Imho, good governance refers to a government that is observing best practices in administering government resources and services.
However this poses a question when government attempts to impose governance on phenomena or behavior that shouldn’t be governed at all.
The framework can be presented as:
1. Default state is “free” – no regulation, no regulators to corrupt – no corruption.
2. A vested interest initiates regulation – “less free”
3. To enforce the regulation pushed by the vested interest – an enforcement agency is created.
4. Market forces realize the game being played by vested interests – and so do the regulators – the stage is set for an enabling condition
5. The vested interests make a humongous profit based on the skewed regulation – the regulators realize they are in for a ride – and connive with the the competition to the vested interests – voila …. “corruption” is initiated… and proceed to many iterations.
Is it the nature of men to be corrupt?
Or was it the regulation which created an artificial crime called “corruption”?
That’s how regulations lead to more corruption, more government restrictions, more taxes…
The answer therefore lies in questioning whether the legislation/regulation was warranted in the first place?
* The 60/40 restrictions
* The trade tariffs
* The FINL regulations
And if these regulations are not needed in the first place, then it stands to reason that – the answer lies not in more enforcement of these regulations – but in the abolition of said regulations.