Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

What is governance?

Governance means thinking about strategic issues, rather than the operational day-to-day running of the business. Governance applies to all companies, big and small.

Types of governance
Governance is the concept of recent exposure to designate the efficiency, quality and good guidance of the intervention of the State. It defines a new form of government in the globalization. I have defined some of the Important types of governance which are as below. Democratic Governance Democratic governance beyond the issues of institutions and forms of government. It covers the social coordination mechanisms involved in political action and therefore relies on two assumptions. On the one hand, governance is not a set of rules or an activity but a process. It refers to the decision making process within all groups in the social, political, economic or private. Governance aims, secondly, to facilitate participation in the definition of public policies, their implementation by multiple players who have neither the same interests nor the same modes of regulation: States, devolved administrations, enterprises, associations of people. Democratic governance is conceived as the art of government by articulating the business at different spatial scales, from local to global, regulating relationships within society and coordinating the involvement of multiple actors. It is not only helping to reform states but also to help their companies to rethink their management practices and to define themselves a model for regulating pro-active, best suited to their own challenges. This approach to democratic governance is a proposal to rebuild the state and its relations with society. Economic And Financial Governance

The economic and financial governance is an essential prerequisite for promoting economic growth and reduce poverty. The main objectives of economic and financial governance are: Promote macroeconomic policies that contribute to sustainable development; Implement economic policies are transparent, predictable and credible; Promote sound financial management; Fight against corruption and money laundering; Accelerate regional integration by promoting the harmonization of monetary, trade and investment between states. e-Governance Services The e-governance and e-governance services is a holistic concept that defines and assesses the impact that information technology and communication have on government practices and relations between government and

society as a whole. The e-governance not only supports improved access to information and political processes but also an approach called participatory fundamentally change the relationship between government and society. The concept of e-governance can be understood in a broad sense as a kind of superstructure, which covers the use of electronic technologies in three key areas of public action:

Relations between government and civil society; The functioning of public authorities at all levels of planning; The provision of public services. E-governance has an indirect influence on relations between governments and their citizens, strengthening the participation and involvement of citizens in political choices so that their rights and duties are better understood and respected. Corporate Governance Corporate governance relates to moral principles, values and practices that facilitate the balance between economic and social goals and between individual and common goals. It aims to coordinate the interests of individuals, businesses and society as a governance structure emphasizing the common interest as much as possible. Corporate governance aims to:

Provide a regulatory framework and an environment conducive to effective economic activities; Ensure that businesses are citizens in human rights, social responsibility and environmental protection; Promote adoption of codes of ethics in business in achieving the objectives of enterprises; Ensure that corporations treat all their stakeholders (shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, ) in a f air and transparent; Provide for the responsibility of management and directors. Environmental Governance and Natural Resources Environmental governance refers to all processes, rules, practices and institutions that contribute to the protection, management, conservation and exploitation of biodiversity, ecosystem and mineral resources in their various modalities in perspective reconciling sustainable development and poverty reduction. It also refers to the mechanisms and institutions, both formal and informal, encompassing the norms and values, behaviors and conditions around which organizing citizens, organizations, social movements and the various interest groups defending their differences and exercise their rights to access and exploit natural resources. The environmental initiative identifies five objectives (or domains) in environmental governance and natural resources:

The fight against land degradation, drought and desertification; Conservation of wetlands; Prevention and control of invasive species; The conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine resources; The fight against climate change; Conservation and management of natural resources (freshwater, biodiversity, forests and plant resources). With these objectives, it is important to add management and ethical use of mineral resources and mining.

