The New Approach to Resource Governance in Africa -Adopting a Pro-Social Resource Governance Framework in Ghana – Part 2

Pro-social behavior for resource governance

Human behavior is emerging - although not very common - as an important phenomenon worth inculcating into any framework that is designed to promote the management of common resources in a sustainable way. As more case studies around resource management are analyzed, the more the evidence shows that the need for a comprehensive theoretical framework that integrates human behavior and include concepts such as trust, cooperation, shared risks and benefits, social norms, etc. cannot be overlooked. Over the decade, a number of scholars have undertaken research to understand the successes and failures of self-organization in the management of resources such as local fisheries, irrigation systems and forests. These experimental behavioral studies provide a good understanding that self-governance is possible in resource management. One such distinguished work was undertaken by Elinor Ostrom, a political economist who developed the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and in 2009 won the Nobel Prize for her contributions to the study of the governance of common resources. The IAD has been a useful tool in analyzing many case studies of common resource management.

One concept which functions primarily by self-governance is prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is voluntary behavior intended to benefit others. The concept was introduced by social scientists in the 1970s and is increasingly becoming popular in common-pool resource management. The concept has been considered successful in promoting sustainable management of common resources among communities which have adopted the approach. Typical success stories include Elinor Ostrom’s study of a number of farmers who shared irrigation systems. From her studies, she identifies that what made the management of irrigation systems successful was as a result of a number of prosocial principles the participants applied. Without external regulation, these farmers were able to effectively manage the irrigation systems, resulting in a shared sense of satisfaction among them. The success of prosocial behavior is not limited to the management irrigation systems. It has also been very successful in extensively minimizing violence against women in Sierra Leone. Again in Sierra Leone, prosocial behavior was used in combating the spread of Ebola disease among citizens.

Factors that influence the successful implementation of prosocial behavior

Based on the study of the concept of prosocial behavior and analysis of the success stories where the concept has worked, the following are considered the key factors that facilitate its successful application:

Intrinsic motivation: the first thing about prosocial behavior is that it is voluntary. For a behavior to be voluntary, it must be intrinsically motivated. Where people do not enjoy being prosocial, this concept will fail when applied. Notwithstanding, prosocial behavior can be extrinsically motivated but must be internalized and integrated. In this way, individuals actively transform the behavior into their own values, until it eventually emanates from their sense of self.

Self-governance: this means the ability to self-regulate. In the absence of external checks or regulation, people who are prosocial are self-disciplined to take decisions that benefit others.

Inclusiveness: Prosocial behavior involves interacting and relating with others. For prosocial behavior to work, every stakeholder in question must be included in the process of its application. If all stakeholders understand the importance of being prosocial, the benefits to be obtained, are willing to share the costs involved and play the needed role in reaching their targets, positive results will be achieved.

An enabling environment: an enabling environment is key in ensuring the successful application of prosocial behavior. An enabling environment is where prosocial behavior is accepted as the norm and its expression is not stifled. On the contrary, where it is a norm to put self-interest above the interest of others, the concept will be ineffective and those who are prosocial will appear to be the ‘losers’.

Pro-social resource governance framework
Fighting corruption requires a strategic approach. It requires measures that are incorporated into a system rather than ad-hoc. The proposed framework is made up of eight principles that guide the inculcation and application of prosocial behavior in resource management. Prosocial behavior is about people. Therefore, the success of the framework depends on the willingness and commitment of the people who are to apply it. In view of this, this framework is designed with primary focus on the people who have been entrusted with resource management, to help them exercise prosocial behavior in their line of duty.

The framework is categorized into three levels. The first level tackles self, i.e. the individual. The second level focuses on others and the third the environment. These three levels are relevant because they form the basis on which the factors of successful implementation of prosocial behavior emerge.

Under each of the three levels, principles are designed necessarily for the achievement of prosocial behavior as it pertains to that particular level.

The proposed prosocial resource governance framework

Level 1 – Self
Self refers to the individual who has chosen voluntarily to be prosocial, whether by intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation through internalization and integration. Under this level, two principles are laid out:

Principle 1 - Public declaration of one’s stance to be prosocial

A public declaration causes a resource manager to be conscious of his actions. It also keeps one in remembrance of his or her set values. It has a psychological effect in the sense that people only declare publicly what they are proud of and uphold. This principle therefore enables one to exercise his or her prosocial value freely without fear or favor. Individuals can make this declaration in any way that best suits them, whether by hanging a badge, oral declaration, swearing an affidavit or signing a bond. One important point is that this public declaration is entirely voluntary. Anyone who is prosocial in the first place has voluntarily chosen to be so and as such must exercise the behavior voluntarily.

Principle 2 – Clearly defined boundaries

It is important for every individual to clearly define for him or herself the boundaries of his or her assigned mandate, rights and privileges. This will help avoid the abuse of power in the exercise of one’s duty. For example, when a resource manager understands that he or she is not entitled to a proportion of rent accrued from the negotiation of an oil deal, and sets the boundary not to seek such rent, he or she avoids the temptation of being compromised in the negotiation process. Setting boundaries will help a resource manager negotiate deals or utilize public revenues within the restricted interest of his or her office. This principle upholds an individual’s integrity. This principle is effective and is an outstanding contributing factor to the successful management of irrigation systems among the case studies Elinor Ostrom analyzed.

