See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308911311
Governance Theories and Models
Chapter · January 2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2612-1
CITATIONS
READS
7
56,176
2 authors, including:
Mohammed Asaduzzaman
Islamic University (Bangladesh)
25 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Empowerment of adolescents through changing nutritional pattern and behavioral attitude in local and rural areas View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Asaduzzaman on 23 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
G
Governance Theories and Models
Mohammed Asaduzzaman1 and Petri Virtanen2
1
Department of Public Administration, Islamic
University, Kushtia, Bangladesh
2
School of Health Sciences, University of
Tampere, Tampere, Finland
Synonyms
Administrative theories; Governance philosophies; Principles of governance; Theoretical analysis of governance and good governance
Introduction
Pollitt (2005) has – somewhat ironically – argued
that there are certain “hardy perennials” of contemporary public policy and public management.
According to our reading, these “hardy perennials” include conceptual entities such as bureaucracy, network, decentralization, power, and
governance. The last one of these,
governance – profoundly anchored in the New
Public Management and New Public Governance
doctrines – has virtually been an unassailable
concept in the management and public policy
sciences for decades now. Governance definitely
has a kind of pivotal place in recent public management and public policy discourses. Governance has a long conceptual history, to include
multifaceted meanings and to act as counterpart of
(often unspoken) alternative for “public sector
management” and “public sector leadership.”
Governance has gained popularity in management
sciences and in academic public policy discourse
because of its multivalency – its ability to link up
with many other arguments and theoretical
concepts.
Although interest for the concept governance
has increased tremendously during the last two
decades, the term is not new, but rather as old as
the civilization or the human history (Farazmand
2013, p. 349). As a concept, governance incorporates with the very long history of governing, rule,
authority structures, and domination (Tiihonen
2004). Currently, it not only occupies the central
stage of development discourse but it is also considered as the fundamental component to be incorporated in the development policy of both
developed and developing nations (Hye 2000).
Despite its growing importance to the researchers,
development practitioners, policy makers, and
international aid agencies, governance is far
from a “finished product.” Rather it is a dynamic
concept and worth examining analytically and
systematically (Farazmand 2012, p. 351). Pierre
and Peters (2000, p. 7) have claimed that the term
governance is notoriously slippery, and for good
reason. Schneider (2004, p. 25) then has put forward the idea that the conceptual vagueness of the
term “governance” is actually the “secret of its
success.” Farazmand (2012) highlighted governance from three faces, for example, the good,
# Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2612-1
2
the bad, and the ugly, and concluded that none of
these offers a full-scale and comprehensive perspective of the concept. Similarly, Kohler-Koch
and Rittberger (2006) have argued that despite
decades of huge efforts there is still confusion
about the conceptualization of the concept.
The last decades have brought about tremendous changes in global politics and the emergence
of service space, constituting of various institutions from public, private, and the third sector
(e.g., Virtanen et al. 2016). Moreover, the rise of
third sector organizations in developing countries,
the changing role of the international aid agencies
towards the aid receiving countries, and the significance of people’s participation in development
projects and action enforce to retheorize the role
of public administration. Similarly, excessive
political influence and bureaucratic control over
central and local governance have been blamed
for conditions of massive poverty, corruption,
economic stagnation, political instability, confused priorities, chaos, and violation of human
rights of citizens and noncitizens alike (Jreisat
2004). It is also evident that the wealth or poverty
of any nation goes hand in hand with the state of
governance and not merely with, e.g., the natural
resources (Werlin 2003). On the other hand, it is
clear that the ground realities or country specific
contextual realities play vital role in order to theorizing governance, which has always been
overlooked.
As a result, despite its colossal recognition and
importance, a universal or acceptable theory of
governance has not yet been emerged. Debates
prevail and conceptual differences exist in respect
of its theoretical formulations, policy prescription,
and conceptualization across the world (Hye
2000). Adding “good” with governance has paid
much attention to the international aid agencies
since 1990s. Good governance becomes an official aid agenda for the aid recipient countries of
Africa and Asia. In fact, it has become a common
phenomenon in the literature of international aid
agencies as a precondition for aid receiving countries (Rhodes 1997). The truism is that good governance is a condition rather than creating better
democracy of the developing nations. As a result,
Governance Theories and Models
a common consensus about its theoretical framework does not exist yet.
Terms, theory and model need clarification
here, however. With theory, we refer to Giere
(1998, p. 415), who argues that theories are generalized theoretical hypothesis. Notable in this
definition is that justifying a theory is actually
about justifying a theoretical hypothesis or a set
of hypothesis. Models, then, in our semantic and
analytical dictionary refers to a kind of conceptual
and partly theoretical frameworks, which helps to
understand conceptually the topic under scrutiny.
Popper (1963) calls this as a discovery of axiomatic systems, a model that consists of a set of
things, relations, operations, or functions.
This entry intends to discuss the different theories and models of governance and its conceptual
framework in the light of both developed and
developing nations through interpreting and
reinterpreting the contemporary management
and public policy literature. This entry has three
sections. First, we take an analytical look into the
definitional image and theoretical framework of
the concept of governance. Secondly, we discuss
the dimensions of theories related to governance.
