Evolving Threat of Poor Governance / DAVOS 2025

Summary

This panel discussion at the World Economic Forum focused on the evolving threat of poor governance and its impact on various aspects of society. The panelists, including a Nigerian foreign minister, a Norwegian business leader, and an Oxford professor, explored the meaning of good governance and its crucial role in shaping a country’s development.

The discussion highlighted how governance significantly impacts a nation’s ability to manage resources, foster economic growth, and build public trust. Examples were given of countries with similar starting points diverging dramatically due to differences in governance quality. The panelists emphasized the importance of strong institutions, individual agency, and leadership integrity in establishing good governance.

Key challenges discussed included the erosion of trust in political leadership, the impact of social media on governance transparency, and the persistence of corruption in some regions. The panelists stressed the need for leaders to provide hope and chart clear paths forward, especially in times of global uncertainty.

The role of the private sector in governance innovation was explored, with suggestions for companies to take on greater social responsibility beyond mere compliance. The discussion also touched on the negative impact of social media on female political leaders and the need to address this issue.

Ultimately, the panelists agreed on the critical importance of good governance in addressing global challenges and fostering development. They called for continued efforts to strengthen institutions, promote accountability, and cultivate leadership that prioritizes public trust and effective service delivery.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Defining good governance as building trust, accountability, and improving people’s lives

– The importance of individual agency and leadership in addition to strong institutions

– Challenges of corruption, especially in developing countries

– The impact of social media and technology on governance and transparency

– The role of the private sector in innovating governance approaches

Overall purpose:

The goal of this panel discussion was to explore the evolving threats of poor governance globally and discuss potential solutions and innovations to improve governance across public and private sectors.

Tone:

The tone was largely serious and analytical, with panelists offering thoughtful insights on complex governance challenges. There were also moments of optimism, particularly when discussing potential solutions and innovations. The tone became more urgent when addressing pressing risks like declining trust in institutions and leaders.

Speakers

– Tarek Fares Kai: Senior reporter at France24 News TV Channel, moderator of the panel

– Yusuf Tuggar: Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, former ambassador to Germany, former member of Federal House of Representatives

– Ngaire Woods: Founding Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, Founder and Director of the Global Economic Governance Programme

– Johan H. Andresen: Chair of FERD (Norwegian holding company)

Additional speakers:

– Audience members:

– Nora Bruba: Member of Global Shapers community

– Two unnamed audience members who asked questions

Evolving Threats of Poor Governance: A World Economic Forum Panel Discussion

This panel discussion at the World Economic Forum explored the complex challenges and evolving threats of poor governance globally. The panel, moderated by Tarek Fares Kai of France24 News, featured Yusuf Tuggar, Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs; Ngaire Woods, Founding Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University; and Johan H. Andresen, Chair of FERD, a Norwegian holding company.

Defining Good Governance

The panellists offered varied perspectives on the definition of good governance:

1. Yusuf Tuggar emphasised improving living standards and delivering basic services.

2. Ngaire Woods focused on building trust and legitimacy through effectiveness.

3. Johan H. Andresen highlighted managing risks and taking responsibility.

These definitions, while distinct, shared common themes of accountability, trust-building, and improving people’s lives. The panellists agreed on the critical importance of good governance in addressing global challenges and fostering development.

Pressing Governance Risks

The discussion identified several pressing risks to good governance:

1. Lack of individual agency and patriotism (Tuggar)

2. Breakdown of trust and cooperation (Woods)

3. Shift towards short-term transactional relationships (Andresen)

Woods provided a particularly thought-provoking comment on the global crisis of trust in political leadership: “Trust begins with trust in leadership. When I travel around the world asking people what they think of their politicians, it doesn’t matter if their politicians are elected or not. People in pretty much every country say the same thing. They say they’re self-interested, they’re corrupt, and they’re incompetent.”

She further elaborated on the qualities needed in good leaders, emphasizing the importance of competence, integrity, and the ability to build coalitions and deliver results.

Governance Challenges in Nigeria

The panel devoted significant attention to governance challenges in Nigeria, revealing some differences in perspective:

1. Tuggar argued that Nigeria has strong institutions but faces perception problems.

2. Woods emphasised the need for international support to combat corruption.

3. Andresen suggested reducing the use of agents to decrease corruption risk.

Tuggar challenged common narratives about developing countries: “Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on agency of individuals. Because I’ve seen many countries in the developing world that have strong institutions. You can’t look at a country like Nigeria and say it doesn’t have strong institutions. They’ve existed for a long time, they’re there, they’re strong. So what is often lacking is the individuals and their agency.”

He also highlighted the issue of the risk industry and how it affects perceptions of countries like Nigeria, often exaggerating risks and creating a skewed view of the country’s governance situation.

Private Sector Governance Innovations

Andresen offered insights into how the private sector can innovate in governance:

1. Taking on additional social responsibilities beyond compliance

2. Scaling social entrepreneurship initiatives

3. Testing limits of responsibility to gain competitive advantages

He used a graph analogy to illustrate how companies can push the boundaries of responsibility and gain a competitive edge. Andresen also shared an example of employing people with autism in his company, demonstrating how businesses can contribute to social good while also benefiting from unique talents.

