INTRODUCTION

In contemporary governance, management, and public policy discourse, the term “best practices” has acquired near-sacrosanct status. Institutions, organizations, and governments frequently adopt so-called best practices as standardized solutions to complex problems, assuming that what has worked well in one context will necessarily yield similar results elsewhere. However, this uncritical reliance on best practices often obscures a fundamental truth: social realities are dynamic, contextual, and deeply embedded in cultural, economic, and institutional specificities. Consequently, there are always better practices beyond static best practices—practices that evolve through learning, adaptation, and contextual intelligence.

The statement “There are better practices to ‘best practices’” challenges the complacency inherent in managerial orthodoxies and invites a deeper reflection on innovation, ethics, and pragmatism. It suggests that excellence is not achieved through imitation alone, but through continuous refinement and responsiveness to change. In the context of public administration, development, and democratic governance, this idea assumes particular significance, as rigid adherence to borrowed models can undermine both effectiveness and legitimacy.

MAIN BODY:

At the outset, it is important to understand what is meant by best practices. Best practices refer to methods or techniques that are considered superior based on past performance, empirical success, or expert consensus. They serve as benchmarks and provide ready-made templates for action, thereby reducing uncertainty and saving time and resources. In fields such as administration, healthcare, education, and corporate governance, best practices have facilitated standardization and dissemination of knowledge.

However, despite these advantages, best practices suffer from inherent limitations. Firstly, they are retrospective in nature. What is considered “best” is often based on past successes, which may not hold relevance in a changing environment. In a world characterized by technological disruption, social transformation, and evolving aspirations, yesterday’s solutions may become today’s constraints.

Secondly, best practices often ignore contextual diversity. Social systems are not laboratories where variables can be controlled uniformly. Factors such as culture, institutional capacity, political will, and social capital significantly influence outcomes. Consequently, the blind transplantation of best practices can lead to policy failure, alienation of stakeholders, and unintended consequences.

Thus, while best practices provide useful reference points, treating them as universal truths can stifle creativity and adaptive problem-solving.

Against this backdrop emerges the notion of better practices. Better practices emphasize process over prescription and learning over imitation. They are not fixed endpoints but evolving pathways shaped by continuous feedback and contextual understanding. Instead of asking, “What worked best elsewhere?”, the focus shifts to “What works better here and now?”

Philosophically, this perspective resonates with pragmatism, which values ideas based on their practical consequences rather than abstract perfection. Thinkers like John Dewey argued that social action must be experimental and revisable, grounded in experience rather than dogma. Better practices embody this spirit by encouraging institutions to test, learn, and adapt.

Moreover, better practices align with the idea of continuous improvement. Excellence, in this view, is not a destination but a journey. What is better today may be surpassed tomorrow, thereby fostering innovation and resilience. This dynamic approach is particularly relevant in governance, where societal needs and challenges are constantly evolving.

In public administration, the limitations of best practices become especially evident. Governance models imported from different political and cultural contexts often fail to deliver desired outcomes. For instance, administrative reforms inspired by New Public Management yielded mixed results when applied indiscriminately across developing countries. While efficiency improved in some cases, issues of equity, accountability, and inclusiveness were often neglected.

Better practices, by contrast, emphasize local experimentation and participatory governance. Decentralization, when adapted to local capacities and social realities, has produced more sustainable outcomes than rigid centralized models. Similarly, policy innovations at the grassroots level—such as community-led development or localized welfare delivery—often outperform standardized schemes designed at higher levels.

Furthermore, better practices recognize the value of institutional learning. Governments that institutionalize feedback mechanisms, performance audits, and stakeholder consultations are better equipped to refine policies over time. In this sense, better practices strengthen democratic governance by making it more responsive and inclusive.

The development sector offers compelling illustrations of why better practices matter. Development models once hailed as best practices—such as rapid industrialization or top-down planning—have often produced uneven and exclusionary growth. Over time, it became evident that development is not merely an economic process but a multidimensional phenomenon involving human capabilities, social justice, and environmental sustainability.

Consequently, better practices in development emphasize context-sensitive strategies. For example, poverty alleviation programs that integrate local knowledge and community participation tend to be more effective than uniform cash-transfer schemes implemented without regard to social dynamics. Similarly, education reforms that adapt curricula to local languages and cultures outperform standardized models that ignore diversity.

Amartya Sen’s capability approach provides a strong philosophical foundation for this shift. By focusing on expanding human freedoms rather than achieving predefined outcomes, the capability approach underscores the importance of flexible and adaptive practices. In this framework, better practices are those that empower individuals and communities to shape their own development trajectories.

In organizational contexts, best practices often become rigid norms that discourage questioning and innovation. When employees are expected to follow prescribed methods unquestioningly, creativity suffers, and organizations risk stagnation. Better practices, on the other hand, encourage critical reflection and ethical reasoning.

Ethically, better practices demand responsibility and reflexivity. An action may be efficient but not just; it may be profitable but not sustainable. Therefore, organizations must continuously reassess the moral implications of their practices. This ethical dimension is particularly relevant in the age of artificial intelligence, data analytics, and algorithmic governance, where best practices may inadvertently reinforce bias or exclusion.

Organizational learning theories emphasize that institutions thrive when they treat failures as opportunities for improvement rather than deviations from best practices. Such learning-oriented cultures are better positioned to adapt to uncertainty and complexity.

India’s policy experience vividly illustrates the superiority of better practices over rigid best practices. Many centrally designed schemes initially struggled due to inadequate consideration of local conditions. Over time, however, adaptive modifications—such as tailoring implementation strategies to regional needs—significantly improved outcomes.

For instance, the success of certain health and nutrition interventions has depended less on their design and more on local innovation in delivery mechanisms. Similarly, digital governance initiatives have yielded better results when complemented by ground-level capacity building and digital literacy, rather than relying solely on technological best practices.

These experiences underscore that better practices emerge through iterative learning, administrative sensitivity, and citizen engagement. They reaffirm the idea that policies must evolve in dialogue with society rather than being imposed as static models.

While the concept of better practices is appealing, it is not without challenges. Continuous adaptation requires institutional capacity, data-driven evaluation, and a willingness to acknowledge mistakes. In bureaucratic systems resistant to change, experimentation may be perceived as risk-taking, discouraging innovation.

Moreover, excessive relativism can lead to the absence of standards. Best practices, despite their limitations, provide benchmarks that ensure minimum quality and accountability. Therefore, the challenge lies not in abandoning best practices altogether but in treating them as starting points rather than endpoints.

Thus, better practices must strike a balance between standardization and flexibility, stability and innovation.

CONCLUSION:

The assertion that there are better practices to “best practices” is a profound reminder that excellence cannot be frozen into formulas. Best practices, while valuable as reference points, are insufficient in isolation. They must be complemented by continuous learning, contextual adaptation, and ethical reflection.

In an increasingly complex and dynamic world, the pursuit of better practices represents intellectual humility and institutional maturity. It acknowledges that no solution is final and that progress depends on the willingness to question, refine, and improve. Ultimately, societies and institutions that embrace better practices over rigid best practices are more likely to achieve sustainable, inclusive, and humane outcomes.

In this sense, the true measure of progress lies not in faithfully replicating what was once best, but in courageously striving for what can be better.