Thirdly, we present our conclusions and discuss
our findings.
Theoretical Framework for Governance
Numerous scholars have come up with definitions
concerning the concept of governance. The unified interpretation seems to be, despite the multiple perspectives of the definitions, that as a term,
governance refers to the political field and political activity as the vital task of every national
government. At the outset, however, we would
like to emphasize that the terms government and
governance are not same. That is, government and
governance are not synonymous terms, although
both share goals-oriented objectives. Government
occurs when those with legally and formally
derived authority and policing power execute
and implement activities; by contrast, governance
refers to the creation, execution, and implementation of activities backed by the shared goals of
citizens and organizations, who may or may not
Governance Theories and Models
have formal authority or policing power (Rosenau
1992 in Bingham et al. 2005, p. 548). According
to Richards and Smith (2002), government is
bureaucracy, legislation, financial control, regulation, and force. Governance, on the other hand,
refers more like to a growing use of nonregulatory
policy instrument. This policy instrument aspect
focuses the attention towards proposed, designed,
and implemented cooperation by nonstate actors
working together with state actors (Jordan
et al. 2003).
As a whole, governance is a growing phenomenon. The literature on governance is definitely
considerable and expanding (Aminuzzaman
2010, p. 19). Back in history, in the fourteenth
century for instance, the term governance referred
to an action, method, or function of governing
(Halfani et al. 1994). For Landell et al. (1991),
governance denotes how people are ruled, how
the affairs of the states are administered and regulated, as well as a nation’s system of politics, and
how this functions in relation to public administration and law. According to Graham
et al. (2003), governance is seen as interaction
among structures, processes, and traditions that
determine how power and responsibilities are
exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens and other stakeholders have their say. Therefore, governance is about power, relationship, and
accountability: it addresses the questions like who
has the influence, who makes the decisions, and
how decision-makers are held accountable.
Halfani and his colleagues (1994) highlight
governance as a system of government concentrating on effective and accountable institutions,
democratic principles and electoral process, representation and responsible structures of government in order to ensure an open and legitimate
relationship between the civil society and the
state. They emphasized on the relationship
between the civil society and the state, which is
very crucial. This is in fact and an important
notion since this differentiates the study of governance from the study of government. The nature
of the relationship between the civil society and
the state is the most important feature in their
definition. They believe that credibility and legitimating of government can be achieved
3
effectively and efficiently through decentralization and sharing, people’s participation, accountability, transparency, and responsiveness. In the
same way, Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development’s (OECD)
(1995) definition of governance includes public
administration and the institutions, methods and
instruments of governing and also incorporates
relationship between government and citizen
(including business and other citizen groupings)
and the role of the state. In order to cope with the
challenges of the twenty-first century, to understand the relationship in-between the state and
nonstate agencies is thus important. This is
because of the economic globalization, massive
corruption of state agencies, failure of centrally
planned economy, elitist bureaucracy, remarkable
breakthrough of information technology, and the
rising role of the third sector, popularly known as
the Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
across the developing world (e.g., Hossain 2001;
Salomon and Anheier 1996; Anheier and
Seibel 1990).
Interpreting and reinterpreting the contemporary public management and public policy
research literature, we have pinpointed two different approaches. According to our analytical
rereading of the existing literature, these two
approaches derive their origins from (1) international aid agencies and (2) European scholars.
Both approaches seem to have constituted the
conceptual framework for governance from their
own perspectives.
As an example from the first conceptual
dimension, we take the World Bank (1994) as an
example. The World Bank defines governance as
the manner in which power is exercised in the
management of a country’s economic and social
resources for development. In fact, in its definition, World Bank highlights the administrative
aspects of governance, which emphasizes the following major issues: civil service reform, public
sector downsizing, service delivery, contracting
out public interventions, as well as institutional
capacity building. Furthermore, the World Bank
affiliated researchers address governance from
three perspectives (e.g., Kaufmann et al. 2000).
They are: the process, by which governments are
4
selected, held accountable, monitored, and
replaced; the capacity of the governments to manage resources efficiently and formulate and implement and enforce sound policies and regulations;
and the scope of people’s participation in the
affairs of the state and access to the
administration.
Secondly, as an example from the second conceptual dimension, Kooiman (1993) defines governance as the forms in which public or private
sectors engage in problem solving, not separately,
but in conjunction with other actors in society.
This approach, therefore, views governance as
forms of multiorganizational action rather than
involving only state institutions. In fact, these
kinds of definitions have redefined the role of the
state and distinguished governance from the traditional public administration and this is the intellectual and conceptual starting point for the
emergence of the New Public Governance, breakthrough public sector management paradigm
since the beginning of the millennium. In the
same vein, March and Olsen (1995) presented a
framework for democratic governance from a
new-institutional perspective of political science.
Their perspective is that the enhancement of
democracy improves political governance. The
task demands developing: democratic identities;
capabilities for appropriate political action among
citizens, groups, and institutions; accounts of
political events; and an adaptive political system,
which copes with changing demands and
environment.