Impact of Social Media on Governance

The panel explored the dual nature of social media’s impact on governance:

1. Tuggar noted it enables civil society oversight but also spreads disinformation.

2. Woods highlighted how it disproportionately attacks and silences female leaders.

3. Kai acknowledged it creates transparency but can have pernicious effects.

Woods brought attention to a critical issue: “What we’re seeing more and more, and we’ve just done a report at the Blavatnik School on this, is a very specific set of truly pernicious attacks on female political leaders, and also in many sectors on female corporate leaders. And it’s invisible to a lot of people, because it’s not something people want to talk about, because that in and of itself attracts more and more attacks.”

Tuggar also commented on the “post-truth era” and its implications for democracy, highlighting how social media can be used to spread misinformation and manipulate public opinion.

Incentivizing Good Governance

Tuggar shared an anecdote about losing his passport to illustrate how incentivizing good behavior can improve governance. He suggested that creating systems that reward ethical conduct and punish corruption could lead to better governance outcomes.

Audience Engagement

The panel addressed audience questions, further exploring topics such as the role of education in fostering good governance and the challenges of implementing governance reforms in different cultural contexts.

Conclusion

The panel discussion highlighted the complex, multifaceted nature of governance challenges in today’s world. While the panellists agreed on the importance of trust, transparency, and individual responsibility in good governance, they offered diverse perspectives on how to achieve these goals. The discussion underscored the need for continued efforts to strengthen institutions, promote accountability, and cultivate leadership that prioritises public trust and effective service delivery.

As global challenges evolve, so too must approaches to governance. The insights from this panel provide a foundation for further exploration and innovation in both public and private sector governance, emphasizing the need to address emerging issues such as the impact of social media and the importance of fostering ethical leadership.

Tarek Fares Kai: Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Tariq Kaye. I’m a senior reporter at France24 News TV Channel and I’ve been honoured by the World Economic Forum in Davos to moderate this panel, which is on a very important subject, the evolving threat of poor governance, a topic that affects every aspect of our lives. And to lead us and allow us to have a thorough vision on this subject, we have with us three distinguished guests. First, His Excellency Ambassador Youssef Tugar, the 29th Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs. You’re a luminary in global diplomacy and policymaking. You were appointed in August 2023 by President Tenobu and confirmed by the Nigerian state. Your diplomatic acumen was honed during your pivotal tenure as Nigeria’s ambassador to Germany from 2017 to 2023. You significantly bolstered Nigeria’s international relations. You’re as well a former member of the Federal House of Representatives. And in the private sector, Ambassador Tugar, you’ve had leadership roles in indigenous oil and gas companies, serving as Managing Director, CEO and Executive Director. You were awarded the Officer of the Order of Niger in May 2023. And your presence here at the World Economic Forum symbolises Nigeria’s commitment to global engagement and partnership, driven by your vision and strategic leadership. We also have with us Mr. Johan Andresen. You’re the Chair of FERD. FERD is a Norwegian holding company, one of the largest private owners and investors in a multitude of strategies and industries. Under your leadership since 1998, when you took over as the fifth generation of industrial owners, FERD has grown from under $1 billion to over $4 billion in assets. And if I’m not wrong, FERD in Norwegian means journey, right? Journey without an end. Great. Your experience chairing the Council on Ethics of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global, which is of course the world’s largest soaring fund, now worth over $1.5 trillion or even more. It’s past two now. Past $2 trillion. So your experience will definitely bring unique insights to our discussion. And last but not least, Professor Nair Woods. So you’re the Founding Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. You’re also the Founder and Director of the Global Economic Governance Programme. Formerly, you were advisor to several institutions such as the IMF Board, the Commonwealth Heads of Government, the UNDP, among others. Your work on enhancing organisational governance and global development will be invaluable to today’s conversation. You have published extensively on international institutions, global economy, globalisation, governance, including the following book, The Globalisers, the IMF, the World Bank and their borrowers. Welcome to all and thank you for being with us. So when institutions fail to deliver transparency and accountability, the impact is devastating. Trust and leadership crumbles, economic inequalities deepen, social cohesion unravels, international cooperation falters and climate action stalls. Over the past years, we have witnessed interconnected crises, from escalating conflicts and geoeconomics confrontations to the urgent threat of climate change. The situation in Venezuela, the ongoing political turmoil in Myanmar, the security challenges in Lebanon, Sudan, Haiti or the Democratic Republic of Congo, to name a few, all serve as stark examples of how poor governance can fuel economic instability, social unrest, environmental degradation, limited development progress or even erosion of public trust. However, amidst these challenges, there’s hope. Today’s session brings together visionaries who are actively transforming governance for the future. With you, we will explore game-changing solutions to fight corruption, revolutionary frameworks for accountable leadership and bold innovations in transparent governance. A few quick reminders. We have 45 minutes for today’s session and this panel is live-streamed. For those watching online and commenting on social media, please use the hashtag WEF25. And for in-person audience, we will have 10 minutes at the end of the session to address your questions and I’m certain you will have plenty. So before we dive deeper, let’s start with a simple but fundamental question for all of you. What does good governance mean to you? If you could share your thoughts briefly, please. Well, thank you very much.

