To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Governance comprises all of the processes of governing - whether undertaken by the government of a  state, by a market or by a  network - over a social system (family, tribe, formal or informal organization, a territory or across territories) and whether through the laws, norms, power or language of an organized society.[1] It relates to "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions".[2] In lay terms, it could be described as the political processes that exist in and between formal institutions.

A variety of entities (known generically as governing bodies) can govern. The most formal is a government, a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system (such as a state) by establishing laws. Other types of governing include an organization (such as a corporation recognized as a legal entity by a government), a socio-political group (chiefdom, tribe, gang, family, religious denomination, etc.), or another, informal  group of people. In  business and outsourcing relationships, governance frameworks are built[by whom?] into relational contracts that foster long-term collaboration and innovation.[citation needed]

Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable.[citation needed] The degree of formality depends on the internal rules of a given organization and, externally, with its business partners. As such, governance may take many forms, driven by many different motivations and with many different results. For instance, a government may operate as a democracy where citizens vote on who should govern and the public good is the goal, while a non-profit organization or a corporation may be governed by a small board of directors and pursue more specific aims.

In addition, a variety of external actors without decision-making power can influence the process of governing. These include lobbies, think tanks, political parties, non-government organizations , community and  media.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    3 902
    2 839
    1 189
  • Improving Governance of Public Institutions
  • Institutions of Global Governance | Globalisation | Social Science | Class 10
  • Challenges to Inclusive Institutions’ Governance | London Business School
  • Economic Development, Innovation, Governance and Institutions: Adam Szirmai
  • Ecohyd Open Lecture - Governance institutions for sustainable fisheries... by Milena Schreiber


- [Voiceover] This video introduces a new approach developed by the MITRE Corporation to improve governance of public institutions. It is called the MITRE PCAPS, The Platform for Computational Analysis of Public Systems. While applicable to a broad range of public sector reforums, for this presentation, we'll focus our appoach on judicial reforums and mapping, using data pertaining to the national court system of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Through this example, we demonstrate how computational methods can produce greater confidence in decision making regarding judicial maps and infrastructure. There are several reasons why judicial mapping can be a particularly hard problem. First, a new map must satisfy the varied functional and societal criteria introduced by many different stakeholders. One can see the inevitable tradeoffs that policymakers face when trying to satisfy all of these criteria with limited resources. It becomes a challenge for policymakers to qualify a given map as both optimal and consistant with stakeholder priorities. Second, these criteria draw upon a diverse set of factors, adding further criteria and factors to satisfy a broader set of stakeholders increasingly complicates the development of a new judicial map. Third, the judiciary is part of a complex social system, making it difficult to anticipate how the public's perceptions and use of the courts will change as reforms are enacted over time. MITRE has created a novel technical approach for developing judicial maps, by combining methods and techniques from the social sciences with those from computer science. With this approach, one can be confident in the quality of the analytics, confident in the use of large and diverse data that supports decision making, and confident in the transparency of the underlying processes for creating and evaluating judicial maps. There are four stages of our innovative approach. Measurement, in which we assess the current judicial map to find opportunity for change. Formulation, in which we produce a wider range of choice for evaluation. Rationalization, in which we enable greater understanding of and transparency for potential decisions. And implementation, in which we provide for the standard expectations for high quality policymaking and effective implementation. Measurement: it is always a challenge to relate stakeholder criteria to real world circumstances. To bridge this gap, we first determine relevant indicators of judicial system performance and value, in both court operations and the broader society. With these indicators, we can then identify the factors and corresponding data needed to conceptualize the system for assessment. To establish a baseline for a mapping, we'll seek diverse data relevant to the judicial system, such as geospatial and geopolitical data, population settlements with demographic and sociocultural details, transportation and telecommunication networks, and commercial, economic and professional data. We'll also seek information about court facilities, including details of staffing and other key resources, case loads and historical performance data. We even look for sentiment data about the current opinions of the population. Then we use advanced techniques to analyze this data, acquired from government, public, private and social sources. If we're concerned about the data availability or quality, we'll use techniques to synthesize data, or select acceptable proxy data. Formulation: with support from domain experts and social scientists, we use this diverse data to construct an operational model that encompasses the conditions, resources, demand and performance of the system for judicial mapping. The MITRE PCAPS can evaluate maps against a broader set of criteria. In this example, we search through all possible judicial maps to find those that are most optimal, meaning they deliver maximum value within a given set of factors. We also want to find those that are most robust, meaning they perform well in spite of uncertainties in future conditions, decisions, and possible societal responses to change. And we want to find those that are most popular, the degree to which all stakeholders feel their criteria have been satisfied. To evaluate all the possible judicial maps, even at a rate of one per second, would take literally forever. However, we can accelerate this process significantly, to rapidly discover the frontier of judical maps that could be considered among the best from several points of view. Rationalization: even with the steps we've already taken, there are numerous best maps in the frontier, each satisfying our criteria to differing degrees. So we use further techniques to narrow them down to a small set of maps, sufficiently divergent and representative of choice for policymakers to evaluate. We provide policymakers and reformers with an immersive, interactive, and intuitive experience for evaluating judicial maps, so they may explore the relationships between criteria, resourse allocation, and outcomes. This flexibility makes it easier for them to create the most acceptable map for their stakeholders. Implementation: once policymakers have selected their judicial map, we can determine a sequence of implementation actions that deliver value, control costs, and reduce risks earlier in reform efforts. Through sensitivity analysis, we can evaluate the effects of uncertainty and select the most critical aspects of system performance to instument for monitoring. These monitoring points become the early predictors of systemic progress or failure. With predictive analytics, we can develop benchmarks, so that court administrators and stakeholders can assess reforms throughout their implementation. By sustaining data collection, policymakers can apply this capability in perpetuity, repeating this analytic cycle by continually assessing the judicial map according to shifting priorities. In conclusion, we believe in this innovative approach for improving governance of public institutions. It provides for greater coherence, flexibility, balance, and rationale in decision making, and can be tailored to the features and needs of many nations.