Hyden (1992) has widened discourse of governance on the level of theoretical generality. To
him governance concerns mostly the rules of the
game of political rule. Governance, according to
him, is a conscious management of regime structures with a view to enhancing the legitimacy of
the public realm. He pays attention to the political
legitimacy of governance contrary to economists,
who give emphasize economic factors and efficiency. Hyden’s views are further elaborated by
Bratton and Rotchild (1992) into the following
five interpretations:
Governance Theories and Models
• Governance is a conceptual approach that
frames
a
comparative
analysis
of
macropolitics.
• Governance concerns big questions of a “constitutional” nature that establish the rules of
political conducts.
• Governance involves creative intervention of
political actors to change structures.
• Governance emphasizes interaction between
state and social actors.
• Governance refers to a particular type of relationships among political actors, that is, those
which are socially sanctioned rather than
arbitrary.
Rosenau and Czempiel (1992) discussed governance in a very comprehensive manner.
According to Rosenau (1992), governance is a
more encompassing phenomenon than government. It includes non-governmental institutions
and informal, non-governmental mechanisms
and how they move ahead, satisfy their needs,
and fulfill their wants. He emphasized that governance is a process whereby an organization or
society steers itself. It includes many channels
through which commands flow in the form of
goals framed, directives issued, and policies pursued. It is a process where communication is
central (Rosenau 1995). In addition, for him
global governance is a sum of myriad – literally
millions of – control mechanisms driven by different histories, goals, structures, and processes.
Rhodes (2001) found different interpretations for
governance though his interpretation is not so
faraway than others. He used governance as:
(1) a minimal state; (2) a corporate governance;
(3) a new public management; (4) good governance; (5) a sociocybernetic system, and (6) selforganizing network. The key concern of all these
are the role of the state, not only in political field
but in all policy sectors as well.
To summarize, we can say that the concept of
governance applies to multiple forms of collective
action. However, it is about more strategic aspects
of steering of a society: the larger decisions about
direction and roles. That is, governance is not only
about where to go but also about who should be
Governance Theories and Models
involved in deciding and in what capacity. Therefore, we found four areas or zones where the
concept is particularly relevant.
• Governance in “global space,” or global governance, deals with issues outside the purview
of individual governments.
• Governance in “national space,” i.e., within a
country: this is sometimes understood as the
exclusive preserve of government, of which
there may be several levels: national, provincial or state, indigenous, urban or local. However, governance is concerned with how other
actors, such as civil society organizations, may
play a role in taking decisions on matters of
public concern.
• Organizational governance (governance in
“organization space”): this comprises the activities of organizations that are usually accountable to a board of directors. Some will be
privately owned and operated, e.g., business
corporations. Others may be publicly owned,
e.g.,
hospitals,
schools,
government
corporations, etc.
• Service space governance reflecting the idea
of governing local, regional, and national service spaces, consisting of various service providers from private, public, and the third sector.
• Community governance (governance in “community space”): this includes activities at a
local level where the organizing body may
not assume a legal form and where there may
not be a formally constituted governing board.
Based on our analysis, we feel that the concept
of governance is often referred for more rhetorical
rather than substantive reasons. In early 1990s,
governance appears to be used in place of government as if government was a difficult word to sell
in a privatized, market-oriented society. Governance is about a reinvented form of government,
which is better managed (e.g., Osborne and
Gaebler 1992). In this perspective, governance is
about the potential for contracting, franchising,
and new forms of regulation. Hood (1991) refers
to this kind of governance as the New Public
Management (NPM), and this kind of thinking
5
also applies in the domain of New Public
Governance.
We think governance is a lucrative concept,
since it contains a promise to bring public administration and public services – and politics for that
matter – “closer to the citizens.” The other side of
this coin is accountability. Governance incorporated with decentralization of political authority
make politicians and top management at public
administration more visible and thus more
accountable (Bourgon 2011). Governance thus
links with the concept of accountability and thus
sheds light to the accountability processes at public service systems level and especially to the
trajectories, differences, and anomalies of vertical
and horizontal accountability dimensions (e.g.,
Schillemans 2011).
From the above discussion, it is clear that all
definitions are closely related and mutually
reinforcing. Despite narrow differences in its
meanings, the proponents of governance emphasize three important issues. These are decentralization, a people-oriented governance system, and
enhancement of people’s participation through
networking governance. Therefore, it can be said
that as a system, governance is rarely static and it
should be politically neutral, locally reliable, and
contextually acceptable. The outcomes of governance cannot be assessed by its theoretical aspects
and romantic assumptions only. As Ahrens (2002,
cited in Jreisat 2004 and Archibugi et al. 1998)
points out, there is no evidence that either democratic or nondemocratic states are better suited to
initiate and consolidate policy reforms effectively
and to promote sustained economic development.
The outcomes of governance in any country have
to be considered by its results. Good performance
is inescapably related to satisfaction of criteria
such as the participation of people in decisions
affecting them, the capacity to aggregate and
coordinate various interests in order to bring
about consensus on policies, and managing of
institutions and regime structures with efficiency,
accountability, and transparency (Jreisat 2004).
In this entry, we have measured the term governance based on the above statement. In addition,
from a broader perspective, it is considered as a
continuous process of the state: a participatory
6
form of governance whose existence and effectiveness depend on how it perceives the needs and
demands of the locality, promoting people’s participation in the decision-making process and
decentralizing power to the local institutions.