Yusuf Tuggar: Afternoon, everyone. Good governance would be improving the standards of living of people in a country or in a society so that they have the basic amenities of life and they are able to live in a community or in a society where there’s service delivery, there’s accountability and there’s transparency. And the basis of that tends to be some form of constitution. Now, it depends on the type of constitution. It could be a purposive constitution that says not only are the rights of those individuals guaranteed but it would go further to deliver, to guarantee a certain standard of living. And then you have a regulative constitution that is just simply protecting those rights. So this is the foundation. Now, you also have different tiers of governments. And in my region, on my continent, this is where we have a challenge because for all intents and purposes, most of the countries that practice a form of governance predicated on a constitution, either purposive or regulative, get it right at the top level. So a federal government or central government, there will be routine, perhaps routine elections and a legislature for checks and balances, separation of powers. But when you go down to the sub-national levels, state or region, and then further down to local governance, this is where we have a problem, and it tends to be worse in cross-border areas.

Tarek Fares Kai: We’ll speak about the challenges you’re facing. Maybe, Professor Woods, good governance.

Ngaire Woods: A quick definition. So people like to talk about effectiveness and legitimacy. Now, if you want to rely entirely on effectiveness and say, I’m the right CEO, I’m the right management board, I’m the right government for this country because I’m delivering the goods, you’re fine until you’re not. But the minute you stumble, you’ll either be out of a job or out of office because resilience in leadership takes legitimacy as well as effectiveness. And that means I think legitimacy is about the trust you engender among those you govern or those that you lead in your company, including those with whom your company interacts. And that takes thinking about whether they trust you or not. And it’s for that reason that people focus on all the elements of good governance, about risk management, about strategy, about transparency and accountability. But it’s all aimed at one thing, which is, can people trust you? Even when you stumble and get it wrong, can people trust you to continue leading? So to me, that’s what good governance is about.

Tarek Fares Kai: Trust, accountability. Mr. Anderson?

Johan H. Andresen: I think it needs to be handled on two ways. Risk and responsibility. Risk management or a risk-based approach is to reduce the downside. As you mentioned, even when shit happens, you need to manage that type of risk and be have the credibility to actually believe that you will handle it. So that’s kind of the compliance part. That’s sort of the hygienic, the little kind of boring part. The fun part is the responsibility. Because you can actually increase the level of responsibility that you take beyond what is required by law. And that has unlimited potential for an organization, for a country, for a business. We can go a little bit further into that, but I think you have to have management of the risks in the organizations, but you should also try to experiment with how much responsibility can you actually take.

Tarek Fares Kai: That said, let’s begin our conversation with the same question. For all of you, in my introduction, I mentioned all the crises that we’re witnessing. What’s for you the most pressing risk we face today, and how is governance impacting it? I don’t know who wished to start.

Ngaire Woods: I think it’s worth us stepping back to say why it really matters. Look, I’m the Dean of a school of government at the University of Oxford, so I’m going to talk about government, but others can talk about the private sector. But if we think about countries that stood in the same position, so take two countries that discovered natural resources in the 1960s and developed them in the 1980s, side by side. One of them had a revenue from those natural resources of 0.2 billion last year, and the other had a revenue of 9 billion. So what went on? Which of those countries? Those countries are Norway and the United Kingdom. And the answer to why this huge gap is all about governance, and which country continued to invest in the infrastructure, invested those wisely, and no one more expert to talk about it. It’s not to say there aren’t challenges now in Norway, but it’s just to say, let me give you another example. Two countries that share the same island that were equally poor in 1990, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Look at them today. The average Haitian is more than 10 times poorer than the average Dominican Republic citizen. So governance really matters. That would be the first thing that I would say. And the second is to pick up on the point about trust. Trust begins with trust in leadership. When I travel around the world asking people what they think of their politicians, it doesn’t matter if their politicians are elected or not. People in pretty much every country say the same thing. They say they’re self-interested, they’re corrupt, and they’re incompetent. It’s not pretty. It’s particularly not pretty when you’re dean of a school of government that’s trying to educate people to run for those offices. But in the school, what we do is we invert that, and we say, okay, what’s the opposite to being self-interested, corrupt, and incompetent? The opposite to that is good governance. The opposite to that is not being self-interested, but being mission-driven, believing so much that what you’re there for is to improve the lot of your people that they also believe it. It’s not being corrupt, but having integrity. And having integrity does not just mean not taking bribes. It means integrity, holding things whole, doing things in a coherent, integrated way, and doing them honestly so that people can trust you. The opposite of incompetent isn’t an Oxford degree, although you can imagine why I would make that argument. The opposite to incompetence is to know what you don’t know and how to find it out. And it’s those qualities that we need to build in our political leaders, in our leaders in the public sector, and, I would argue, our leaders in the private sector.

Tarek Fares Kai: Because only then can we start moving towards good governance. Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. That’s quite interesting. I would speak to two things here. One is, first and foremost, the issue of institutions. We hear quite often people saying a country needs strong institutions and the reason why there’s corruption or a country is failing is because it lacks strong institutions. Perhaps that could apply also to the private sector to a certain extent and then you throw in corporate governance and all of that. But I would say that perhaps more emphasis should be placed on agency of individuals.

