Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/308911311
CITATION READS
1 15,072
2 authors, including:
Mohammed Asaduzzaman
Islamic University (Bangladesh)
14 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Asaduzzaman on 23 October 2017.
the bad, and the ugly, and concluded that none of a common consensus about its theoretical frame-
these offers a full-scale and comprehensive per- work does not exist yet.
spective of the concept. Similarly, Kohler-Koch Terms, theory and model need clarification
and Rittberger (2006) have argued that despite here, however. With theory, we refer to Giere
decades of huge efforts there is still confusion (1998, p. 415), who argues that theories are gen-
about the conceptualization of the concept. eralized theoretical hypothesis. Notable in this
The last decades have brought about tremen- definition is that justifying a theory is actually
dous changes in global politics and the emergence about justifying a theoretical hypothesis or a set
of service space, constituting of various institu- of hypothesis. Models, then, in our semantic and
tions from public, private, and the third sector analytical dictionary refers to a kind of conceptual
(e.g., Virtanen et al. 2016). Moreover, the rise of and partly theoretical frameworks, which helps to
third sector organizations in developing countries, understand conceptually the topic under scrutiny.
the changing role of the international aid agencies Popper (1963) calls this as a discovery of axiom-
towards the aid receiving countries, and the sig- atic systems, a model that consists of a set of
nificance of people’s participation in development things, relations, operations, or functions.
projects and action enforce to retheorize the role This entry intends to discuss the different the-
of public administration. Similarly, excessive ories and models of governance and its conceptual
political influence and bureaucratic control over framework in the light of both developed and
central and local governance have been blamed developing nations through interpreting and
for conditions of massive poverty, corruption, reinterpreting the contemporary management
economic stagnation, political instability, con- and public policy literature. This entry has three
fused priorities, chaos, and violation of human sections. First, we take an analytical look into the
rights of citizens and noncitizens alike (Jreisat definitional image and theoretical framework of
2004). It is also evident that the wealth or poverty the concept of governance. Secondly, we discuss
of any nation goes hand in hand with the state of the dimensions of theories related to governance.
governance and not merely with, e.g., the natural Thirdly, we present our conclusions and discuss
resources (Werlin 2003). On the other hand, it is our findings.
clear that the ground realities or country specific
contextual realities play vital role in order to the-
orizing governance, which has always been Theoretical Framework for Governance
overlooked.
As a result, despite its colossal recognition and Numerous scholars have come up with definitions
importance, a universal or acceptable theory of concerning the concept of governance. The uni-
governance has not yet been emerged. Debates fied interpretation seems to be, despite the multi-
prevail and conceptual differences exist in respect ple perspectives of the definitions, that as a term,
of its theoretical formulations, policy prescription, governance refers to the political field and politi-
and conceptualization across the world (Hye cal activity as the vital task of every national
2000). Adding “good” with governance has paid government. At the outset, however, we would
much attention to the international aid agencies like to emphasize that the terms government and
since 1990s. Good governance becomes an offi- governance are not same. That is, government and
cial aid agenda for the aid recipient countries of governance are not synonymous terms, although
Africa and Asia. In fact, it has become a common both share goals-oriented objectives. Government
phenomenon in the literature of international aid occurs when those with legally and formally
agencies as a precondition for aid receiving coun- derived authority and policing power execute
tries (Rhodes 1997). The truism is that good gov- and implement activities; by contrast, governance
ernance is a condition rather than creating better refers to the creation, execution, and implementa-
democracy of the developing nations. As a result, tion of activities backed by the shared goals of
citizens and organizations, who may or may not
Governance Theories and Models 3
have formal authority or policing power (Rosenau effectively and efficiently through decentraliza-
1992 in Bingham et al. 2005, p. 548). According tion and sharing, people’s participation, account-
to Richards and Smith (2002), government is ability, transparency, and responsiveness. In the
bureaucracy, legislation, financial control, regula- same way, Organization for Economic
tion, and force. Governance, on the other hand, Co-operation and Development’s (OECD)
refers more like to a growing use of nonregulatory (1995) definition of governance includes public
policy instrument. This policy instrument aspect administration and the institutions, methods and
focuses the attention towards proposed, designed, instruments of governing and also incorporates
and implemented cooperation by nonstate actors relationship between government and citizen
working together with state actors (Jordan (including business and other citizen groupings)
et al. 2003). and the role of the state. In order to cope with the
As a whole, governance is a growing phenom- challenges of the twenty-first century, to under-
enon. The literature on governance is definitely stand the relationship in-between the state and
considerable and expanding (Aminuzzaman nonstate agencies is thus important. This is
2010, p. 19). Back in history, in the fourteenth because of the economic globalization, massive
century for instance, the term governance referred corruption of state agencies, failure of centrally
to an action, method, or function of governing planned economy, elitist bureaucracy, remarkable
(Halfani et al. 1994). For Landell et al. (1991), breakthrough of information technology, and the
governance denotes how people are ruled, how rising role of the third sector, popularly known as
the affairs of the states are administered and reg- the Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
ulated, as well as a nation’s system of politics, and across the developing world (e.g., Hossain 2001;
how this functions in relation to public adminis- Salomon and Anheier 1996; Anheier and
tration and law. According to Graham Seibel 1990).