The above is comparatively true because the
main concern of public administration is the cooperative group behavior of different actors of the
state (Simon et al. 1974).
The term “governance” has been topped with
extra ingredient in the research discourse of development in developing countries by having the
term “good” added to it. “Good Governance”
entered the vocabulary of development administration and international development cooperation
in the 1990s. Therefore, it is important to discuss
the term, since it has become an important policy
agenda of international aid agencies across the
developing world.
A Normative Dimension of Governance:
What Makes Governance Good?
In this section, we ask what makes governance
good. This question is highly appropriate since the
term “good governance” has apparently become a
strongly desired value (Zafarullah and Huque
2001), driving force of the time (Farazmand
2012) and an obsession of current development
debates in both developed and developing countries (Williams and Young 1994 cited from Jamil
1998a). It has become a common phenomenon in
the literature of international aid agencies as a
precondition for aid recipients during the last
three decades (Rhodes 1997). An overview of
the research literature provides various interpretations of the term.
As a concept, “good governance” does not
have a straightforward definition, though it has
been expanding rapidly in the discourse of development (Vartola et al. 2010). In general, good
governance is associated with efficient and effective administration in a democratic framework. It
is equivalent to purposive and developmentoriented administration, which is committed to
improving the quality of life of the people and
enlarging the scope of people’s participation in the
Governance Theories and Models
decision-making process of development. In
short, it is a citizen-friendly, citizen-caring,
responsive, decentralized local government system; an autonomous political society; an efficient
and accountable bureaucracy; strong civil society;
and a free media (Huque 2001; Minocha 1998;
Stowe 1992). Coproduction of services
in-between public service providers and service
users has been quite often noted as a relevant
newcomer, as an ingredient in the making of
good governance (e.g., Tuurnas 2016).
Conceptually speaking, according to the
Human Development Report of 2002, there is no
single answer to the question of what is good
governance. However, the factors that make institutions and rules more effective, such as transparency,
participation,
responsiveness,
accountability, and the rule of law, may be
regarded as the characteristics of good governance. The world leading aid institutions such as
the World Bank (1994, 1997), UNDP (1997,
2002), and the OECD (1995) have become the
great proponents and frequent users of this concept, especially for the aid receiving countries, to
promote democracy, decentralization, accountability, transparency, rule of law, and people’s
participation in their development.
The World Bank (1997), for instance, from its
lending experience in many developing countries,
has realized that good governance is central in
creating and sustaining an environment, which
fosters strong and equitable development and its
essential complements to sound economic policies. The World Bank has also identified a number
of aspects of good governance, such as political
accountability, freedom of association and participation, rule of law and independence of the judiciary, bureaucratic accountability, freedom of
information, a sound administrative system, partnership between the government and the civil
society organizations, and the like (e.g., Blunt
1995). These aspects have been considered as
preconditions in ensuring good governance in
aid receiving countries. The OECD uses the
World Bank’s views of good governance and
defines it similarly.
The UNDP’s apprehension of good governance is more or less similar to that of the World
Governance Theories and Models
Bank. According to the UNDP (1997), good governance means equal participation of all citizens in
decision-making. It is transparent, accountable,
and equitable, and it promotes the rule of law. It
allows the local people and the most affected to be
heard when decisions are being made and when
resources are handed out. In fact, unlike other aid
agencies, the UNDP emphasizes more on identifying the basic characteristics of good governance.
These
characteristics
include
participation, power decentralization, rule of law,
transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, strategic vision, and so on.
Although the UNDP has given the above characteristics of good governance, it believes and
recommends that the societies should determine
which of the core characteristics are important to
them, considering their contemporary (both internal and external) socioeconomic and political situations. The UNDP (2002) further argues that
good governance advances sustainable development for three reasons. Firstly, enjoying political
freedom and participating in the decisions that
shape one’s life are fundamental human rights.
Secondly, it helps to protect people from economic and political catastrophes. And finally,
because it can promote sustainable development
by empowering citizens to influence policies that
promote growth and prosperity and reflect their
priorities (see, e.g., Hope 2005).
It needs to be pointed out from the above
discussion that the notion of good governance is
still developing in terms of its definition, its ethical connotations, and its usefulness (Kruiter
1996). In addition, critics suggest that the theory
of good governance is often used as a tool – just as
human rights and democracy – to gain advantage
politically rather than to genuinely help the people. Farazmand (2013, p. 355) identified the deficiencies of the concept of good governance from
two perspectives. For example, firstly, interaction
of only three forces or elements are considered to
constitute good governance – the interaction
among the state, civil society, and the private
sector. But the governance in developing countries is more influenced by global and regional
forces rather than domestic forces. Secondly, the
7
term “good governance” is heavily loaded by
normative values – what is good and what is bad
and for whom? – as defined by global power
politics. As a result, in order to meet and manage
the challenges of globalization, Farazmand (2013,
p. 350) proposes the concept of “sound governance” in the place of “good governance.”According to him (2013, p. 356) sound
governance means more than the term government and governing and good governance.