Yusuf Tuggar: Because I’ve seen many countries in the developing world that have strong institutions. You can’t look at a country like Nigeria and say it doesn’t have strong institutions. They’ve existed for a long time, they’re there, they’re strong. So what is often lacking is the individuals and their agency. So that is very important. And thank God now we have a lot of strong individuals that are applying that agency. The second issue is when it comes to countries we have to always put things into context, look at the foundations, a bit of moral philosophy, look at how the country came about and how often it recharges its patriotism so that the individuals feel responsible. Because corruption or poor performance of a country or society does not rest entirely on government and those in it. It’s also the individuals in the country, the populace. So this is where patriotism and renewing it, because it’s like a vessel that you have to keep replenishing. And here also you have to look at the foundational myth. Because oftentimes it’s a myth. Countries are created, they tell themselves stories, they’re narratives that they subscribe to and that drive them forward and that make the society passionate about that country and that really contributes to performance.

Tarek Fares Kai: Sir Anderson, most pressing risk today? Well, I wasn’t planning on talking about this, but since I got the question, we might be heading into a more transactional world now, given the change in the US administration.

Johan H. Andresen: So the governance, the credibility that’s been building up over many, many years with strong relations, with a tone from the top that resonates across, if that now comes down to making short-term deals based on bilateral agreements, rather than agreements between, call it, long-serving institutions, I mean, that’s dangerous, because then suddenly the individual becomes a risk rather than the person who we trusted. Because if we make short-term benefit without thinking about the long-term effects on the world, on the environment, on security, then the governance kind of crumbles a little bit. So we need to protect, in a sense, what we have created that actually does work in the face of, call it, geopolitical risks or individual desires or wants. I see that as sort of a new, I wouldn’t call it a new threat, but it’s more visible now.

Ngaire Woods: Can I jump in on what my fellow panellists have said about agency and individuals, and about risks and trust and governability? Because I do think that that’s the risk that we face at the moment, is that too many people in too many countries feel they have no control over their lives, and that people in their capital cities are doing things, people at Davos are doing things, and what they don’t have is control over their lives. And that lack of trust that collectively, either as a company or as a community or as a country, they can succeed, makes them very vulnerable to fear, to anxiety. anxiety, to anger and to tyranny, literally to tyranny. So I think what I would call the governability risk and crisis is the one that we need to face most squarely, which is why these issues of trust and what leaders do and how they present and being clear about the win set, you want to be the Dominican Republic or Norway in the examples I gave are really important. And finally, let me just say, it’s easy at this time, which is a decade unlike I think decades we’ve had in the last 50 years. It feels as though the world is pivoting in a profound way, partly because of technology and a speed of technological advance, which too many humans feel could spin out of human control and partly because of a breakdown in so many of the institutions and forms of cooperation that we thought could keep us safe from forces that humans couldn’t otherwise control. And that situation is paralysing a lot of people and making them, even political leaders, and making them take refuge in simply stating how bad things are. And that’s not good enough. And it’s particularly not good enough actually here at a meeting which is bringing together leaders from different sectors, because surely the most important role of a leader is to chart a path of hope and of possibility. And if you can’t do that, then maybe you should take a seat and let somebody else step up and actually do it.

Yusuf Tuggar: There’s also the fact that we’re purportedly living in a post-truth era, and so there are certain forms of government or systems that cannot operate without some aggregation of truth, one of which is democracy. So maybe we’re living in a post-democratic era, which is also a major risk. We’ll speak about this point a bit later, but I would like to go back to Nigeria and about what you’ve said a bit earlier about Nigeria having strong institutions.

Tarek Fares Kai: What governance and legal frameworks do you think were the most efficient, and what is still lacking? Well, you mentioned that I was a legislator, a federal legislator. I was the chairman of the House Committee on Public Procurement, and I saw first-hand

Yusuf Tuggar: the impact or the effect of the Public Procurement Act, Public Procurement Law, on contracting for works, for services at the federal level. And this is why I keep talking about the different tiers of government, because you get it right at the federal level. If you don’t get it right at the local level, which is the closest part to people, then you have a problem, and you continue to have a perception problem. But suffice it to say that from 1999 to date, when it comes to the issue of corruption, openness, transparency, if you see the laws that have been passed in Nigeria and the institutions that have been created out of them, be it Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Offences Commission, you’ve got, like I said, the Public Procurement Act, which has the Bureau for Public Procurement. So you have all of these institutions that are functioning, but part of the problem also is a perception problem, because Nigerians are very self-critical, they’re very vocal. We have a huge diaspora. You go onto the internet, a lot of Nigerians complaining about so many things, any little thing, and then, of course, we’re living in the post-truth era. So we have this perception problem, and naturally, we have leaders that – now we’ve had back-to-back leaders that are uncomfortable with the idea of engaging lobby firms to lobby in the capitals of the world to change that perception, because they feel that rather than giving lobby firms this huge amount of money, why don’t I channel it towards health care or providing portable water and so forth. So that is working against us. But Nigeria is no more corrupt than any other country. I’ve lived in other countries, and I’ve seen what goes on, and that is why I talked about patriotism and sort of replenishing that patriotism, because I’ve met citizens of other countries, and when they say to me, well, but what about corruption in Nigeria, and I say, but what about your airport or this or that, they say, oh, no, no, no, forget about it, we don’t want to talk about it. If it’s a Nigerian, he’ll say, oh, let me tell you about it. So there is that issue as well beyond all of that.