Theories of governance than the administrative forces employed to get things done once leaders have set goalsand priorities. Similarly, in both governance and NPM, steering is a key concept. Takenfrom Reinventing Governments prescription that good governments keep a hand on thetiller, rather than doing the rowing, it is characterized by a move away from centraliza-tion to decentralization; from redistribution to regulation; and from public services man-agement to management through market principles (Merrien, 1998).In order to apply governance (which offers organizing theories) and NPM (whichprovides more specific implementation strategies) to the field of implementation study,one must specify the objectives of NPM. Table 1, which is adapted from Barzelay (1992, p.119), compares the traditional bureaucratic approach to a post-bureaucratic model.Column three suggests the factors that should relate empirically to a governance ap-proach to implementation. Table 1: Comparison of Bureaucratic and Governance/NMP Implementation B u r e a u c r a t i c a c t i o n G o v e r n a n c e / N P M I m p l e m e n t a t i o n R e l e v a n c e Public Interest Results citizens value Normative frame replaced by pragmatismEfficienc y, equity Quality and value Citizen expectations must be met; targetpopulation treatment not necessarily uni-form Administration Production Oversight functions; Market competitionControl Winning adherence to norms Culture change, communication demandsSpecify functions, authority,Identify mission, services, Incentives, sanctions structures customers,outcomesJustif y costs Deliver value Funding uncertain; linked to performanceEnforce responsibility Bu ild accountability Level of competition impacts control; optionsFollow rules, procedures Identify, solve problems Con-tinuously improve processSelf-regulating partnershipsOperate administrativesystemsSeparate service from control Hierarchy/decentralization levelsE xpand customer choice Level of competition; flexibility Provide incentives Potential for un intended consequencesMeasure, analyze results Outcomes vs. processEnrich feedbac k Network complexity Peters and Pierre (1998) question why this arms-length approach should work any better than the Weberian, hierarchical steering of traditional public administration. Tothe extent that it does, the answer may be due to the fact that the purpose of NPM steer-ing is quite different than the purpose of Weberian management. Traditional public ad-ministration emphasized legality and equality. The desired outcome was the provision of uniform services to all clients for whom the services were appropriate. While this concern with meeting legitimate citizen needs in an equitable fashion appears to continue in somepolicy venues (most notably in the social policy areas of health services and Medicaid in-surance), the question of whether states are serving equitably all eligible welfare clients islargely unasked. Instead, as applied to welfare policy, steering appears to be primarily designed to support diverse organizational networks that seek to change client behav-iour, rather than to ensure widespread, comprehensive delivery of benefits (Mead, 1996).Nonetheless, Peters and Pierre point to a potential organizational problem that thenew managerial steering exacerbates. Although structural organizational changes suchas decentralization and moving decision

making on operative issues downward in the or-ganization are very common today, the problems associated with changing the cultureof the organization are often much more difficult than are the structural changes (1998,p. 230). As numerous authors have observed, devolution increases the influence admin-istrators can exercise over policy developments, and as such, they are key participants inallocation choices (Riccucci and Saidel, 1997).To sum up then, NPM implies specific types of management tools which operate within the propositions of governance set forth earlier. Table 2 summarizes thes e rela-tionships and suggests hypotheses of implementation relationships, which can be mod-elled and empirically tested.

Table 2: Governance Structures and NPM Strategies G o v e r n a n c e S t r u c t u r e s N P M S t r a t e g i e s Institutions, actors fromand beyond governmentFlexibility to explore alternatives to direct public provisions andregulation that might yield more cost-effective policy outcomes E m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : The lower the level of competition, the less likely efficiency will be achieved Blurring boundaries,responsibilities for solv-ing Replacement of centralized, hierarchical social and economic prob-lems structures with decentralized environments; resource allocationand service delivery decisions make closer to point of delivery. E m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : The greater the level of decentralization, the more difficult it becomes to matchservice objectives to program goals. Power dependence in institu-tional relationshipsNegotiated allocation and sharing of resources; clear andmeasurable outcome measures. E m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : The greater the interdependence among network actors, the greater the likeli-hood of coordination barriers, game-playing, subversion, creaming and opportunism. Autonomous self-governing networks Accountability mechanisms E m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : T h e s t r o n g e r t h e f e e d b a c k l o o p f r o m c l i e n t s a n d o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d g r o u p s , t h e b e t t e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s w i l l b e a b l e t o m a n a g e n e t w o r k s . Capacity to act not de-pendent upon the statePublic institutions design of program authority or legitimacy struc-tures includes revisability, feedback to citizens, experimentation E m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p :

The greater the reliance on network partnerships beyond the scope of publicinstitutions, the greater the need for a centralised monitoring structure with funding and program designauthority. 6. T h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y a n d E t h i o p i a :Multilateral, bilateral, and non-governmental external agencies have in recent yearstaken a large number of initiatives aimed directly or indirectly at helping Ethiopia "de-mocratise" its way out of economic chaos and political instability. In doing so, they rely on a wide variety of programmes, institutional mechanisms and policies. Indeed, grow-ing external involvement in Ethiopian projects of democratisation and economic recov-ery has resulted in increasingly challenging problems of conceptualising and under-standing the role and function of international agencies. The hypothesis to be tested are 6.1. The effectiveness of political conditionality is a function of the dependence of the govern-ment on foreign aid to implement essential political projects to maintain its power hegem-ony.6.2. Government compliance with donor conditions varies with the type of policy reform. Com-pliance is "high for measures that can be implemented by a small number of central gov-ernment officials and low for reforms requiring extensive institutional change.6.3. The imposition by donors of political conditions on aid disbursements is alone insufficientto effect democratic political transitions, i.e. in the absence of an organised domestic con-stituency for political change within the state and within civil society.6.4. Intervention by international organisations disrupts transitions to the extent that it is per-ceived as partisan; international intervention contributes most to democratic struggle whenit provides neutral arbitration services like support for election administration and electionobserving. The growth of foreign interventions seems in marked contrast to the limited thoughtand effort exerted by democratisers of Ethiopian polity to put the interventions in co-herent theoretical or strategic perspective. What is the overall rationality or significanceof the great traffic of international programmes and projects of democratisation and development, the proliferating activities that seem to show little regard for economy of coordination? This is not to mention new forms of `participatory research into social engineering that seem to haunt the rural landscape indefinitely? How far and in what waysdo various international agencies, programmes, mechanisms, forms of knowledge andtechnical assistance feed on one another in helping set the boundaries of democratic re-form in Ethiopia? The important issues that these questions suggest are not sufficiently addressed, or even raised, in much of the current discussion of political

