REFRAMING SOCIAL POLICY: difficulties. No virtuous circle has been found there so far, particularly in South Eastern Europe. Albania, perhaps the most Balkan of the Balkans, is no exception to its neighbours in this regard. By whatever standard of measurement, Albania regularly comes out among the very lowest countries in estimates of quality of in­stitutions and systems of governance(Kraay et al, 2005 79 ; Transparency Interna­tional, 2002). While it is widely agreed that good governance and good institutions go hand in glove, we perhaps don’t really know so much of how to establish either(Mor­duch, 1999). This is in spite of the fact that we may well recognise and agree on which are good or poor ones. There is a normative element here, but with meas­urement and indicators being by no means sure either. Yet, knowing roughly where we are and roughly where we want to be, the is­sue remains of how to get there. We are perhaps somewhat like the person in the anecdote who, on asking for directions, was answered with‘Well, I wouldn’t start from here!’ Pertinent, but hardly pragmatic. One can only conjecture on what the next step will be in the‘upstream evolution of explanations of aid failure’(War­rener, 2004:3) that has lead from projects, programmes, policies, to institutions and now politics as prime factors. Perhaps some kind of cultural explanation, or appeal to values. The argument has been well made that these are the one thing that can’t be handed over by INGO’s and other actors in the Western project(Sampson, 2005). Such concerns have informed understanding of some of the problems of develop­ment- if not simply installation(Sampson, 1998)- of civil society in post­communist countries(Anheier et al, 2000; Fowler, 1997, 1998; Stubbs, 2000). And although it might seem little more than prescriptive to hold that organisations have procedures and purpose, while institutions such as enjoyed in the developed world incorporate or embody values – such could perhaps serve as a definition for civil society, as offered by the western model(Ottoway, 2003) .80 Still, that alone wouldn’t completely differentiate them from populist organisations and grass-roots movements that proliferated under socialism(Tahiraj, 2007). What does distinguish western forms of governance is the dynamism that has evolved from the distributed, multi-mandated and heterogeneous nature of western civil society, especially as represented by the idea of multi-level governance (Bache and Flinders, 2004). Modeled on the world of governmental bodies, supra­national and subnational entities and quangos, this idea‘has hardly ever been util­ised in studies of the region’(Stubbs, 2005:69). The role of post-communist civil society in social policy making has been the subject of many scholarly debates. Sampson(1998) vividly engages us in the‘play’ 79 Kraay’s criteria include accountability, political stability, Government effectiveness, regulatory burden, rule of Law and control of corruption. 80 There are other good ways of drawing the distinction, such as that organisations are products of policy and insti­tutions are products of custom. 206