Ngaire Woods: Could I ask the Foreign Minister, ten years ago when I was in Abuja, the then Vice President having just taken office, I asked him what had most surprised him, becoming Vice President, and he answered very frankly and said it was the scale of sheer grand larceny happening before money even arrived in Nigeria. And I guess my question around that is, what do you need this community, this international community to do to help you deal with that issue, because I totally agree with you that all countries have their corruption in day-to-day life, but this is different. This is the amount – this is the tens of billions that don’t actually even make it to the government, right, that are siphoned off before that. So what would you ask the governments, the international companies, the NGOs here in Davos to do to help you solve that part of the problem?

Yusuf Tuggar: So of course less admin fees, administrative sort of expenses and recurrent expenditure, because so an NGO or an international organization is going out to Nigeria or another developing country for a project and, you know, there’s a budget and, you know, you don’t need Jaguars, for instance, you know, you don’t need those sort of expensive vehicles. And also the fact that sometimes, you know, it’s – you know, they’re being Indian givers, if you’ll pardon the phrase, so you’re giving to a country and then certain businesses from, you know, the source are chasing after that money. So it’s almost, you know, a way of channeling money out, so it’s there, it’s visible, this has been done, it’s maybe altruistic, but then the contracts and benefits that are going back to the giver. So these are some of the things and, of course, it’s quite opaque.

Johan H. Andresen: One concrete suggestion or even recommendation is that within energy, telecom, infrastructure, defence, reduce the number of agents. Agents are the typical – I mean, that’s where the siphoning starts, you know, because they operate outside the government, outside the country. So when we looked at from the Sovereign Wealth Fund on companies, we looked at to what extent they used agents, because that’s where the risk increases and it’s also the easiest way to reduce the risk of corruption, because it’s really a one-off, because then you have to educate your own people to actually make the deals. You don’t trust, you know, the nephew of the former blah, blah, blah, you know, he’s been always doing it like this. So get rid of the agents. I mean, it sounds easy, you know, it’s a little painful because there’s some relation and they have some roots and some connections, but that is one way. to actually reduce concretely the corruption risk.

Yusuf Tuggar: And risk itself is a business. It’s become an industry, because the perception of risk means that when expatriates are going out, so the country is meant to be high risk, so you have hardship allowance, so they get paid more, you get a bulletproof car, when perhaps there isn’t really anybody coming out to shoot you, and then you’re kicking back in a boat club somewhere, drinking, sipping champagne or a fancy cocktail, and then you also look at shipping, that’s another thing, insurance, high cost of insurance, high cost of ship, so it’s an industry and it’s a perception, because I’m pretty sure Lagos is not riskier than a lot of major cities in the world, but then you have that risk perception. Mr. Andersen, if you want to think about other governance innovations from the private sector that could benefit the public one,

Tarek Fares Kai: what would you add?

Johan H. Andresen: Well, I developed a little graph for myself. Basically, you have the X and you have the Y. Here is return in whatever measure you want to do it, IRR, welfare, less child deaths, whatever, and here you have the level of responsibility, or the degree of responsibility that you take, and where they intersect, that’s compliance. To the left, in that direction, you are either irresponsible or criminal. And what we do know, that this point has moved. It moves in this direction, right? I mean, what is legal now, or what was legal before, is no longer legal. Now you go to jail in some countries for corruption or destruction of nature, or habitat for the Inuits, or whatever. So this line is moving towards more responsibility, taking more responsibility all the time. So the question is, how far ahead of this point would you like to be? Would you like to be just barely ahead, just barely compliant, or would you like to take more responsibility? And of course this is easier in the private sphere, especially when you’re the principal and sole owner, but we have tried to experiment by taking on responsibility that we do not have. So I don’t really have responsibility for people with autism, but I can still employ them, and we have a social entrepreneur now who has 465 people on the autism spectrum in 14 countries, in 30 cities, turning almost 50 million dollars, sorry, euros. Well, it’s more or less the same to the Norwegians, anyway. But that is something that we scaled from two people, and then we did a merger of three different entities, and of course this is not extremely profitable, because our clients, who are Google, BMW, and all the major partners here, they keep perhaps stealing some of our employees. But we’ve shown that we can actually use a commercial view on people’s potential, and most of these people, 80-90% of these people were on benefits. They were not employed. I mean, they were not a detriment to society because they were not doing anything wrong, but their potential was simply not looked at. They were looked at as somebody who had a diagnosis, and therefore they deserve something. But if you look at them as somebody with the huge potential to actually do several types of IT development or testing, whatever, then suddenly you can make something beautiful, basically. And we have scaled many social entrepreneurs, not as well as this one. But the point is that this is not our task. So I would actually encourage companies to see what are you good at that you are not using today, and could you use it in the area? It’s really regardless of what it is, as long as you make something or take some responsibility that you do not have. The effect of that, I mean, I didn’t really design it. I thought it was just a fun thing to do. But we are no longer fighting the war for talent, because the people want to come to us because we’re doing these things. We are no longer fighting for every private deal, every acquisition. Sometimes we are, but often families want to sell to us for these things that we do. So you get paid for taking additional responsibility that you do not have, even though that single act is probably maybe not profitable. But the payback or the returns from your peers is huge. So I would test, my suggestion is test that out.