Sound governance includes the state as an
enabling institution, the constitutional framework,
the civil society, the private sector, the engaged
citizens, and the international/global institutional
structure within limits. He further argues that it is
“inclusive and promotes participation and interaction in an increasingly complex, diverse, and
dynamic national and international environment
(ibid).”
Therefore, the meaning of good governance
cannot be confined in a timeframe. Cultural
heritage, traditional values, environmental
realities, political culture, and economic structure
have to be taken into account in defining and
determining characteristics of good governance
(Asaduzzaman 2011).
The Plethora of Governance Theories
and Models
We think it is evident that the term “governance”
is still far from mature in the domain of public
administration. During the last three decades, it
has been under growing debate as a theory and
practice among the scholars, practitioners, and
especially within the framework of international
aid agencies, and this is because of the concept’s
dynamic, culture-bound, and time-related nature.
We have also found out – echoing Jessop’s (1995)
argumentation – that the academic literature on
governance is very diverse and incoherent. As a
result, its theoretical roots are various such as
institutional economics, international relations,
organizational studies, development studies,
political science, public administration, and
Foucauldian-inspired theorists. In this section,
we highlight the conceptual insights with regard
8
to governance as a “model” from four
perspectives – that of Stoker (1998), Mintzberg
(1996), Peters (2001), and Heady (2001).
Analyzing and criticizing the role of traditional
public administration, Stoker (1998) discussed the
theory of governance under five broad propositions, which are complementary rather than contradictory. These five propositions are:
1. Governance refers to a set of institutions and
actors that occupy government bodies and
“beyond” – that is, they are also from the
private and the third sector.
2. Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social
and economic issues.
3. Governance identifies the power dependence
involved in the relationships between institutions involved in collective actions.
4. Governance is about autonomous selfgoverning networks of actors.
5. Governance recognizes the capacity to get
things done which does not rest within the
power of government to command or use its
authority.
Stoker (ibid.) further argues that each proposition has associated with it a certain dilemma or
critical issues. They are:
1. There is a disparity between the complex reality of decision-making associated with governance and the normative codes used to explain
and justify government.
2. The blurring of responsibilities can lead to
blame the avoidance or scapegoating.
3. Power dependence exacerbates the problem of
unintended consequences for government.
4. The emergence of self-governing networks
raises difficulties over accountability.
5. Even where government operates in a flexible
way to steer collective action, governance failure may occur.
These propositions provide a broader canvas to
the changing world of government and emphasize
on power decentralization, as well as on local self-
Governance Theories and Models
government and involvement of all sectors in the
governance process.
Henry Mintzberg, one of the leading management scholars of the last century, has asked a very
appropriate question. If we acknowledge the
“blurry” conceptual starting point of “governance,” then we might ask, in order to shed light
to this conceptual confusion by asking, how
should governance be managed and led? In order
to give answer to this question, Mintzberg (1996,
pp. 80–82) critically discusses five models. They
are as follows: the government-as-machine
model, the government-as-network model, the
performance-control
model,
the
virtualgovernment model, and finally the normativecontrol model.
1. The
government-as-machine
model:
According to this model, government is
viewed as a machine dominated by rules, regulations, and standards of all kinds. Although
this model gained popularity earlier in this
century, it lacked flexibility and responsiveness to individual initiatives.
2. The government-as-network model: This
model is contrary from the earlier one. This
model suggests government as an intertwined
system, a complex network of temporary relationships fashioned to work out problems as
they arise and linked by informal channels of
communication. It intends to connect, communicate, and collaborate. However, this model is
also holographic in that the parts function like
the whole: Individual projects function within
a web of interrelated projects.
3. The performance-control model: According
to this model government is more like business. This model assumes that the overall organization consists of business units, which are
assigned performance targets for which their
managers are held accountable. On the other
hand, performance model decentralizes in
order to centralize; it loosens up in order to
tighten up. This comes at the expense of flexibility, creativity, and individual initiative.
4. The virtual-government model: in order to
overcome the limitations of machine model
and provide better services to the people,
Governance Theories and Models
virtual government model intends to privatize,
contract, and negotiate. According to this
model, the microstructures would no longer
exist within government rather all that kind of
work would take place in the private sector.
5. The normative-control model: Compared to
other models, this model is more values and
norms oriented rather than structure and systems. This model has five important elements
such as: (1) Selection: people are chosen by
values and attitudes rather than just credentials;
(2) Socialization: this element ensures a membership dedicated to an integrated social system; (3) Guidance: guidance is by accepted
principles rather than by imposed plans, by
visions rather than by targets; (4) Responsibility: all members share responsibility. They feel
trusted and supported by leaders who practice a
craft style of management that is rooted in
experience; and (5) Judgment: performance is
judged by experienced people, including recipients of the service, some of whom sit on
representative oversight boards.
Our third “governance model” example is provided by Peters (2001), who has presented four
renowned models of governance in his scholarly
book, The Future of Governing. These models
are:
1. The market model, according to which the
private sector can provide better services than
the traditional public sector.
2. The participatory state model, which is different from the market model as it puts more
emphasis on greater individual and collective
participation by segments of government organizations that have been commonly excluded
from decision-making.
