the citizens of a country. Governance and public administration systems hinge on a number of things
including leadership, especially, the capacity of the leadership class to build broad-based national
and regional coalitions and channel energies towards the realization of the citizens’ welfare (Kauzya
& Balogun, 2005). The paradigmatic shifts in public administration depicts various efforts of govern-
ments to adopt and adapt to new and better ways to satisfy the yearnings of their public and the
scholarly attempts to rationalize those approaches. The new governance paradigm does not say
less. As Kauzya and Balogun (2005, p. 9) further remarks, “the sticky point, as far as governance re-
form is concerned, is how to build a consensus around some enduring socio-political values and
traditions.” Building this consensus as we have shown in the case of Nigeria in this essay requires
open discussion about the basis of nationhood. While sovereignty of a nation remains sacrosanct,
freedom of an individual or any group of people seems to be a higher value. That is why an individual
has a right to seek for citizenship of another country. Similarly, the right to self-determination should
be available to various groups that became members of the Nigerian federation by sheer force of
exploitative colonial project. Perhaps, a re-visit of the colonial balkanization and restructuring of the
basis of statehood of the country, which had remained a recurring decimal in the history of the coun-
try could be a radical way to lay a solid governance foundation. If the relationship of Scotland with
England since the twelfth century and the eventual unification of England, Scotland, and Wales in
1707 as the Great Britain could still be revisited through the Scottish Independence Referendum of
2014, then it is too early to start paying attention to the cries of self-determination going on in parts
of Nigeria, Africa and the rest of the world as a way to resolve persistent governance crisis in these
countries.
Page 14 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
Page 15 of 16
Ikeanyibe et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1316916
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1316916
Landau, M. (1962). Political science and public administration: Tamayao, M. J. M. (2014). What is governance? Law, Politics,
‘field’ and the concept of decision-making. In S. Mailick and Philosophy. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from https://
& E. H. van Ness (Eds.), Concepts and Issues in tamayaosbc.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/
Administrative Behavior (pp. 1–28). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: what-is-governance/
Prentice-Hall. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy
Lane, J. E. (1994). Will public management drive out public (CIPFA) and the International Federation of Accountants
administration? Asian Journal of Public Administration, 16, (IFAC). (2013). Good governance in the public sector—
139–151. Consultation draft for an international framework.
Leftwich, A. (1994). Governance, the state and the politics of Retrieved September 23, 2016, www.ifac.org
development. Development and Change, 25, 363–386. Todorut, A. V., & Tselentis, V. (2015). Designing the model of
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.1994.25.issue-2 public value management. Proceedings of the
Magnette, P. (2003). European governance and civic International Management Conference, 9, 74–80.
participation: Beyond elitist citizenship? Political Studies, Walsh, K., & Stewart, J. (1992). Change in the management of
51, 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00417 public services. Public Administration, 70, 499–518.
Maldonado, N. (2010). The World Bank’s evolving concept of WaterAid Nigeria. (2013). Annual Report 2012-2013. Retrieved
good governance and its impact on human rights. Doctoral September 26, 2016 from www.wateraid.org/ng/~/media/
workshop on development and international Files/Nigeria/ANNUAL-REPORT-FY-2012-13.pdf?
organizations, Stockholm, Sweden, May 29–30, 2010. Weiss, G. T. (2001). Governance, good governance and global
Retrieved October 3, 2016. governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic World Quarterly, 21, 795–814.
management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science
University Press. Quarterly, 2, 197–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/2139277
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Wilson, W. (1953). The study of administration. In Dwight
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Waldo (Ed.), Ideas and issues in public administration (pp.
Peters, B. G. (2003). The changing nature of public 65–75). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
administration: From easy answers to hard questions. World Bank. (1994). Governance: The world bank’s experience.
Viešoji Politika ir Administravimas, 5, 1–1. Washington, DC: Author.
Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: Governing without World Bank. (2000). Federal Republic of Nigeria: Water Supply &
government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667. Sanitation Interim Strategy Note. Retrieved September 26,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x 2016 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of NIGERIAEXTN/Resources/wss_1100.pdf
decision-making processes in administrative organization Wu, X., & He, J. (2009). Paradigm shift in public administration:
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Implications for teaching in professional training
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. programs. Public Administration Review, 6. Retrieved from
International Social Science Journal, 50, 17–28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227699058.
https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.1998.50.issue-155 doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02085.x
© 2017 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Social Sciences (ISSN: 2331-1886) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
Page 16 of 16