et al. (2003), governance is seen as interaction Interpreting and reinterpreting the contempo-
among structures, processes, and traditions that rary public management and public policy
determine how power and responsibilities are research literature, we have pinpointed two differ-
exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citi- ent approaches. According to our analytical
zens and other stakeholders have their say. There- rereading of the existing literature, these two
fore, governance is about power, relationship, and approaches derive their origins from (1) interna-
accountability: it addresses the questions like who tional aid agencies and (2) European scholars.
has the influence, who makes the decisions, and Both approaches seem to have constituted the
how decision-makers are held accountable. conceptual framework for governance from their
Halfani and his colleagues (1994) highlight own perspectives.
governance as a system of government concen- As an example from the first conceptual
trating on effective and accountable institutions, dimension, we take the World Bank (1994) as an
democratic principles and electoral process, rep- example. The World Bank defines governance as
resentation and responsible structures of govern- the manner in which power is exercised in the
ment in order to ensure an open and legitimate management of a country’s economic and social
relationship between the civil society and the resources for development. In fact, in its defini-
state. They emphasized on the relationship tion, World Bank highlights the administrative
between the civil society and the state, which is aspects of governance, which emphasizes the fol-
very crucial. This is in fact and an important lowing major issues: civil service reform, public
notion since this differentiates the study of gover- sector downsizing, service delivery, contracting
nance from the study of government. The nature out public interventions, as well as institutional
of the relationship between the civil society and capacity building. Furthermore, the World Bank
the state is the most important feature in their affiliated researchers address governance from
definition. They believe that credibility and legit- three perspectives (e.g., Kaufmann et al. 2000).
imating of government can be achieved They are: the process, by which governments are
4 Governance Theories and Models
involved in deciding and in what capacity. There- also applies in the domain of New Public
fore, we found four areas or zones where the Governance.
concept is particularly relevant. We think governance is a lucrative concept,
since it contains a promise to bring public admin-
• Governance in “global space,” or global gov- istration and public services – and politics for that
ernance, deals with issues outside the purview matter – “closer to the citizens.” The other side of
of individual governments. this coin is accountability. Governance incorpo-
• Governance in “national space,” i.e., within a rated with decentralization of political authority
country: this is sometimes understood as the make politicians and top management at public
exclusive preserve of government, of which administration more visible and thus more
there may be several levels: national, provin- accountable (Bourgon 2011). Governance thus
cial or state, indigenous, urban or local. How- links with the concept of accountability and thus
ever, governance is concerned with how other sheds light to the accountability processes at pub-
actors, such as civil society organizations, may lic service systems level and especially to the
play a role in taking decisions on matters of trajectories, differences, and anomalies of vertical
public concern. and horizontal accountability dimensions (e.g.,
• Organizational governance (governance in Schillemans 2011).