3. The flexible government model, according to
which the government should be contextual
and flexible. In order to face environmental
challenges and changes, and to meet the people’s demands, appropriate and suitable policies should be made by the government.
4. The deregulated government model, which
focuses on less bureaucratic control, more
managerial freedom, and recommendation
9
based on societal needs and collective
decision-making.
Peters’ models of governance have paved the
way for viewing governance from broader perspectives. For instance, Farazmand (2012,
p. 227) has claimed that although each Peters’
model has significant structural, managerial, policy making, and public interest implications distinct from others, it overlaps on many features.
Finally, we turn to Heady (2001), who
recognizes – as a leading theorist of comparative
public administration – three theories of governance. Heady’s approach is rather different than
that of Stroker, Mintzberg, and Peters, because
Heady focuses more on theories which help to
understand “governance” as a phenomenon rather
than building a typology – as Stoker, Minzberg,
and Peters have done – of variations of power
structures and institutional settings that embody
governance policies and actions. Heady (ibid.)
underlines the usefulness of three theoretical
approaches which are deployable when assessing
the role and nature of governance. They are as
follows:
1. Organizational theory: this is a finely ordered
system of superordination and subordination,
in which higher offices supervise lower ones.
In fact, this theory grounds heavily on the Max
Weber’s concept of rationality and bureaucracy. During the twentieth century, organizational theory evolved and multiplied to the
extent that from the current perspective the
notion of one single organizational theory
would be a huge oversimplification.
2. Cultural theory: this theory is associated with
the Rigg’s theory of Prismatic Society.
According to Heady, Rigg’s theory of Prismatic Society is the most notable single contribution in comparative public administration.
Cultural theory is a particularly prominent
approach to scrutinize semifeudalistic system
of government. This theory is also influenced
by the work of Parsons (1951), who described
a “traditional way of life” as including ethnocentricity; primordial rather than functional
associations; the sanctification of customs,
10
beliefs, and practices; the discouragement of
individualism; an emphasis on authority by
birth rather than merit; customary rather than
contractual relations; supematuralism; the
unwillingness to accept personal responsibility
for development; and social rather than legal
sanctions. “Until people (particularly leaders)
can escape a traditional way of life, they cannot
substantially improve governance and living
conditions” (in Werlin 2003, p. 331).
3. Structural-functional theory: this theory
argues that the success of political systems in
maintaining political support depends on political structures’ capacity to perform various
functions, including interest articulation, interest aggregation, rule making, rule application,
rule adjudication, and communication.
Assessing and criticizing Heady’s perspective
on governance, Werlin (2003) highlights governance from a different viewpoint and proposes his
own theory, which is known as the “political elasticity theory of governance.” According to Werlin,
this theory attempts not only to reduce the confusion and tension of public administration but also
to link comparative administration to comparative
politics and development studies (Werlin 2003).
He emphasized governance as an integrated system between the soft form and the hard form of
political power and decentralization of power by
various methods that affect the behavior of wider
circles of citizens, participants, and subordinates.
We understand from the above that the theories
of governance have been prescribed by the various academics and aid agencies from various perspectives. Therefore, it is difficult to find a single
ideal model of governance for all seasons, applicable to all nations and communities across the
world (Farazmand 2013, p. 361). It is important to
keep in mind that the condition of any development model may remain unrealized given the
social economic, political, and cultural complexities of a particular society. The main challenges
which arise from both the academic and aid agencies’ models of governance is applicability in the
cases of developing countries, where socioeconomic and political features are complex (Haque
2011, p. 62). Farazmand (2013, p. 361) highlights
Governance Theories and Models
that “local regional and cultural distinctiveness
demands application of governance models that
are suitable to local conditions.” For example,
South Asia has a long colonial history and its
administration has therefore been heavily
influenced by the colonial rule. As a result, the
administrative and political systems of South Asia
are incompatible with its indigenous social, economic, political, and cultural contexts (Vartola
et al. 2010, p. 7, Haque 1996).
Conclusion
The dynamic nature of society is one of the reasons why the concept of “governance” has
remained blurry. If the context is constantly evolving and radically changing – global economy,
institutional changes, military status quo, global
trade agreements, societal values, and so on – no
wonder if the theories and models of governance
constantly shape their contents. For instance, the
complexity of society has evolved as a huge topic
within management, political, and social sciences
(to name only few branches of science) but very
little is actually known what actually constitutes
this complexity, how public policies deal with the
complexity issue, and how does the domain of
governance fit into this picture. We feel that the
problem of existing public policy evaluation paradigms and program evaluation models in particular is that they do not fit in with the current
societal challenges, the emergent nexus problems,
and the explicated models and theories for governance. Therefore, it is easy to foresee that the
academic as well as the practical discussion
around the concept of governance will continue
as a polyphonic exercise.
However, despite interpretational and contextual differences, the above discussed theories and
models of governance are closely related, as they
focus on a more people-oriented, integrated, and
decentralized local governance system as well as
global-level managing of networks. However, it is
quite difficult to judge which theory would
guarantee:
• Development and sustainable development
Governance Theories and Models
• Poverty eradication
• Reducing/combating corruption
• Promotion of people’s participation in
development
• Decentralization and innovative/democratic
local governance
• Democratic governance or good governance
11
governance as well as the resilience of governance policies in the current era of complex
nexus problems and severe systemic governance challenges (such as the Internet
of Things, technology, digitalization, and
robotics) (Virtanen and Kaivo-oja 2015).