Origin of the word

Like government, the word governance derives, ultimately, from the Greek verb kubernaein [kubernáo] (meaning to steer, the metaphorical sense first being attested in Plato). Its occasional use in English to refer to the specific activity of ruling a country can be traced to early modern England, when the phrase "governance of the realm" appears in works by William Tyndale[3] and in royal correspondence between James V of Scotland and Henry VIII of England.[4] The first usage in connection with institutional structures (as distinct from individual rule) is in Charles Plummer’s The Governance of England (an 1885 translation from a 15th-century Latin work by John Fortescue, also known as The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy). This usage of governance to refer to the arrangements of governing became orthodox including in Sidney Low’s seminal text of the same title in 1904 and among some later British constitutional historians.

However, the use of the term governance in its current broader sense, encompassing the activities of a wide range of public and private institutions, acquired general currency only as recently as the 1990s, when it was re-minted by economists and political scientists and disseminated by institutions such as the UN, IMF and World Bank.[5] Since then, the term has steadily gained increasing usage.


Governance often refers to a particular 'level' of governance associated with a type of organization (including public governance, global governance, non-profit governance, corporate governance, and project governance), a particular 'field' of governance associated with a type of activity or outcome (including environmental governance, internet governance, and information technology governance), or a particular 'model' of governance, often derived as an empirical or normative theory (including regulatory governance, participatory governance, multilevel governance, metagovernance, and collaborative governance).

Governance can also define normative or practical agendas. Normative concepts of fair governance or good governance are common among political, public sector, voluntary, and private sector organizations.

Governance as process

In its most abstract sense, governance is a theoretical concept referring to the actions and processes by which stable practices and organizations arise and persist. These actions and processes may operate in formal and informal organizations of any size; and they may function for any purpose, good or evil, for profit or not. Conceiving of governance in this way, one can apply the concept to states, to corporations, to non-profits, to NGOs, to partnerships and other associations, to business relationships (especially complex outsourcing relationships), to project teams, and to any number of humans engaged in some purposeful activity.

Most theories of governance as process arose out of neoclassical economics. These theories build deductive models, based on the assumptions of modern economics, to show how rational actors may come to establish and sustain formal organizations, including firms and states, and informal organizations, such as networks and practices for governing the commons. Many of these theories draw on transaction cost economics.[6]

Public governance

There is a distinction between the concepts of governance and politics. Politics involves processes by which a group of people (perhaps with divergent opinions or interests) reach collective decisions generally regarded as binding on the group, and enforced as common policy. Governance, on the other hand, conveys the administrative and process-oriented elements of governing rather than its antagonistic ones.[7] Such an argument continues to assume the possibility of the traditional separation between "politics" and "administration". Contemporary governance practice and theory sometimes questions this distinction, premising that both "governance" and "politics" involve aspects of power and accountability.