“organization space”): this comprises the activ- From the above discussion, it is clear that all
ities of organizations that are usually account- definitions are closely related and mutually
able to a board of directors. Some will be reinforcing. Despite narrow differences in its
privately owned and operated, e.g., business meanings, the proponents of governance empha-
corporations. Others may be publicly owned, size three important issues. These are decentrali-
e.g., hospitals, schools, government zation, a people-oriented governance system, and
corporations, etc. enhancement of people’s participation through
• Service space governance reflecting the idea networking governance. Therefore, it can be said
of governing local, regional, and national ser- that as a system, governance is rarely static and it
vice spaces, consisting of various service pro- should be politically neutral, locally reliable, and
viders from private, public, and the third sector. contextually acceptable. The outcomes of gover-
• Community governance (governance in “com- nance cannot be assessed by its theoretical aspects
munity space”): this includes activities at a and romantic assumptions only. As Ahrens (2002,
local level where the organizing body may cited in Jreisat 2004 and Archibugi et al. 1998)
not assume a legal form and where there may points out, there is no evidence that either demo-
not be a formally constituted governing board. cratic or nondemocratic states are better suited to
initiate and consolidate policy reforms effectively
Based on our analysis, we feel that the concept and to promote sustained economic development.
of governance is often referred for more rhetorical The outcomes of governance in any country have
rather than substantive reasons. In early 1990s, to be considered by its results. Good performance
governance appears to be used in place of govern- is inescapably related to satisfaction of criteria
ment as if government was a difficult word to sell such as the participation of people in decisions
in a privatized, market-oriented society. Gover- affecting them, the capacity to aggregate and
nance is about a reinvented form of government, coordinate various interests in order to bring
which is better managed (e.g., Osborne and about consensus on policies, and managing of
Gaebler 1992). In this perspective, governance is institutions and regime structures with efficiency,
about the potential for contracting, franchising, accountability, and transparency (Jreisat 2004).
and new forms of regulation. Hood (1991) refers In this entry, we have measured the term gov-
to this kind of governance as the New Public ernance based on the above statement. In addition,
Management (NPM), and this kind of thinking from a broader perspective, it is considered as a
continuous process of the state: a participatory
6 Governance Theories and Models
Bank. According to the UNDP (1997), good gov- term “good governance” is heavily loaded by
ernance means equal participation of all citizens in normative values – what is good and what is bad
decision-making. It is transparent, accountable, and for whom? – as defined by global power
and equitable, and it promotes the rule of law. It politics. As a result, in order to meet and manage
allows the local people and the most affected to be the challenges of globalization, Farazmand (2013,
heard when decisions are being made and when p. 350) proposes the concept of “sound gover-
resources are handed out. In fact, unlike other aid nance” in the place of “good governan-
agencies, the UNDP emphasizes more on identi- ce.”According to him (2013, p. 356) sound
fying the basic characteristics of good gover- governance means more than the term govern-
nance. These characteristics include ment and governing and good governance.
participation, power decentralization, rule of law, Sound governance includes the state as an
transparency, responsiveness, consensus orienta- enabling institution, the constitutional framework,
tion, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, account- the civil society, the private sector, the engaged
ability, strategic vision, and so on. citizens, and the international/global institutional
Although the UNDP has given the above char- structure within limits. He further argues that it is
acteristics of good governance, it believes and “inclusive and promotes participation and interac-
recommends that the societies should determine tion in an increasingly complex, diverse, and
which of the core characteristics are important to dynamic national and international environment
them, considering their contemporary (both inter- (ibid).”
nal and external) socioeconomic and political sit- Therefore, the meaning of good governance
uations. The UNDP (2002) further argues that cannot be confined in a timeframe. Cultural
good governance advances sustainable develop- heritage, traditional values, environmental
ment for three reasons. Firstly, enjoying political realities, political culture, and economic structure
freedom and participating in the decisions that have to be taken into account in defining and
shape one’s life are fundamental human rights. determining characteristics of good governance
Secondly, it helps to protect people from eco- (Asaduzzaman 2011).
nomic and political catastrophes. And finally,
because it can promote sustainable development
by empowering citizens to influence policies that The Plethora of Governance Theories
promote growth and prosperity and reflect their and Models
priorities (see, e.g., Hope 2005).