References
According to White and Killick (2001), there is
no accepted theory of poverty that establishes a
hierarchy of causes, nor is there any widely
adopted model that might serve the same purpose
(cited from Werlin 2003). Jamil Jreisat (2004,
p. 1006) more precisely states that for any national
governance system to succeed in an increasingly
interconnected, rapidly changing world, it needs
to develop a governance system based on a learning and decision-making process, in order to be
able to grow and adapt to citizens’ expectations,
as well as to operate effectively across shifting
boundaries. He further argues that in fostering
reform activities, public institutions must rely on
their own internal learning process, while
adapting to international standards and practices
(Jreisat 2004, p. 1006). Farazmand (2002) very
succinctly expresses this idea as “thinking globally and acting locally.”
Research implications of this study are thus
various. They are listed in detail as follows:
• The built-in flexibility and agility of the “governance concept” taking into account
(a) political-cultural hierarchies in-between
policy regimes and systems as well as
(b) vertically disperse governance and management levels of public administration at
local, regional, national, and transnational
levels
• The role of governance “applications” at different levels of government taking place at
various organizational settings and public service spaces taking into account the role of
combining theoretical, conceptual, and empirical research agendas
• The leadership paradigms and power structure
hierarchies vis-á-vis network-based institutional settings within the domain of
Ahrens J (2002) Governance and economic development: a
comparative institutional approach. Cheltenham and
Northampton, Edgar Elgar
Aminuzzaman SM (2010) Governance and development
discourse in Bangladesh: a diagnostic assessment of
challenges and concerns. In: Vartola J, Ismo L,
Asaduzzaman M (eds) Towards good governance in
South-Asia. Tampere University Press, Tampere,
pp 19–24
Anheier HK, Seibel W (1990) (eds) The third sector comparative studies of non-profit organizations. Walter de
Gruyter, New York
Archibugi D et al (1998) Re-imagining political community: studies in cosmopolitan democracy. Polity Press,
Cambridge, UK
Asaduzzaman M (2011) Innovation in local governance:
decentralization and citizen participation in Bangladesh. In: Anttiroiko AV et al (eds) Innovative trends in
public governance in Asia. ISO Press, Amsterdam,
pp 220–233
Bingham LB et al (2005) The new governance: practices
and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation
in the work of government. Public Adm Rev
65(5):547–558
Blunt P (1995) Cultural relativism, good governance and
sustainable human development. Public Adm Develop
15:1–9
Bourgon J (2011) Responsive, responsible and respected
government: towards a New Public Administration
theory. Int Revi Adm Sci 73(1):7–26
Bratton M, Rothchild D (1992) The institutional bases of
governance in Africa. In: Hyden G, Bratton M (eds)
Governance and politics in Africa. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Farazmand A (2002) Privatization and globalization: a
critical analysis with implications of public management education training. Int Rev Adm Sci
68(3):355–371
Farazmand A (2012) Sound governance: engaging citizens
through collaborative organizations. Public Org Rev
12:223–241
Farazmand A (2013) Governance in the age of globalization: challenges and opportunities for South and Southeast Asia. Public Org Rev 13:349–363
Giere RR (1998) Justifying scientific theories. In: Klemke
ED et al (eds) Introductory readings in the philosophy
of science. Prometheus Books, New York
12
Graham J et al (2003) Governance principles on protected
areas in the 21st century. A discussion paper. Institute
on Governance, the Fifth World Bark Congress, Dublin
Halfani M et al (1994) Towards and understanding of
governance: the emergency of an idea and its implication for urban research in developing countries. The
Center for Urban and Community Studies, University
of Toronto, Toronto
Haque MS (1996) The contexless nature of public administration in third world countries. Int Rev Adm Sci
62(3):315–329
Haque SKTM (2011) The normative roots of governance
theories: prospects and challenger from Bangladesh
perspectives. In: Jamil I et al (eds) Understanding governance and public policy in Bangladesh. North-South
University, Bangladesh, pp 47–70
Hood H (1991) A public management for all seasons.
Public Adm 69:3–19
Hope KR (2005) Towards good governance and sustainable development: the African peer review mechanism.
Int J Policy Adm Inst 18(2):283–311
Hossain F (2001) Administration of development initiatives by non-governmental organisations: a study of
their sustainability in Bangladesh and Nepal. Published
doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere Press
Huque AS (2001) Governance and public management: the
South Asian context. Int J Public Adm
24(12):1289–1297
Hyden G (1992) Governance and the study of politics. In:
Hyden G, Bratton M (eds) Governance and politics in
Africa. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, pp 1–26
Hye HA (2000) Governance: South Asian perspectives.
University Press Limited, Dhaka
Jamil I (1998a) Good governance: tensions between tradition and modernity in Bangladesh Public Administration. Asian Profile 26(5):399–430
Jamil I (1998b) Transational friction between NGOs and
public agencies in Bangladesh: culture or dependency?