In general terms, public governance occurs in three broad ways:

  • Through networks involving public-private partnerships (PPP) or with the collaboration of community organisations;
  • Through the use of market mechanisms whereby market principles of competition serve to allocate resources while operating under government regulation;
  • Through top-down methods that primarily involve governments and the state bureaucracy.

Private governance

Private governance occurs when non-governmental entities, including private organizations, dispute resolution organizations, or other third party groups, make rules and/or standards which have a binding effect on the "quality of life and opportunities of the larger public." Simply put, private—not public—entities are making public policy. For example, insurance companies exert a great societal impact, largely invisible and freely accepted, that is a private form of governance in society; in turn, reinsurers, as private companies, may exert similar private governance over their underlying carriers.[8] The term "public policy" should not be exclusively associated with policy that is made by government. Public policy may be created by either the private sector or the public sector. If one wishes to refer only to public policy that is made by government, the best term to use is "governmental policy," which eliminates the ambiguity regarding the agent of the policy making.

Global governance

Global governance is defined as "the complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental, through which collective interests on the global plane are articulated, right and obligations are established, and differences are mediated".[9] In contrast to the traditional meaning of "governance", some authors like James Rosenau have used the term "global governance" to denote the regulation of interdependent relations in the absence of an overarching political authority.[10] The best example of this is the international system or relationships between independent states. The term, however, can apply wherever a group of free equals needs to form a regular relationship.

Governance Analytical Framework

The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF) is a practical methodology for investigating governance processes, where various stakeholders interact and make decisions regarding collective issues, thus creating or reinforcing social norms and institutions. It is postulated that governance processes can be found in any society, and unlike other approaches, that these can be observed and analysed from a non-normative perspective. It proposes a methodology based on five main analytical units: problems, actors, norms, processes and "nodal points". These logically articulated analytical units make up a coherent methodology aimed at being used as a tool for empirical social policy research.[2][11][12]

Nonprofit governance

Nonprofit governance has a dual focus: achieving the organization's social mission and the ensuring the organization is viable. Both responsibilities relate to fiduciary responsibility that a board of trustees (sometimes called directors, or Board, or Management Committee—the terms are interchangeable) has with respect to the exercise of authority over the explicit actions the organization takes. Public trust and accountability is an essential aspect of organizational viability so it achieves the social mission in a way that is respected by those whom the organization serves and the society in which it is located.

Corporate governance

Corporate organizations often use the word governance to describe both:

  1. The manner in which boards or their like direct a corporation
  2. The laws and customs (rules) applying to that direction

Corporate governance consists of the set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions affecting the way people direct, administer or control a corporation. Corporate governance also includes the relationships among the many players involved (the stakeholders) and the corporate goals. The principal players include the shareholders, management, and the board of directors. Other stakeholders include employees, suppliers, customers, banks and other lenders, regulators, the environment and the community at large.

The first documented use of the word "corporate governance" is by Richard Eells (1960, p. 108) to denote "the structure and functioning of the corporate polity". The "corporate government" concept itself is older and was already used in finance textbooks at the beginning of the 20th century (Becht, Bolton, Röell 2004).

Project governance

Project governance is the management framework within which project decisions are made.

Environmental governance

Land governance

Land governance is concerned with issues of land ownership and tenure. It consists of the policies, processes and institutions by which decisions about the access to, use of and control over land are made, implemented and enforced; it is also about managing and reconciling competing claims on land. In developing countries, it is relevant as a tool to contribute to equitable and sustainable development, addressing the phenomenon that is known as ‘land grabbing’.[13][14] The operational dimension of land governance is land administration.

Security of land tenure is considered to contribute to poverty reduction and food security, since it can enable farmers to fully participate in the economy. Without recognized property rights, it is hard for small entrepreneurs, farmers included, to obtain credit or sell their business[15] - hence the relevance of comprehensive land governance.