transitions. In-sofar as the activities of external agencies in Ethiopia are not understood and engaged inpartly as indigenous societal potentialities developing gradually into actual structures,functions and characteristics of government and societies, their democratic (and devel-opmental) impact may diminish with their proliferation. This can mean little more than a weakly co-ordinated multiplication of programmes and projects which have immediately recognisable or measurable effects in limited areas, but which seem to suspendrather than serve the ultimate goals of democratisation of Ethiopian political systems.The strategic co-ordination of diverse international activities supportive of democratictransition (and development) in Ethiopia can become a challenge both for the interna-tional agencies involved and for the Governments. This is in part because of limitationsin the individual characteristics of the activities - for example, their narrowly techno-cratic orientation. It is also because of shortcomings in the relational and contextual ar-ticulation of external programmes and projects, their limited generalisability and vari-ability.External promoters or supporters of governance often do not efficiently realise inpractice the potential of the ideas and goals they promote and that the volume of theirinterventions is not nearly proportional to their impact. This raises the issue of whetherthe ideas in question are fundamentally constrained at the moment of their conceptionand implementation by the very institutions and technocratic structures that groundtheir articulation. The explicit concept of capacity building for good governance that cur-rent international initiatives operate in Ethiopia may be consistent with goals of "em-powerment" of indigenous communities and individuals, of enhancing local institutionaland human capacities.The initiatives, nevertheless, tend to work toward these goals in narrow economicand technocratic terms. The initiatives seem to equate technocratic rationality and ca-pacity with totality of institutional purposefulness and strength. However, as importantas it is, this is only one context or level of analysis on the breadth and depth of processon the terrain of selfdirected governance. There is another level of analysis. This is con-cerned with the extent and nature of openness of distinct ideological constructs, withmodes of articulation of given sets of ideas and values and of representations of specificissues relative to others. The concern here is not so much of the number and diversity of ideas, values, and opinions allowed to gain currency as to modes their competitive andcooperative articulation

In 1995, the sport of Volleyball was 100 years old! The sport originated in the United States, and is now just achieving the type of popularity in the U.S. that it has received on a global basis, where it ranks behind only soccer among participation sports. Today there are more than 46 million Americans who play volleyball. There are 800 million players worldwide who play Volleyball at least once a week. 1895, William G. Morgan, an instructor at the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) in Holyoke, Mass., decided to blend elements of basketball, baseball, tennis, and handball to create a game for his classes of businessmen which would demand less physical contact than basketball. He created the game of Volleyball (at that time called mintonette). Morgan borrowed the net from tennis, and raised it 6 feet 6 inches above the floor, just above the average man's head. During a demonstration game, someone remarked to Morgan that the players seemed to be volleying the ball back and forth over the net, and perhaps "volleyball" would be a more descriptive name for the sport. 1896, July 7th - at Springfield College the first game of "volleyball" was played. 1900, a special ball was designed for the sport. 1900 - YMCA spread volleyball to Canada, the Orient, and the Southern Hemisphere. 1905 - YMCA spread volleyball to Cuba 1907 Volleyball was presented at the Playground of America convention as one of the most popular sports 1909 - YMCA spread volleyball to Puerto Rico 1912 - YMCA spread volleyball to Uruguay 1913 - Volleyball competition held in Far Eastern Games 1916, in the Philippines, an offensive style of passing the ball in a high trajectory to be struck by another player (the set and spike) were introduced. The Filipinos developed the "bomba" or kill, and called the hitter a "bomberino". 1916 - The NCAA was invited by the YMCA to aid in editing the rules and in promoting the sport. Volleyball was added to school and college physical education and intramural programs. 1917 - YMCA spread volleyball to Brazil 1917, the game was changed from 21 to 15 points.