It needs to be pointed out from the above We think it is evident that the term “governance”
discussion that the notion of good governance is is still far from mature in the domain of public
still developing in terms of its definition, its ethi- administration. During the last three decades, it
cal connotations, and its usefulness (Kruiter has been under growing debate as a theory and
1996). In addition, critics suggest that the theory practice among the scholars, practitioners, and
of good governance is often used as a tool – just as especially within the framework of international
human rights and democracy – to gain advantage aid agencies, and this is because of the concept’s
politically rather than to genuinely help the peo- dynamic, culture-bound, and time-related nature.
ple. Farazmand (2013, p. 355) identified the defi- We have also found out – echoing Jessop’s (1995)
ciencies of the concept of good governance from argumentation – that the academic literature on
two perspectives. For example, firstly, interaction governance is very diverse and incoherent. As a
of only three forces or elements are considered to result, its theoretical roots are various such as
constitute good governance – the interaction institutional economics, international relations,
among the state, civil society, and the private organizational studies, development studies,
sector. But the governance in developing coun- political science, public administration, and
tries is more influenced by global and regional Foucauldian-inspired theorists. In this section,
forces rather than domestic forces. Secondly, the we highlight the conceptual insights with regard
8 Governance Theories and Models
to governance as a “model” from four government and involvement of all sectors in the
perspectives – that of Stoker (1998), Mintzberg governance process.
(1996), Peters (2001), and Heady (2001). Henry Mintzberg, one of the leading manage-
Analyzing and criticizing the role of traditional ment scholars of the last century, has asked a very
public administration, Stoker (1998) discussed the appropriate question. If we acknowledge the
theory of governance under five broad proposi- “blurry” conceptual starting point of “gover-
tions, which are complementary rather than con- nance,” then we might ask, in order to shed light
tradictory. These five propositions are: to this conceptual confusion by asking, how
should governance be managed and led? In order
1. Governance refers to a set of institutions and to give answer to this question, Mintzberg (1996,
actors that occupy government bodies and pp. 80–82) critically discusses five models. They
“beyond” – that is, they are also from the are as follows: the government-as-machine
private and the third sector. model, the government-as-network model, the
2. Governance identifies the blurring of bound- performance-control model, the virtual-
aries and responsibilities for tackling social government model, and finally the normative-
and economic issues. control model.
3. Governance identifies the power dependence
involved in the relationships between institu- 1. The government-as-machine model:
tions involved in collective actions. According to this model, government is
4. Governance is about autonomous self- viewed as a machine dominated by rules, reg-
governing networks of actors. ulations, and standards of all kinds. Although
5. Governance recognizes the capacity to get this model gained popularity earlier in this
things done which does not rest within the century, it lacked flexibility and responsive-
power of government to command or use its ness to individual initiatives.
authority. 2. The government-as-network model: This
model is contrary from the earlier one. This
Stoker (ibid.) further argues that each proposi- model suggests government as an intertwined
tion has associated with it a certain dilemma or system, a complex network of temporary rela-
critical issues. They are: tionships fashioned to work out problems as
they arise and linked by informal channels of
1. There is a disparity between the complex real- communication. It intends to connect, commu-
ity of decision-making associated with gover- nicate, and collaborate. However, this model is
nance and the normative codes used to explain also holographic in that the parts function like
and justify government. the whole: Individual projects function within
2. The blurring of responsibilities can lead to a web of interrelated projects.
blame the avoidance or scapegoating. 3. The performance-control model: According
3. Power dependence exacerbates the problem of to this model government is more like busi-
unintended consequences for government. ness. This model assumes that the overall orga-
4. The emergence of self-governing networks nization consists of business units, which are
raises difficulties over accountability. assigned performance targets for which their
5. Even where government operates in a flexible managers are held accountable. On the other
way to steer collective action, governance fail- hand, performance model decentralizes in
ure may occur. order to centralize; it loosens up in order to
tighten up. This comes at the expense of flex-
These propositions provide a broader canvas to ibility, creativity, and individual initiative.
the changing world of government and emphasize 4. The virtual-government model: in order to
on power decentralization, as well as on local self- overcome the limitations of machine model
and provide better services to the people,
Governance Theories and Models 9
virtual government model intends to privatize, based on societal needs and collective
contract, and negotiate. According to this decision-making.
model, the microstructures would no longer
exist within government rather all that kind of Peters’ models of governance have paved the
work would take place in the private sector. way for viewing governance from broader per-
5. The normative-control model: Compared to spectives. For instance, Farazmand (2012,
other models, this model is more values and p. 227) has claimed that although each Peters’
norms oriented rather than structure and sys- model has significant structural, managerial, pol-
tems. This model has five important elements icy making, and public interest implications dis-
such as: (1) Selection: people are chosen by tinct from others, it overlaps on many features.