There is constant feedback between land tenure problems and land governance. For instance, it has been argued that what is frequently called 'land grabbing', was partly made possible by the Washington Consensus-inspired liberalization of land markets in developing countries. Many land acquisition deals were perceived to have negative consequences, and this in turn led to initiatives to improve land governance in developing countries.[16]

The quality of land governance depends on its practical implementation, which is known as land administration: ‘the way in which rules of land tenure are made operational’. And another factor is accountability: the degree to which citizens and stakeholder groups are consulted and can hold to account their authorities.[17]

The main international policy initiative to improve land governance is known as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT),[18] endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS).

Internet governance

Information technology governance

IT governance primarily deals with connections between business focus and IT management. The goal of clear governance is to assure the investment in IT generate business value and mitigate the risks that are associated with IT projects.[19]

Regulatory governance

Regulatory governance reflects the emergence of decentered and mutually adaptive policy regimes which rests on regulation rather than service provision or taxing and spending.[20] The term captures the tendency of policy regimes to deal with complexity with delegated system of rules. It is likely to appear in arenas and nations which are more complex, more global, more contested and more liberally democratic.[21] The term builds upon and extends the terms of the regulatory state on the one hand and governance on the other. While the term regulatory state marginalize non-state actors (NGOs and Business) in the domestic and global level, the term governance marginalizes regulation as a constitutive instrument of governance. The term regulatory governance therefore allows us to understand governance beyond the state and governance via regulation.

Participatory governance

Participatory governance focuses on deepening democratic engagement through the participation of citizens in the processes of governance with the state. The idea is that citizens should play a more direct roles in public decision-making or at least engage more deeply with political issues. Government officials should also be responsive to this kind of engagement. In practice, participatory governance can supplement the roles of citizens as voters or as watchdogs through more direct forms of involvement.[22]

Contract governance

(See also contract management.) Emerging thinking about contract governance is focusing on creating a governance structure in which the parties have a vested interest in managing what are often highly complex contractual arrangements in a more collaborative, aligned, flexible, and credible way.[23] In 1979, Nobel laureate Oliver Williamson wrote that the governance structure for a contract is the “framework within which the integrity of a transaction is decided.” Adding further that “because contracts are varied and complex, governance structures vary with the nature of the transaction.”[24]

Multilevel governance


"Metagovernance" is the "governing of governing".[25] It represents the established ethical principles, or 'norms', that shape and steer the entire governing process. It is important to note that there are no clearly defined settings within which metagoverning takes place, or particular persons who are responsible for it. While some[who?] believe metagoverning to be the role of the state which is assumed to want to steer actors in a particular direction, it can "potentially be exercised by any resourceful actor"[26] who wishes to influence the governing process. Examples of this include the publishing of codes of conduct at the highest level of international government,[27] and media focus on specific issues[28] at the socio-cultural level. Despite their different sources, both seek to establish values in such a way that they become accepted 'norms'. The fact that 'norms' can be established at any level and can then be used to shape the governance process as whole, means metagovernance is part of both the input and the output of the governing system.[29]

Collaborative governance

A collaborative governance framework uses a relationship management structure, joint performance and transformation management processes and an exit management plan as controlling mechanisms to encourage the organizations to make ethical, proactive changes for the mutual benefit of all the parties.[30]

Security sector governance

Security sector governance (SSG) is a subpart concept or framework of security governance that focuses specifically on decisions about security and their implementation within the security sector of a single state. SSG applies the principles of good governance to the security sector in question.[31]

As a normative concept

Fair governance

When discussing governance in particular organizations, the quality of governance within the organization is often compared to a standard of good governance. In the case of a business or of a non-profit organization, for example, good governance relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, guidance, processes and decision-rights for a given area of responsibility, and proper oversight and accountability. "Good governance" implies that mechanisms function in a way that allows the executives (the "agents") to respect the rights and interests of the stakeholders (the "principals"), in a spirit of democracy.

Good governance

Good governance is an indeterminate term used in international development literature to describe various normative accounts of how public institutions ought to conduct public affairs and manage public resources. These normative accounts are often justified on the grounds that they are thought to be conducive to economic ends, such as the eradication of poverty and successful economic development. Unsurprisingly different organizations have defined governance and good governance differently to promote different normative ends.

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.[32]

The Worldwide Governance Indicators project of the World Bank defines governance as:

the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised.[33]

This considers the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies and the respect of citizens and the state of the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.

