Deficit in Public Governance achievement is considered among the major constraints that hinder the progress in Arab societal transformation efforts. Weak governance institutions and processes could arguably be associated with disappointing economic performance.  During the last three decades we witnessed low rates of GDP growth for most of Arab countries. Recent analysis has found that the region’s annual growth rate could have been as much as one percentage point higher had the quality of development administration and management of resources  matched that of good performing economies.
The perceptions of generally inadequate governance in the region belie a more complex reality. The Arab region on average performs slightly worse than in countries with similar income worldwide with respect to the quality of administration, based on indicators such as how the administration controls corruption, assures the rule of law, protects property rights, manages public resources and employees, and implements regulations. But the region performs palpably worse for public accountability, based on indicators such as how well citizens can access information, carry on public debate, hold their agencies and officials accountable, and generally enjoy civil rights. On this indicator, the region is beneath the worldwide median.
The  World Governance Indicators (WGI) disaggregate and group countries of the region according to their governance performance, by averaging one indicator each for the political, economic and institutional dimensions of governance. 
The political dimension measurement include indicators for voice and democratic accountability and political stability and an absence of major violence), the economic dimension (government effectiveness and regulatory quality,  transaction costs, property rights, hierarchy and organisation, and public choice) and the institutional dimension (formal institutions such as rules, laws, constitutions and informal institutions such as norms of behaviour, conventions, self-imposed codes of conduct and their enforcement characteristics). 
Four different governance performance groups emerge. The “top” group (“relative performers”) averaged in the 60th percentile worldwide, implying that they are above the median country worldwide (though about 80 countries rate higher). Only two countries fall into this category: Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. This is the only group where governance on average has remarkably improved during the past decade (by an average of almost 6 percentile points across the three selected dimensions of governance).
The second group of semi-performers comprises four countries, rating at around the 50th percentile worldwide. All these countries underwent severe deterioration during the past decade. The third and lower-performing group (“non-performers”) is the largest and comprises eight countries, rating below two-thirds of the world on average. 
The last group, “failing,” comprises five countries, with rating around the bottom deciles worldwide and experiencing deteriorating governance during the past decade.
Judged on my experience in the field, the UN, the IFIs and other international development agencies were catalyst in introducing to Arab governments a number of key public governance reform programmes, the majority of which were implemented. Among them (1) Improving the management of human resources in the public sector by  moving from traditional personnel management systems that were weakly professionalised and routine-driven towards integrated human resources management strategies using performance-based tools. 
(2) Improving the management of public finances and  launching reforms in financial governance by adopting a medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) and a programme structure for the expenditures budget; and using a performance budgeting framework for designing and carrying out improvements in service delivery and targeting (3) Fighting corruption which distorts markets and competition. Ensuring quality regulations which have improved legislative drafting capacities. 
(4) Reducing red tape and its heavy toll on citizens, businesses and public administration. 
(5) Minimising the impact of excessive administrative burdens on transaction costs in the market, on impeding the competitiveness of firms, and on limiting the spread of the informal economy.  Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by new information and communication  technologies and improving the reliance on  e-government  to enhance  governmental activities, and 
(6) ensuring the efficient use of public-private partnerships and the interface between them.
But despite all those notable technical functional improvements, countries in the region still registering low score in the cross cutting structural/ institutional areas of transparency, accountability, and participation all of which understood to be the normative core of civic engagement, social accountability and deliberative governance. This component constitutes a driving force for public governance. It ensures the involvement of citizens and civil society organisations in public decision-making and in holding governments accountable for its actions, especially with regard to the management of public resources. Put differently, it is a way to make government work more effectively by enabling citizens to articulate their needs, and be more fully included in the activities of government, such as allocating resources, the making of policies, management of public finances, and delivering of services, while also monitoring and giving feedback on government performance by evaluating the implications of various policy options. Deliberation thus promotes not only conciliation between the various actors affected by a policy, the emergence of an informed and engaged public, and the taking into account of the public’s perspective, but also legitimacy in decision making. 
Equally important, there are also pragmatic reasons in the involvement of the broader representation of people in policy decisions. It helps to access their knowledge and resources, and to ensure active participatory co-operation, efficient implementation and on top of that  social acceptance of policies.
Social accountability and deliberative governance involve two distinct stages: answerability and enforcement. Answerability refers to the obligation of the government, its agencies and public officials to be transparent, to provide information to the general public and clarity about government rules, regulations, and  their decisions  actions and to justify them to the public and those institutions of accountability tasked with providing oversight. 
There are three dimensions of answerability: (1) disclosure of information (the level of transparency of the government regarding, for example, budgets, expenditures, programmes, etc.); (2) demystification of information (strengthening the level of awareness and understanding of citizens, for example, about laws, rights, budgets, policies, etc.); and (3) dissemination of information (spreading information as related to, for example, governance issues, processes, finances, laws, etc.) to the public. In promoting transparency, dissemination of information should be followed by citizen action and advocacy based on this information. Government can support these processes by adopting open information policies and platforms, and enacting access to information legislation. Civil society organisations and social movements can promote the use of open information by citizens through awareness raising and training. 
 As for the Enforcement stage, it suggests that the public or the institution responsible for accountability can sanction the offending party or remedy the contravening behaviour. As such, different institutions of accountability might be responsible for either or both of these stages.
More importantly, another crucial aspect of social accountability and deliberative governance is viewed as tools for promoting the use of research-based knowledge to guide decision making. Interest in this trend has grown to promote evidence-informed policymaking. Such deliberative processes focus on the participation of the academia, researchers and experts and decision makers and are aimed at building bridges between the worlds of research and policy making. Thus, deliberation allows for the co-production and co-interpretation of research, while taking into account the decisional context. Despite the noteworthy differences between these trends, it is interesting to note their points of convergence. Indeed, both trends affirm the ability of deliberation to promote consensus among various actors, to build knowledge based on the cross fertilisation of knowledge and to inform decision making.
In sum, social accountability and deliberative governance embed two sets of values (a) intrinsic value, and (b) instrumental value, both of which signal that government is bonded in a social contract and open to the society and citizens where their representatives are included. This can contribute to greater political credibility and legitimacy, and to the establishment of a strong socio-economic and political capital and surplus societal energy.
Operationally, the full effectiveness of these assets of public governance depends on several enabling conditions: (i) a conducive political environment; (ii) an appropriate policy and legal framework; (iii) capable and supportive state-actors; and (iv) credible institutional capabilities of non-state stakeholders.

Related Story