values and attitudes rather than just credentials; Finally, we turn to Heady (2001), who
(2) Socialization: this element ensures a mem- recognizes – as a leading theorist of comparative
bership dedicated to an integrated social sys- public administration – three theories of gover-
tem; (3) Guidance: guidance is by accepted nance. Heady’s approach is rather different than
principles rather than by imposed plans, by that of Stroker, Mintzberg, and Peters, because
visions rather than by targets; (4) Responsibil- Heady focuses more on theories which help to
ity: all members share responsibility. They feel understand “governance” as a phenomenon rather
trusted and supported by leaders who practice a than building a typology – as Stoker, Minzberg,
craft style of management that is rooted in and Peters have done – of variations of power
experience; and (5) Judgment: performance is structures and institutional settings that embody
judged by experienced people, including recip- governance policies and actions. Heady (ibid.)
ients of the service, some of whom sit on underlines the usefulness of three theoretical
representative oversight boards. approaches which are deployable when assessing
the role and nature of governance. They are as
Our third “governance model” example is pro- follows:
vided by Peters (2001), who has presented four
renowned models of governance in his scholarly 1. Organizational theory: this is a finely ordered
book, The Future of Governing. These models system of superordination and subordination,
are: in which higher offices supervise lower ones.
In fact, this theory grounds heavily on the Max
1. The market model, according to which the Weber’s concept of rationality and bureau-
private sector can provide better services than cracy. During the twentieth century, organiza-
the traditional public sector. tional theory evolved and multiplied to the
2. The participatory state model, which is differ- extent that from the current perspective the
ent from the market model as it puts more notion of one single organizational theory
emphasis on greater individual and collective would be a huge oversimplification.
participation by segments of government orga- 2. Cultural theory: this theory is associated with
nizations that have been commonly excluded the Rigg’s theory of Prismatic Society.
from decision-making. According to Heady, Rigg’s theory of Pris-
3. The flexible government model, according to matic Society is the most notable single contri-
which the government should be contextual bution in comparative public administration.
and flexible. In order to face environmental Cultural theory is a particularly prominent
challenges and changes, and to meet the peo- approach to scrutinize semifeudalistic system
ple’s demands, appropriate and suitable poli- of government. This theory is also influenced
cies should be made by the government. by the work of Parsons (1951), who described
4. The deregulated government model, which a “traditional way of life” as including ethno-
focuses on less bureaucratic control, more centricity; primordial rather than functional
managerial freedom, and recommendation associations; the sanctification of customs,
10 Governance Theories and Models
beliefs, and practices; the discouragement of that “local regional and cultural distinctiveness
individualism; an emphasis on authority by demands application of governance models that
birth rather than merit; customary rather than are suitable to local conditions.” For example,
contractual relations; supematuralism; the South Asia has a long colonial history and its
unwillingness to accept personal responsibility administration has therefore been heavily
for development; and social rather than legal influenced by the colonial rule. As a result, the
sanctions. “Until people (particularly leaders) administrative and political systems of South Asia
can escape a traditional way of life, they cannot are incompatible with its indigenous social, eco-
substantially improve governance and living nomic, political, and cultural contexts (Vartola
conditions” (in Werlin 2003, p. 331). et al. 2010, p. 7, Haque 1996).
3. Structural-functional theory: this theory
argues that the success of political systems in
maintaining political support depends on polit- Conclusion
ical structures’ capacity to perform various
functions, including interest articulation, inter- The dynamic nature of society is one of the rea-
est aggregation, rule making, rule application, sons why the concept of “governance” has
rule adjudication, and communication. remained blurry. If the context is constantly evolv-
ing and radically changing – global economy,
Assessing and criticizing Heady’s perspective institutional changes, military status quo, global
on governance, Werlin (2003) highlights gover- trade agreements, societal values, and so on – no
nance from a different viewpoint and proposes his wonder if the theories and models of governance
own theory, which is known as the “political elas- constantly shape their contents. For instance, the
ticity theory of governance.” According to Werlin, complexity of society has evolved as a huge topic
this theory attempts not only to reduce the confu- within management, political, and social sciences
sion and tension of public administration but also (to name only few branches of science) but very
to link comparative administration to comparative little is actually known what actually constitutes
politics and development studies (Werlin 2003). this complexity, how public policies deal with the
He emphasized governance as an integrated sys- complexity issue, and how does the domain of
tem between the soft form and the hard form of governance fit into this picture. We feel that the
political power and decentralization of power by problem of existing public policy evaluation par-
various methods that affect the behavior of wider adigms and program evaluation models in partic-
circles of citizens, participants, and subordinates. ular is that they do not fit in with the current
We understand from the above that the theories societal challenges, the emergent nexus problems,
of governance have been prescribed by the vari- and the explicated models and theories for gover-
ous academics and aid agencies from various per- nance. Therefore, it is easy to foresee that the
spectives. Therefore, it is difficult to find a single academic as well as the practical discussion
ideal model of governance for all seasons, appli- around the concept of governance will continue
cable to all nations and communities across the as a polyphonic exercise.