An alternate definition sees governance as:

the use of institutions, structures of authority and even collaboration to allocate resources and coordinate or control activity in society or the economy.[34]

According to the United Nations Development Programme's Regional Project on Local Governance for Latin America:

Governance has been defined as the rules of the political system to solve conflicts between actors and adopt decision (legality). It has also been used to describe the "proper functioning of institutions and their acceptance by the public" (legitimacy). And it has been used to invoke the efficacy of government and the achievement of consensus by democratic means (participation).[35]

Measurement and assessment

Since the early years of the 2000s (decade),[when?] efforts have been conducted in the research and international development community to assess and measure the quality of governance of countries all around the world. Measuring governance is inherently a controversial and somewhat political exercise. A distinction is therefore made between external assessments, peer assessments and self-assessments. Examples of external assessments are donor assessments or comparative indices produced by international non-governmental organizations. An example of a peer assessment is the African Peer Review Mechanism. Examples of self-assessments are country-led assessments that can be led by government, civil society, researchers and/or other stakeholders at the national level.

One of these efforts to create an internationally comparable measure of governance and an example of an external assessment is the Worldwide Governance Indicators project, developed by members of the World Bank and the World Bank Institute. The project reports aggregate and individual indicators for more than 200 countries for six dimensions of governance: voice and accountability, political stability and lack of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption. To complement the macro-level cross-country Worldwide Governance Indicators, the World Bank Institute developed the World Bank Governance Surveys, which are country-level governance assessment tools that operate at the micro or sub-national level and use information gathered from a country’s own citizens, business people and public sector workers to diagnose governance vulnerabilities and suggest concrete approaches for fighting corruption.

A Worldwide Governance Index (WGI)[36] was developed in 2009 and is open for improvement through public participation. The following domains, in the form of indicators and composite indexes, were selected to achieve the development of the WGI: Peace and Security, Rule of Law, Human Rights and Participation, Sustainable Development, and Human Development. Additionally, in 2009 the Bertelsmann Foundation published the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), which systematically measure the need for reform and the capacity for reform within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The project examines to what extent governments can identify, formulate and implement effective reforms that render a society well-equipped to meet future challenges, and ensure their future viability.[37] Section 10 of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act requires U.S. federal agencies to publish their strategic and performance plans and reports in machine-readable format.

The International Budget Partnership (IBP) launched the Open Budget Initiative in 2006 with the release of the first Open Budget Survey (OBS). The OBS is a comprehensive analysis and survey that evaluates whether central governments give the public access to budget documents and provide opportunities for public participation in the budget process. To measure the overall commitment to transparency, the IBP created Open Budget Index (OBI), which assigns a score to each country based on the results of the survey. While the OBS is released biannually, the IBP recently released a new OBS Tracker, which serves as an online tool for civil society, the media, and other actors to monitor in real time whether governments are releasing eight key budget documents. The Open Budget Index data are used by the Open Government Partnership, development aid agencies, and increasingly investors in the private sector as key indicators of governance, particularly fiscal transparency and management of public funds.[38] Examples of country-led assessments include the Indonesian Democracy Index, monitoring of the Millennium Development Goal 9 on Human Rights and Democratic Governance in Mongolia and the Gross National Happiness Index in Bhutan.

Section 10 of the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act (GPRAMA) requires U.S. federal agencies to publish their performance plans and reports in machine-readable format, thereby providing the basis for evaluating the quality of their performance of the governance functions entrusted to them, as specified in their strategic objectives and performance indicators. Publishing performance reports openly on the Web in a standard, machine-readable format is good practice for all organizations whose plans and reports should be matters of public record.