Tarek Fares Kai: It’s not very costly, and you have some great people in your company who can actually test how much responsibility you can take. Before opening the floor to questions, I still have one question, which you could answer briefly. We’re speaking about transparency, about digital age. Your Excellency, you spoke about the post-true era. I would like to know what’s the impact of social media on governance transparency? How do you see it? Both positive and negative.

Yusuf Tuggar: So positive, you have certain civil society organizations that interrogate the actions of government, of the budgetary process, which is very good. But at the same time, you also have disinformation or misinformation, which has deleterious effects on governments and governance. And sometimes it’s even destructive. So these are the, you know, it’s so sophisticated. And then sometimes you also have external interference, where you have other states sponsoring such attacks, if you will, on others. So this is something that even Nigeria is contending with, with regards to the ongoing discussions about the AES states, the Sahelian states leaving ECOWAS. So you can see all of that, you see how it plays out. And that sort of negative campaign sways public opinion one way or the other. And if you’re relying on votes, on openness and transparency, then, you know, it’s not a fair game.

Tarek Fares Kai: We still have…

Ngaire Woods: Can I make one point about social media? Because I think a truly pernicious effect of social media, which I agree has also some great transparency effects, but what we’re seeing more and more, and we’ve just done a report at the Blavatnik School on this, is a very specific set of truly pernicious attacks on female political leaders, and also in many sectors on female corporate leaders. And it’s invisible to a lot of people, because it’s not something people want to talk about, because that in and of itself attracts more and more attacks. But what it’s leading to, and what we’ve got good evidence of, is not just fewer women putting themselves in those positions, but when they are in those positions, they’re silencing themselves for fear that if they say anything, they will be subject to more and more very pernicious, sexualized, personalized attacks. What that’s doing in the academic sector, in the political sector, in the private sector, is quietly pushing women either down or out of the public space. And what we know from the data, is that the fewer women you have in positions of power, the less a government or a company will deal with that issue. So in other words, it could be a vicious circle. And it makes me sit back and say, why do we pour such criticism on the Taliban for banning women from public space, and yet do nothing about this quiet but pernicious pushing out of public space of women and minorities? I should add, in societies. So I think that’s an effect of social media on our political systems, democracies, on the war for talent, and which talent rises to the top that we should take seriously.

Tarek Fares Kai: So we still have six minutes before the end, and I will open the floor to the questions. Maybe there a mic? First of all, thank you all for your very insightful contributions. My name is Nora Bruba.

Audience: I’m here with the Global Shapers community, the community of young leaders under 30. And in my day-to-day work, I work on building a strong civic infrastructure in my home country of Sweden, in mostly strong youth-led organizations. I mean, what we’re seeing very much across the world is, in government, a leadership based on fear, whether it’s in the form of autocracy or populism, or just following what seems to be the opinions at the moment, a leadership without much vision. That’s my personal opinion. And I would like to pose a question to you, Professor Woods, but anyone else? I’m going to ask you a question. I’m going to ask a question to you, Professor Woods, but anyone else? Jump in. Being in education, what grade would you give to the political leadership we have today? That’s difficult, and it’s difficult to aggregate. And maybe you could tell us examples of who’s getting it right and who isn’t. You don’t have to name drop too much if it’s too sensitive. And lastly, we know that these ethical, non-corrupt, competent people are out there. I see them every day, brave people that are really doing the work on the ground, that are not looking to get into governance or government. How do we make sure that the citizenry is represented better in government and that we get those leaders that inhabit those values?

Tarek Fares Kai: And the challenge would be to answer all these questions in just a few minutes. So you’re going to take all the questions first? Yeah, maybe. Are there any other questions?

Audience: Thank you for the panel so far. I feel like we’ve been talking about some of these governance issues for a really long time, and I’m not sure that we improved that quickly. I’d love to hear from the panel your thoughts on the responsibility for addressing some of these governance issues between government, NGO community, and private sector. Where does that responsibility lie, and how does it work? How do those three sort of participants work together? There’s a question. There’s still one there. Thank you very much. Maybe last one. Yeah. You brought a couple of examples, and we’ve seen that when the countries are in good governance or bad governance or poor governance situation, it seems like they’re in a way, in a point of equilibrium where they cannot get out of it. And the book that Why Nations Fail was talking about extractive and inclusive institutions, which also claims that it’s really, there’s a very narrow corridor through which you can actually switch from one equilibrium point to another one. So is there any one-size-fits-all recommendations of making that switch? Thank you. So the reason I like presenting you with pairs of countries is because it’s not a council of despair.

