The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it evaluates the impossibility proposition, called the “Arrow impossibility theorem” (AIT), which is widely attributed to Arrow’s…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it evaluates the impossibility proposition, called the “Arrow impossibility theorem” (AIT), which is widely attributed to Arrow’s social choice theory. This theorem denies the possibility of arriving at any collective majority resolution in any group voting system if the social choice function must satisfy “certain natural conditions”. Second, it intends to show the reasons behind the proliferation of this impossibility impression.
Design/methodology/approach
Theoretical and philosophical.
Findings
Arrow’s mathematical model does not seem to suggest or support his impossibility thesis. He has considered only one voting outcome, well known by the phrase “the Condorcet paradox”. However, other voting results are equally likely from his model, which might suggest unambiguous majority choice. This logical dilemma has been created by Arrow’s excessive dependence on the language of mathematics and symbolic logic.
Research limitations/implications
The languages of mathematics and symbolic logic – numbers, letters and signs – have definite advantages in scientific argumentation and reasoning. These numbers and letters being invented however do not have any behavioural characteristics, which suggests that conclusions drawn from the model merely reflect the author’s opinions. The AIT is a good example of this logical dilemma.
Social implications
The modern social choice theory, which is founded on the AIT, seems to be an academic assault to the system of democratic governance that is dominating current global village. By highlighting weaknesses in the AIT, this paper attempts to discredit this intellectual omission.
Originality/value
The paper offers a counter example to show that the impossibility of social choice is not necessarily implied by the Arrow’s model. Second, it uses Locke’s theory of human understanding to explain why the concerned social scientists are missing this point. This approach is probably entirely novel in this area of research.
Details
Keywords
Since the 1990s, most bilateral and supranational donor agencies have been pursuing “good governance” as their priority development policy. Yet, in their own evaluation, the speed…
Abstract
Purpose
Since the 1990s, most bilateral and supranational donor agencies have been pursuing “good governance” as their priority development policy. Yet, in their own evaluation, the speed of progress of this gargantuan governance project has remained unsatisfactory. The purpose of this paper is to examine the causes of this slow progress by scrutinizing its conceptual foundation.
Design/methodology/approach
The analytical approach of this paper is purely speculative, which is occasionally supported by real world data and socio‐political evidences. Since the paper uses Governance for Sustainable Human Development – A UNDP Policy Document as the ruling reference material, the paper has been so titled.
Findings
First, defining governance as a process misrepresents its problematic nature, which is primarily political and therefore diverts world attention from its root‐causes. Second, governance literature treats the state and government as synonymous and by that confuses their political nature. Finally, the paper assigns an all‐impressing role to civil society organizations (CSOs) in promoting good governance in the developing world. However, experience shows that they are deeply involved in the creation and continuation of poor governance in the developing country.
Practical implications
Humankind now lives in a global village divided into territorially demarcated political units. Accordingly, the peace and prosperity of the global village critically depend upon how democratically each of member state is governed. Good governance in turn hinges on politically trained intelligent and ethical individuals running public administration. The analytical opinions of the paper underline this notion.
Originality/value
The paper shows that the ongoing development discourse on good governance revolves around a faulty conceptual foundation. By reviewing the major ideas of the governance paradigm, it clarifies the conceptual connections between political theories and democratic governance.