world (Farazmand 2013, p. 361). It is important to However, despite interpretational and contex-
keep in mind that the condition of any develop- tual differences, the above discussed theories and
ment model may remain unrealized given the models of governance are closely related, as they
social economic, political, and cultural complex- focus on a more people-oriented, integrated, and
ities of a particular society. The main challenges decentralized local governance system as well as
which arise from both the academic and aid agen- global-level managing of networks. However, it is
cies’ models of governance is applicability in the quite difficult to judge which theory would
cases of developing countries, where socioeco- guarantee:
nomic and political features are complex (Haque
2011, p. 62). Farazmand (2013, p. 361) highlights • Development and sustainable development
Governance Theories and Models 11
Graham J et al (2003) Governance principles on protected Kruiter A (1996) Good governance for Africa: whose
areas in the 21st century. A discussion paper. Institute governance? Unpublished paper, Maastricht, European
on Governance, the Fifth World Bark Congress, Dublin Center for Development Policy Management
Halfani M et al (1994) Towards and understanding of Landell MP (1991) Governance and external factors. In:
governance: the emergency of an idea and its implica- Proceeding of the World Bank annual conference on
tion for urban research in developing countries. The development economics. World Bank, Washington,
Center for Urban and Community Studies, University DC
of Toronto, Toronto March JG, Oslen JP (1995) Democratic governance. Free
Haque MS (1996) The contexless nature of public admin- Press, New York
istration in third world countries. Int Rev Adm Sci Minocha OP (1998) Good governance: New Public Man-
62(3):315–329 agement perspective. Indian J Public Adm XLIV
Haque SKTM (2011) The normative roots of governance (3):271–280
theories: prospects and challenger from Bangladesh Mintzberg H (1996) Managing government, governing
perspectives. In: Jamil I et al (eds) Understanding gov- management. Harv Bus Rev 74(3):75–83
ernance and public policy in Bangladesh. North-South OECD (1995) Governance in transition: public manage-
University, Bangladesh, pp 47–70 ment in OECD countries. OECD, Paris
Hood H (1991) A public management for all seasons. Osborne D, Gaebler T (1992) Reinventing government:
Public Adm 69:3–19 how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public
Hope KR (2005) Towards good governance and sustain- sector. Basic Books, A Plume Book, USA
able development: the African peer review mechanism. Parsons T (1951) The social system. Routledge (Reprinted
Int J Policy Adm Inst 18(2):283–311 in 1991)
Hossain F (2001) Administration of development initia- Peters BG (2001) The future of governing. University
tives by non-governmental organisations: a study of Press of Kansas, Lawrence
their sustainability in Bangladesh and Nepal. Published Pierre J, Peters GB (2000) Governance, politics and the
doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere Press state. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Huque AS (2001) Governance and public management: the Pollitt C (2005) Decentralization. A central concept in
South Asian context. Int J Public Adm contemporary public management. In: Ferlie
24(12):1289–1297 E et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of public manage-
Hyden G (1992) Governance and the study of politics. In: ment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hyden G, Bratton M (eds) Governance and politics in Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Routledge
Africa. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, pp 1–26 and Kegan Paul, New York
Hye HA (2000) Governance: South Asian perspectives. Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding governance: policy
University Press Limited, Dhaka networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability.