Contem South Asia 7(1):43–69
Jessop B (1995) The regulation approach and governance
theory: alternative perspectives on economic and political change. Econ Soc 24(3):307–333
Jordan A et al (2003) Has governance eclipsed government? Pattern of environmental instrument selection
and use in eight states and the EU, CSERGE working
paper EDM 03-15, University of East Anglia, Norwich
Jreisat J (2004) Governance in a globalizing world. Int
J Public Adm 27(13&14):1003–1029
Kaufmann D et al (2000) Aggregating governance indicators, World Bank policy research paper. http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/
WDSP/IB/1999/10/23/000094946_99101105050593/
Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2014
Kohler-Koch B, Rittberger B (2006) Review article: the
governance turn, in EU studies. J Common Mark Stud
44(S1):27–49
Kooiman J (1993) Modern governance: new- government
society relations. Sage, London
Governance Theories and Models
Kruiter A (1996) Good governance for Africa: whose
governance? Unpublished paper, Maastricht, European
Center for Development Policy Management
Landell MP (1991) Governance and external factors. In:
Proceeding of the World Bank annual conference on
development economics. World Bank, Washington,
DC
March JG, Oslen JP (1995) Democratic governance. Free
Press, New York
Minocha OP (1998) Good governance: New Public Management perspective. Indian J Public Adm XLIV
(3):271–280
Mintzberg H (1996) Managing government, governing
management. Harv Bus Rev 74(3):75–83
OECD (1995) Governance in transition: public management in OECD countries. OECD, Paris
Osborne D, Gaebler T (1992) Reinventing government:
how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public
sector. Basic Books, A Plume Book, USA
Parsons T (1951) The social system. Routledge (Reprinted
in 1991)
Peters BG (2001) The future of governing. University
Press of Kansas, Lawrence
Pierre J, Peters GB (2000) Governance, politics and the
state. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Pollitt C (2005) Decentralization. A central concept in
contemporary public management. In: Ferlie
E et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Routledge
and Kegan Paul, New York
Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding governance: policy
networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability.
Open University Press, Buckingham
Rhodes RAW (2001) What is government and why does it
matter? In: Hayward JES, Menon A (eds) Governing
Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Richards D, Smith M (2002) Governance and public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rosenau J (1992) Governance, order, and change in world
politics. In: Rosenau J et al (eds) Governance without
government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rosenau JN, Czempiel EO (eds) (1992) Governance without government: order and change in world politics
(Cambridge studies in international relations). Cambridge University Press
Rosenau JN (1995) Governance in the twenty-first century.
Global Govern 1(1):13–43. http://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/27800099
Schillemans T (2011) Does horizontal accountability
work? Evaluating potential remedies for the accountability deficit of agencies. Adm Soc 43(3):387–416
Schneider V (2004) State theory, governance and the logic
of regulation and administrative control. In:
Warntjen A, Wonka A (eds) Governance in Europe.
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Simon HA et al (1974) Public administration. Reprinted.
Alfred A. Knof, New York
Governance Theories and Models
Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions.
Int J Soc Sci 50(155):17–28
Stowe K (1992) Good piano won’t play bad music: administrative reform and good governance. Public Adm
70(3):387–394
Tiihonen S (2004) From governing to governance. Tampere University Press, Tampere
Tuurnas S (2016) The professional side of co-production.
Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2163. University Press,
Tampere
UNDP (1997) Good governance and sustainable human
development, a UNDP policy documents. www.mag
net.undp.org/Docs/cricis7monograph.htm. Accessed
2 Sep 2015
UNDP (2002) Human development report, deepening
democracy in fragmented world. Oxford University
Press, New York (on line collection)
Vartola J et al (2010) Towards good governance in South
Asia: an introduction. In: Vartola J, Lumijarvi I,
Asaduzzaman M (eds) Towards good governance in
South Asia. University of Tampere Press, Finland
Virtanen P, Kaivo-oja J (2015) Public services and emergent systemic societal challenges. Int J Public Leadersh
11(2):77–91
View publication stats
13
Virtanen P, Kaivo-oja J, Ishino Y, Stenvall J, Jalonen
H (2016) Ubiquitous revolution, customer needs and
business intelligence. Empirical evidence from Japanese Healthcare Sector. Int J Web Eng Technol. Forthcoming, accepted to be published
Werlin HH (2003) Poor nations, Rich nations: a theory of
governance. Public Adm Rev 63(3):329–342
White H, Killick T (2001) African poverty at the millennium: causes, complexities and challenges. World
Bank, Washington, DC
Williams D, Young T (1994) Governance, the World Bank
and liberal theory. Polit Stud 42(1):84–100
World Bank (1994) Governance: The World Bank. http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1994/05/698374/
governance-world-banks-experience Washington, DC
World Bank (1997) World development report 1997. http://
www.decentralization.ws/srcbook/overview.pdf,
Decentralization: an overview. Accessed 6 Apr 2015
Zafarullah H, Huque AS (2001) Public management for
good governance: reforms, regimes, and reality in Bangladesh. Int J Public Adm 24(12):1379–1403