Ngaire Woods: It’s proof that you can do it, and you can get it right. Although there’s no good governance forever, as I’m sure our Norwegian friend would tell us. You’ve got to keep reinventing governance to keep moving forwards. Which governments are getting it right? So the test, my test would be, do they have a clear positive vision which people understand? Which is not, it’s not to the leader that you would put the question. It’s to people. What do they understand that their government is trying to do? And do they get that? And are they willing to support it? If I look just in Europe at countries that were in crisis 10 years ago, that people said were basket cases and would never rise back up, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, those are the fastest growing economies in Europe. There’s got to be something in that that we should look at and learn from, I think. I think that’s the main gist of the answer. Makes sense, Emelie. Well, I think we also have to look at the criteria for good governance

Tarek Fares Kai: and also what we do in terms of creating frameworks and laws that guide behavior. Because you have to sometimes incentivize good behavior. If you put in place frameworks or laws that are too stringent, then chances are you’re going to make people culpable. I remember many, many years ago, before the advent of mobile phones, leaving my passport in a taxi

Yusuf Tuggar: when I traveled to a country that I’m not going to mention. And I called the police station, and I was told that 45 minutes later, my passport had been found. I should come to the police station to pick it up. I went there, and I thought I was just going to pick up my passport and leave. And I was told that there were two forms that I had to fill. One was an exact amount that I had to pay that was going to go to the taxi driver that discovered the passport and brought it back as an incentive. It’s legal. You fill a form, you sign, you pay. And then the other form was a contribution to a sort of KTA piggy bank for that particular police station. And I was just thinking then, well, this is not any different from a police checkpoint somewhere in Africa, where you have to incentivize it. Because the law says this is the salary, these are the wages that he earns, and it’s too low. And they told our system of taxation as well, which is why in Nigeria we’re reforming our tax system, which is why Nigeria is also championing a global framework on taxation, so a reform of that.

Johan H. Andresen: Your question, who has the responsibility? I think we have a responsibility to talk to praise other people than our peers, because they expect it. So talk nicely about NGOs or government officials who actually do it right. And just on the issue I raised about women in politics, so much, right? You can enforce the law. In most countries, it’s against the law. So train police officers, train judges, train people to enforce the law. You can get political parties to ban it. Turns out lots of politicians use this form of hate

Tarek Fares Kai: to get rid of rivals. So there’s a lot you can do. That’s maybe a great way to close our session. Thank you very much, our panelists. Thank you for the public. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of trust in good governance

speakers

– Ngaire Woods
– Johan H. Andresen

arguments

Building trust and legitimacy through effectiveness

Managing risks and taking responsibility

summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of trust in good governance, with Woods focusing on legitimacy and Andresen on risk management and responsibility.

Impact of social media on governance

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Ngaire Woods

arguments

Enables civil society oversight but also spreads disinformation

Disproportionately attacks and silences female leaders

summary

Both speakers acknowledge the dual nature of social media’s impact on governance, highlighting its potential for transparency but also its negative effects.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the challenges of corruption in Nigeria, with Tuggar emphasizing perception problems and Woods highlighting the need for international support to address large-scale corruption.

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Ngaire Woods

arguments

Strong institutions but perception problems

Need for international support to combat corruption

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of individual agency in governance

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Johan H. Andresen

arguments

Lack of individual agency and patriotism

Taking on additional social responsibilities beyond compliance

explanation

While approaching from different angles, both speakers emphasize the importance of individual action and responsibility in improving governance, which is an unexpected area of agreement between a government official and a private sector leader.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agree on the importance of trust, transparency, and individual responsibility in good governance. They also recognize the complex impacts of social media and the challenges of corruption in developing countries.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus with some unexpected areas of agreement. The implications suggest a need for multifaceted approaches to governance that involve both institutional reforms and individual empowerment.

Different Viewpoints

Role of institutions vs. individual agency in governance

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Ngaire Woods

arguments

Lack of individual agency and patriotism

Building trust and legitimacy through effectiveness

summary

Tuggar emphasizes the importance of individual agency and patriotism in governance, while Woods focuses more on institutional effectiveness and building trust through legitimate leadership.

Approach to addressing corruption

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Johan H. Andresen
– Ngaire Woods

arguments

Strong institutions but perception problems

Reducing use of agents to decrease corruption risk

Need for international support to combat corruption

summary

Tuggar highlights Nigeria’s strong institutions and perception problems, Andresen suggests reducing agents to combat corruption, while Woods emphasizes the need for international support to address large-scale corruption.

Unexpected Differences

Impact of social media on governance

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Ngaire Woods

arguments

Enables civil society oversight but also spreads disinformation

Disproportionately attacks and silences female leaders

explanation

While both speakers acknowledge positive and negative impacts of social media on governance, Woods unexpectedly highlights a specific issue of attacks on female leaders, which was not addressed by other speakers.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the relative importance of institutions versus individual agency, approaches to combating corruption, and the specific impacts of social media on governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While they share some common goals for good governance, their perspectives on how to achieve these goals differ significantly. These differences reflect the complexity of governance issues and the need for multifaceted approaches tailored to specific contexts.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of good governance for improving people’s lives, but they differ in their approaches. Tuggar focuses on service delivery, Woods emphasizes trust-building, and Andresen highlights risk management and responsibility.

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Ngaire Woods
– Johan H. Andresen

arguments

Improving living standards and delivering basic services

Building trust and legitimacy through effectiveness

Managing risks and taking responsibility

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the challenges of corruption in Nigeria, with Tuggar emphasizing perception problems and Woods highlighting the need for international support to address large-scale corruption.

speakers

– Yusuf Tuggar
– Ngaire Woods

arguments

Strong institutions but perception problems

Need for international support to combat corruption

Key Takeaways

Good governance involves improving living standards, building trust and legitimacy, and balancing risk management with taking responsibility.

Major governance risks include lack of individual agency, breakdown of trust, and shift towards short-term transactional relationships.