See also


  1. ^ Compare: Bevir, Mark (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Governance refers, therefore, to all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market, or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization, or territory, and whether through laws, norms, power or language. Governance differs from government in that it focuses less on the state and its institutions and more on social practices and activities.
  2. ^ a b Hufty, Marc (2011). "Investigating Policy Processes: The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF). In: Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., et al. eds. Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives". Bern: Geographica Bernensia: 403–24.
  3. ^ "When the king's grace came first to the right of the crown, and unto the governance of the realm young and unexpert..." William Tyndale; John Frith (1831). The works of Tyndale. Ebenezer Palmer. p. 452.
  4. ^ "We have put all our confidence, has als actyflie with ye help of our derrest Modir takin on Ws ye governance of our Realme": "Letter of James V to Henry VIII". State Papers: King Henry the Eighth; Part IV. Murray. 1836. p. 95.
  5. ^ Étymologie du terme "gouvernance", document prepared by the European Commission.
  6. ^ Williamson, Oliver E. (1979) "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations," Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 22: No. 2, Article 3|accessible at:
  7. ^ Offe, Claus, (2009) Governance: An “Empty Signifier”? Constellations, 16: 550–62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00570.x
  8. ^ Marcos Antonio Mendoza, "Reinsurance as Governance: Governmental Risk Management Pools as a Case Study in the Governance Role Played by Reinsurance Institutions", 21 Conn. Ins. L.J. 53, 68–70 (2014)
  9. ^ Thakur, Ramesh; Van Langenhove, Luk (2006). "Enhancing Global Governance through Regional Integration". Global Governance. 12 (3 July, September): 233–40.
  10. ^ James N. Rosenau, "Toward an Ontology for Global Governance", in Martin Hewson and Thomas Sinclair, eds., Approaches to Global Governance Theory, SUNY Press, Albany, 1999.
  11. ^ Hufty, Marc (2011). "Governance: Exploring four approaches and their relevance to research. In: Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., et al. editors. Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives". Bern: Geographica Bernensia: 165–183.
  12. ^ Spear, Cornforth & Aiken, 2009. The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 89(2): 247–73.
  13. ^ Focus on Land in Africa (
  14. ^ Policy Paper: Good Land Governance. Global Land Tool Network, no date.
  15. ^ De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books. 2000
  16. ^ Mayke Kaag and Annelies Zoomers: The global land grab: beyond the hype, Zed Books, 2014
  17. ^ Mayke Kaag and Annelies Zoomers, op. cit.
  18. ^ VGGT
  19. ^ Smallwood, Deb (March 2009). "IT Governance: A Simple Model". Tech Decision CIO Insights.
  20. ^ David Levi-Faur, "Regulation & Regulatory Governance", in David Levi-Faur, Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011, pp. 1–20.
  21. ^ Braithwaite, John, Cary Coglianese, and David Levi‐Faur. "Can regulation and governance make a difference?." Regulation & Governance 1.1 (2007): 1–7.
  22. ^ 'Triumph, Deficit or Contestation? Deepening the 'Deepening Democracy' Debate' Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper 264 July 2006.
  23. ^ Unpacking Outsourcing Governance: How to Build a Sound Governance Structure to Drive Insight Versus Oversight|[1]|2015|Vested Way|accessed 17 August 2016
  24. ^ Williamson, Oliver E. (1979) "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations," Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 22: No. 2, Article 3|accessible at:
  25. ^ Kooiman, J. Governing as Governance. Sage publications 2003. p. 170.
  26. ^ Sorensen, E. Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance. American Review of Public Administration. Volume 36 2006, pp. 98–114 (p. 103).
  27. ^ Onyango, P & Jentoft, S. Assessing Poverty in small-scale fisheries in Lake Victoria, Tanzania.Fish and Fisheries. Volume 11 2010, pp. 250–63 (p. 258).
  28. ^ Evans, J. Environmental Governance. Routledge 2012. p. 40.
  29. ^ Kooiman, J. Governing as Governance. Sage publications 2003. p. 171.
  30. ^ Vitasek, Kate; et al. (2011). The Vested Outsourcing Manual (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0230112684.
  31. ^ Security Sector Governance. SSR Backgrounder Series. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). 2015.
  32. ^ World Bank, Managing Development – The Governance Dimension, 1991, Washington D.C., p. 1
  33. ^ A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance.
  34. ^ Bell, Stephen, 2002. Economic Governance and Institutional Dynamics, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.
  35. ^ This is a very widely cited definition, as in Applebaugh, J. (rapporteur), "Governance Working Group", power-point presentation, National Defense University and ISAF, 2010, slide 22.
  36. ^ "World Governance Index 2009 Report". World Governance. Archived from the original on 4 October 2011. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
  37. ^ Empter, Stefan; Janning, Josef (2009). "Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009 – An Introduction". In Stiftung, Bertelsmann. Policy Performance and Executive Capacity in the OECD. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
  38. ^ Castro, Michael, 12 September 2013, Open Budgets Key to Open Government: Next Steps for OGP Countries, retrieved 2 December 2014


External links

This page was last edited on 1 December 2018, at 19:46
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.