ment are usually low to nonexistent . In short , these are areas in which the capacity of institutions is least likely to make any positive difference at all .
Despite this track record , most definitions of good governance focus on the functional capacity of government institutions on the assumption that the population is whole and supportive . The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ( UNESCAP ) defines good governance thus : “ Good governance has 8 major characteristics . It is participatory , consensus oriented , accountable , transparent , responsive , effective and efficient , equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law . It assures that corruption is minimized , the views of minorities are taken into account , and the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making . It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society 48 .”
That definition is useful , but in the absence of willingness and trust , fearful and marginalized populations turn away from formal courts and return to locally-administered justice . In absence of representation and shared power , tribes and clans ally and challenge national governments for authority and legitimacy . In fragile and conflict-affected circumstances , functional capacity alone does little good and tends to be unsustainable and often adds to the fragility and conflict . Despite this , interventions aiming to reconstruct and reform governance continue to prioritize courts , ministries , police services and outlining the Rule of Law and standards of conduct . Rarely do they address the conditions of social breakdown that rot the heart out of security and stability , or pursue good governance
37