Nigeria faces challenges with perception despite having strong institutions, and needs international support to combat corruption.

Private sector can innovate in governance by taking on additional social responsibilities beyond compliance.

Social media has both positive and negative impacts on governance transparency, including enabling oversight but also spreading disinformation and disproportionately attacking female leaders.

Resolutions and Action Items

Reduce the use of agents in sectors like energy, telecom, infrastructure, and defense to decrease corruption risk

Encourage companies to experiment with taking on additional social responsibilities beyond compliance

Enforce existing laws against online attacks on female political leaders

Train police officers, judges, and others to better enforce laws against online harassment of women in politics

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively combat the spread of disinformation on social media

How to improve governance at sub-national and local levels in developing countries

How to increase representation of ethical, competent citizens in government

How countries can transition from poor to good governance

Suggested Compromises

Balance between risk management and taking on additional responsibilities in governance

Finding ways to leverage social media’s transparency benefits while mitigating its negative effects

Trust begins with trust in leadership. When I travel around the world asking people what they think of their politicians, it doesn’t matter if their politicians are elected or not. People in pretty much every country say the same thing. They say they’re self-interested, they’re corrupt, and they’re incompetent.

speaker

Ngaire Woods

reason

This comment provides a stark and provocative assessment of the global crisis of trust in political leadership, setting up an important framing for the discussion.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus on the fundamental importance of trust and integrity in governance, leading to further discussion of how to build trust and what qualities leaders need.

Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on agency of individuals. Because I’ve seen many countries in the developing world that have strong institutions. You can’t look at a country like Nigeria and say it doesn’t have strong institutions. They’ve existed for a long time, they’re there, they’re strong. So what is often lacking is the individuals and their agency.

speaker

Yusuf Tuggar

reason

This comment challenges the common narrative that developing countries simply lack strong institutions, instead highlighting the importance of individual agency and leadership.

impact

It added nuance to the discussion of governance in developing countries and prompted further exploration of the role of individual leaders versus institutions.

We might be heading into a more transactional world now, given the change in the US administration. So the governance, the credibility that’s been building up over many, many years with strong relations, with a tone from the top that resonates across, if that now comes down to making short-term deals based on bilateral agreements, rather than agreements between, call it, long-serving institutions, I mean, that’s dangerous.

speaker

Johan H. Andresen

reason

This comment introduces a timely and significant geopolitical risk to good governance – the shift towards more transactional, short-term relationships between nations.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include international relations and long-term versus short-term thinking in governance, adding a new dimension to the conversation.

One concrete suggestion or even recommendation is that within energy, telecom, infrastructure, defence, reduce the number of agents. Agents are the typical – I mean, that’s where the siphoning starts, you know, because they operate outside the government, outside the country.

speaker

Johan H. Andresen

reason

This comment provides a specific, actionable recommendation for reducing corruption, moving the conversation from abstract principles to concrete solutions.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards more practical, implementable strategies for improving governance and reducing corruption.

What we’re seeing more and more, and we’ve just done a report at the Blavatnik School on this, is a very specific set of truly pernicious attacks on female political leaders, and also in many sectors on female corporate leaders. And it’s invisible to a lot of people, because it’s not something people want to talk about, because that in and of itself attracts more and more attacks.

speaker

Ngaire Woods

reason

This comment brings attention to a critical but often overlooked issue in governance – the targeted harassment of women in leadership positions, especially through social media.

impact

It introduced a new and important dimension to the discussion of governance challenges, highlighting issues of gender and the impact of social media on leadership.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from traditional notions of governance to include issues of individual agency, trust, geopolitical shifts, practical anti-corruption measures, and gender-specific challenges in leadership. They moved the conversation beyond abstract principles to consider concrete realities and solutions, while also introducing nuanced perspectives on governance challenges in both developing and developed countries. The discussion evolved from a general exploration of good governance to a more multifaceted examination of the complex interplay between institutions, individuals, and global trends affecting governance worldwide.

How can the international community help Nigeria deal with grand larceny and corruption occurring before money even reaches the government?

speaker

Ngaire Woods

explanation

This addresses a major governance challenge in Nigeria that impacts the country’s ability to utilize its resources effectively.

How can the number of agents in sectors like energy, telecom, infrastructure, and defense be reduced to minimize corruption risks?

speaker

Johan H. Andresen

explanation

Reducing agents could be a concrete way to address corruption in key sectors of developing economies.

How can companies identify and leverage their unused capabilities to take on additional social responsibilities?

speaker

Johan H. Andresen

explanation

This explores how private sector governance innovations could benefit society beyond compliance requirements.

How can the pernicious effects of social media attacks on female and minority leaders in politics and business be addressed?

speaker

Ngaire Woods

explanation

This issue impacts diversity in leadership and the quality of governance across sectors.

How can we ensure that ethical, non-corrupt, competent people who are doing important work on the ground are better represented in government?

speaker

Audience member (Nora Bruba)

explanation

This addresses the challenge of attracting the right talent to government roles to improve governance.

How should responsibility for addressing governance issues be divided between government, NGOs, and the private sector?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This explores how different sectors can collaborate to improve overall governance.

Are there any universal recommendations for switching from poor governance to good governance?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This seeks to identify broadly applicable strategies for improving governance across different contexts.