1919 American Expeditionary Forces distributed 16,000 volleyballs to it's troops and allies. This provided a stimulus for the growth of volleyball in foreign lands. 1920, three hits per side and back row attack rules were instituted. 1922, the first YMCA national championships were held in Brooklyn, NY. 27 teams from 11 states were represented. 1928, it became clear that tournaments and rules were needed, the United States Volleyball Association (USVBA, now USA Volleyball) was formed. The first U.S. Open was staged, as the field was open to non-YMCA squads. 1930's Recreational sports programs became an important part of American life 1930, the first two-man beach game was played. 1934, the approval and recognition of national volleyball referees. 1937, at the AAU convention in Boston, action was taken to recognize the U.S. Volleyball Association as the official national governing body in the U.S. Late 1940s Forearm pass introduced to the game (as a desperation play). Most balls were played with overhand pass. 1946 A study of recreation in the United States showed that volleyball ranked fifth among team sports being promoted and organized 1947, the Federation Internationale De Volley-Ball (FIVB) was founded in Paris. 1948, the first two-man beach tournament was held. 1949, the first World Championships were held in Prague, Czechoslovakia. 1949 USVBA added a collegiate division, for competitive college teams. For the first ten years collegiate competition was sparse. Teams formed only through the efforts of interested students and instructors. Many teams dissolved when the interested individuals left the college. Competitive teams were scattered, with no collegiate governing bodies providing leadership in the sport. 1951 - Volleyball was played by over 50 million people each year in over 60 countries 1955 - Pan American Games included volleyball 1957 - The International Olympic Committee (IOC) designated volleyball as an Olympic team sport, to be included in the 1964 Olympic Games.

1959 - International University Sports Federation (FISU) held the first University Games in Turin, Italy. Volleyball was one of the eight competitions held. 1960 Seven midwestern institutions formed the Midwest Intercollegiate Volleyball Association (MIVA) 1964 Southern California Intercollegiate Volleyball Association (SCVIA) was formed in California 1960's new techniques added to the game included - the soft spike (dink), forearm pass (bump), blocking across the net, and defensive diving and rolling. In 1964, Volleyball was introduced to the Olympic Games in Tokyo. The Japanese volleyball used in the 1964 Olympics, consisted of a rubber carcass with leather panelling. A similarly constructed ball is used in most modern competition. In 1965, the California Beach Volleyball Association (CBVA) was formed. 1968 National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) made volleyball their fifteenth competitive sport. 1969 The Executive Committee of the NCAA proposed addition of volleyball to its program. 1974, the World Championships in Mexico were telecast in Japan. 1975, the US National Women's team began a year-round training regime in Pasadena, Texas (moved to Colorado Springs in 1979, Coto de Caza and Fountain Valley, CA in 1980, and San Diego, CA in 1985). 1977, the US National Men's team began a year-round training regime in Dayton, Ohio (moved to San Diego, CA in 1981). 1983, the Association of Volleyball Professionals (AVP) was formed. 1984, the US won their first medals at the Olympics in Los Angeles. The Men won the Gold, and the Women the Silver. 1986, the Women's Professional Volleyball Association (WPVA) was formed. 1987, the FIVB added a Beach Volleyball World Championship Series. 1988, the US Men repeated the Gold in the Olympics in Korea. 1989, the FIVB Sports Aid Program was created. 1990, the World League was created.

1992, the Four Person Pro Beach League was started in the United States. 1994, Volleyball World Wide, the first internet site on the sport of volleyball, was created. 1995, the sport of Volleyball was 100 years old! 1996, 2-person beach volleyball was added to the Olympics There is a good book, "Volleyball Centennial : The First 100 Years", available on the history of the sport.
William Morgan invented volleyball in 1895 at the Holyoke, Massachusetts, YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association) where he served as Director of Physical Education. Morgan originally called his new game of Volleyball, Mintonette. The name Volleyball came about after a demonstration game of the sport, when a spectator commented that the game involved much "volleying" and game was renamed Volleyball. William Morgan was born in the state of New York and studied at Springfield College, Massachusetts. Ironically at Springfield, Morgan met James Naismith who invented basketball in 1891. Morgan was motivated by Naismith's game of basketball designed for younger students to invent a game suitable for the older members of the YMCA. William Morgan's basis for the new game of Volleyball was the then popular and similar German game of Faust ball and a few other sports including: tennis (the net), basketball, baseball and handball. The Morgan Trophy Award is presented annually to the most outstanding male and female collegiate volleyball player in the United States. Established by the William G. Morgan Foundation in 1995 during the centennial year of volleyball, the trophy is named in honor of William Morgan.