Level 2 – Others
Others refer to the team of people who must work together in managing resources. One of the successes of resource governance is based on the nature of the team working together. Under this level, three principles are presented:

Principle 3 - Likeminded people should work together

This principle refers to people who are likeminded in being prosocial in their line of duties. It is effective when like-minded people work together. This is because they have collective interest to see resources translate into development for the masses. When like-minded people are paired together, they are willing to make the necessary efforts to meet their shared goals and objectives. This helps reduce conflict of interest within a team. For instance, if a team member negotiates a bad deal, or mismanage public resource revenues or receives a bribe, the rest of the team are most likely to kick against it. It is near impossible for a minority in a team to retain a stand for integrity when the majority is against it. It gives room for sabotage, especially where one wants to effect a positive but unpopular change. This is typically illustrated in Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s story where a group of government officials had agreed to sign a bad deal that could put Nigeria in debt of US$2 billion and she was the only one who objected to the deal. When like-minded people team up, achieving prosocial behavior is easier and speeds the process of making the concept an acceptable norm among stakeholders.

Principle 4 – A shared sense of meeting values

In most cases of applying prosocial behavior, it is found out that the reason why people most often behave in an antisocial manner is that they have values that are not met. Bringing this home to resource governance, it is the case that most people become corrupt due to financial and other forms of pressures on them to meet certain obligations. Of course, there are certain cases of greed but the former factor cannot be ignored. When people’s values to meet their personal needs and responsibilities are not met, they find alternate ways to meet them, even if by corrupt means. A prosocial team can therefore help foster among themselves prosocial behavior by identifying positive ways of helping each other meet their needs. This principle is sustainable within a prosocial team because ‘’as long as individuals are confident that others are cooperating and joint benefits are being provided, they comply willingly to contribute the necessary resources’’ to achieve their set target.

Principle 5 - Agreed sanctions must be enforced

Within any resource management team, it is important that agreed sanctions are enforced. Stakeholders are willing to comply with a set of rules when they perceive that the collective objective is achieved and that others also comply. Enforcement increases the confidence of individuals that others are not allowed to be free riders and that those who comply are not ‘losers’.

Level 3 – Environment
This level refers to an enabling environment conducive for managing resources in a prosocial manner.

Principle 6 - A prosocial friendly environment recognizes prosocial behavior as a norm

A prosocial friendly environment is where prosocial behavior is accepted and recognized as a norm. In such an environment, people are not afraid to be prosocial and there is no direct or indirect pressure for them to succumb to corrupt behavior. Such an environment is not constructed overnight but through a continual and deliberate process. A prosocial friendly environment can be created through a number of ways and stakeholders working together must be allowed the autonomy to create the environment through the means that best work for them.

Principle 7 - Constant reminding/training is key

There must be continuous reminding about being prosocial. This could be done through periodic refresher training for all resource managers, or what best suits them. Reminders could even be something as simple as a hung citation or picture that illustrates prosocial behavior. Constant reminding is important because what people continually hear over a period of time influences their personal culture and lifestyle. For prosocial behavior to be a habit, there must be perpetual reminding. Constant training also helps create an opportunity to extrinsically motivate others, enabling them to internalize and integrate the concept as their own.

Principle 8 - Monitoring
To sustain the commitment to manage resources in a prosocial manner, it is important that stakeholders monitor each other. Again, within a self-governance system, stakeholders must be allowed the autonomy to arrange their own monitoring schemes. Monitoring is critical because it is easier to pledge one’s commitment to be prosocial but the significant accomplishment lies in the actual implementation, amidst temptation to do contrary. Monitoring is effective when stakeholders are transparent in carrying out their duties. Where activities are shrouded in secrecy, resource managers cannot monitor each other.

These principles appear to be general. However, it needs to allow for self-governance. The prosocial resource governance framework is designed to guide stakeholders condition themselves, others and their environment accordingly. The flexible approach in the designed principles is to allow stakeholders tweak them as best suit their specific contexts. In view of this, these principles are not presented as the ‘tune-key’ to success in resource governance but rather as a model to integrate the role of human behavior in Africa’s governance setting.

Why Ghana needs a prosocial resource governance framework

Ghana is blessed with gold, timber, diamond and petroleum, etc. In the midst of this wealth, Ghana continues to require financial aid for development. The president of the Republic of Ghana, His Excellency, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo has reiterated his commitment to build “a Ghana beyond aid”. To this effect, the president on Wednesday, June 13^th, 2018 inaugurated a 13-member committee to develop a Charter for the “Ghana beyond Aid” vision. This sits right in the cup of the proposed prosocial resource governance framework. This is because the vision cannot be achieved without the efficient management of Ghana’s extractive resources. Minimizing corruption in the extractive sector and Ghana as a whole can contribute to reversing the trend of over reliance on aid, a typical characteristic of countries which have poor resource governance. In 2016 alone, Ghana received foreign aid to the tune of US$2.9 billion, almost the same amount the country loses yearly through corruption.

There is no doubt that Ghana has good laws but implementation of the laws remain a challenge. The country continues to face challenges of human development, ranking 139^th out of 188 countries in the human development index in 2015. In the midst of this, corruption continues to thrive. Ghana was perceived as the 81^st least corrupt country in 2017 out of the 180 countries ranked by the 2017 Corruption Perception Index developed by Transparency International. Ghana is in need of this prosocial resource governance framework to usher the country out of aid and into sustainable development.

For full details on the framework and its relevance to resource governance in Africa, read full paper at http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/10414

This article is an excerpt from The New Approach to Resource Governance in Africa – Adopting a Prosocial Resource Governance Framework in Ghana.

By Linda Ahunu
President at Lind & Associates and an affiliate of the Ostrom Workshop, Indiana University, USA.