Jamil I (1998a) Good governance: tensions between tradi- Open University Press, Buckingham
tion and modernity in Bangladesh Public Administra- Rhodes RAW (2001) What is government and why does it
tion. Asian Profile 26(5):399–430 matter? In: Hayward JES, Menon A (eds) Governing
Jamil I (1998b) Transational friction between NGOs and Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford
public agencies in Bangladesh: culture or dependency? Richards D, Smith M (2002) Governance and public pol-
Contem South Asia 7(1):43–69 icy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jessop B (1995) The regulation approach and governance Rosenau J (1992) Governance, order, and change in world
theory: alternative perspectives on economic and polit- politics. In: Rosenau J et al (eds) Governance without
ical change. Econ Soc 24(3):307–333 government: order and change in world politics. Cam-
Jordan A et al (2003) Has governance eclipsed govern- bridge University Press, Cambridge
ment? Pattern of environmental instrument selection Rosenau JN, Czempiel EO (eds) (1992) Governance with-
and use in eight states and the EU, CSERGE working out government: order and change in world politics
paper EDM 03-15, University of East Anglia, Norwich (Cambridge studies in international relations). Cam-
Jreisat J (2004) Governance in a globalizing world. Int bridge University Press
J Public Adm 27(13&14):1003–1029 Rosenau JN (1995) Governance in the twenty-first century.
Kaufmann D et al (2000) Aggregating governance indica- Global Govern 1(1):13–43. http://www.jstor.org/sta
tors, World Bank policy research paper. http://www- ble/27800099
wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/ Schillemans T (2011) Does horizontal accountability
WDSP/IB/1999/10/23/000094946_99101105050593/ work? Evaluating potential remedies for the account-
Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2014 ability deficit of agencies. Adm Soc 43(3):387–416
Kohler-Koch B, Rittberger B (2006) Review article: the Schneider V (2004) State theory, governance and the logic
governance turn, in EU studies. J Common Mark Stud of regulation and administrative control. In:
44(S1):27–49 Warntjen A, Wonka A (eds) Governance in Europe.
Kooiman J (1993) Modern governance: new- government Nomos, Baden-Baden
society relations. Sage, London Simon HA et al (1974) Public administration. Reprinted.
Alfred A. Knof, New York
Governance Theories and Models 13
Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Virtanen P, Kaivo-oja J, Ishino Y, Stenvall J, Jalonen
Int J Soc Sci 50(155):17–28 H (2016) Ubiquitous revolution, customer needs and
Stowe K (1992) Good piano won’t play bad music: admin- business intelligence. Empirical evidence from Japa-
istrative reform and good governance. Public Adm nese Healthcare Sector. Int J Web Eng Technol. Forth-
70(3):387–394 coming, accepted to be published
Tiihonen S (2004) From governing to governance. Tam- Werlin HH (2003) Poor nations, Rich nations: a theory of
pere University Press, Tampere governance. Public Adm Rev 63(3):329–342
Tuurnas S (2016) The professional side of co-production. White H, Killick T (2001) African poverty at the millen-
Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2163. University Press, nium: causes, complexities and challenges. World
Tampere Bank, Washington, DC
UNDP (1997) Good governance and sustainable human Williams D, Young T (1994) Governance, the World Bank
development, a UNDP policy documents. www.mag and liberal theory. Polit Stud 42(1):84–100
net.undp.org/Docs/cricis7monograph.htm. Accessed World Bank (1994) Governance: The World Bank. http://
2 Sep 2015 documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1994/05/698374/
UNDP (2002) Human development report, deepening governance-world-banks-experience Washington, DC
democracy in fragmented world. Oxford University World Bank (1997) World development report 1997. http://
Press, New York (on line collection) www.decentralization.ws/srcbook/overview.pdf,
Vartola J et al (2010) Towards good governance in South Decentralization: an overview. Accessed 6 Apr 2015
Asia: an introduction. In: Vartola J, Lumijarvi I, Zafarullah H, Huque AS (2001) Public management for
Asaduzzaman M (eds) Towards good governance in good governance: reforms, regimes, and reality in Ban-
South Asia. University of Tampere Press, Finland gladesh. Int J Public Adm 24(12):1379–1403
Virtanen P, Kaivo-oja J (2015) Public services and emer-
gent systemic societal challenges. Int J Public Leadersh
11(2):77–91