Governance?

Defining governance can be so challenging and complex. We often mix up governance with
government that led to confusion among us in view of their definition.

‘Government’ usually refers to the governing body itself, while ‘governance’ often refers to the act
of governing. Thus members of a government are engaged in governance.

A key reason for the recent popularity of the concept of governance is its capacity, unlike that of the
narrower term ‘government’ – to cover the whole range of institutions and relationships involved in
the process of governing. Governance links the political system with its environment. Thinking about
governance means thinking about how to steer the economy and society, and how to reach collective
goals.

Government
Government is a group of people who rule or run the administration of a country. In other words, it
may be said that a government is the body of representatives that governs and controls the state at a
given time. Government is a body, consist of group of people who run the administration, govern and
control the state.

1. Definition:
World Bank:
“Governance is defined as the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a
country’s economic and social resources”.

UNDP:

“Governance is viewed as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to

manage a country’s affairs at all levels”.

It comprises mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their
interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.

Commission on Global Governance: “Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and
institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which
conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It
includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal
arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest”.

Page 1 of 4
 2. Different ways to think about Governance
2.1 Governance as a Structure
3.1.1 Governance as a Hierarchy
- Governance literature is in favor of dismissing hierarchy, rather promote horizontal expansion
in networking

- Governance scholar’s emphasis on flexibility, diversification and informal exchange than

formal control and sharing power between public and private.

- The hierarchical state is believed to be ‘too big to solve the small problems in life and too
small to solve the big problems’.

- State is said to be too weak to maintain the same control like before, partly because of
shrinking resources and changes of external environment.
- More autonomy in city and regions at the expense of state – decentralization.
3.1.2. Governance as Markets
- Efficient resource allocating mechanisms.
- Another meaning of market is a sphere for economic actor
3.1.3. Governance as (Policy) Network
- Governance is a policy network, comprises a wide variety of actors, institutions, organized
interest and so on.
3.1.4. Governance as Communities
- Generally community can and should resolve common problem.

- State or local government is too big and bureaucratic to deal with community issues.

In broad perspective, communitarian governance builds on a consensual image of the

community and the positive involvement of the member
3.2 Governance as Process
Focus on process and outcome than formal arrangements. Governance is not about structure,
it’s about interaction among structure and institutions.
3.2.1 Governance as Steering and coordinating
- Governance derive from Latin word ‘cybern’, means steering. The same root as cybernetics,
the science of control.
- States are still capable of steering.
- Coordination of Economic sector.
3.3 Governance as Analytical Framework
- Governance as an intellectual term.

- Something - governance is a way of viewing the world of politics and government.

Page 2 of 4
 3. Historical Shift: Government to Governance
The concern with governance represents a closing circle of political development during twentieth
century:

First Phase: the first decade of this era saw a political consolidation of democratic government
throughout the western world.

Second Phase: early post World War II experienced second phase in Western Europe and later in
United states. Government attained higher profile, initiated more regulation, economic redistribution,
expand political sphere. This era saw an increased public expending, regardless of national context
(welfare, capitalism), on public services and public welfare and a growing political intervention in
the market. These were the times when government was seen as the inappropriate, legitimate and
unchallenged vehicle for social change, equality and economic development.

Third Phase: This phase dominated by Thatcher and Reagan in UK and USA, respectively.
Government was defined not only as the solution to societal problem, instead as the very root cause
of these problems. Introduction of New Public Management concept/idea was observed under
different components: privatization, deregulation, cut-backs in public spending (oil), monetarist
economic policies, radical institutional and administrative reform and the introduction of a distinctly
market based philosophy in public service production and delivery. Australia and New Zealand were
strong follower of NPM.

Fourth and Final Stage: started from 1990s by highlighting emergence model of governance. The
emerging models draws on new ideas about what is and what should be the role of government in
society.

It was noticeable at the end of twentieth century that change occurring throughout the public sector,
but the traditional ways of thinking about government remain deep-rooted. The public sector still
considered as largely independent from the private sector and government often have the capacity to
control, direct the activities of private sector and ability to impose control.

Similarly, democracy is still conceptualized in terms of elections and voting (presently, it’s much
more than, accountability, citizen charter etc.).

However, following budget cut-backs and the dismantling of many public services, we can identify
signs of a changing perspective on governments and what government are expected to do and how
they should do it. The way of thinking has been changed in three ways:

a) Gradual shift from input control to output and outcome control among political, administrative
elite and social scientist. Efficiency and productivity has become vital element.

b) State society relationships has been reshaped. State had unrivaled position, but in current
perspective state evolve as an actor which remain in control of some unique power such as executive,
legislative power. States become dependent on other societal actors. This is because the lack of

Page 3 of 4
resources to deliver public service, or lack of its legitimacy or because it faces an environment which
becoming increasingly ‘ungovernable’.

c) Growing critique on government role became visible in post-war period. Public sector are
increasingly seen as rigid and bureaucratic, expensive and inefficient.

…………………

Page 4 of 4