The definition of governance is anticipated from a multifaceted dimension considering the processes in the administration of social aspects both in public and private sectors. Derived from the Latin word “gubernare” which means steer, governance hence refers to the processes involved in directing, steering, or controlling of a group of resources to achieve set objectives. According to Bovaird and Löffler (2004), the concept of governance has a direct influence on politics as it refers to ideas on state, power structures, institutional order, and the ideals of justice within a system. The areas of focus that governance encompasses are similar to the political spheres when it comes to the dynamics of public administration (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). Governance, however, has a lesser scope of interest compared to politics, as politics majors on the need to achieve ideal societies as well as a good life. Governance on its part remains aligned to the concept of democracy, the main focus is on the decision-making processes by civilian authorities as well as a government institution.
Governance definition, derived from the above insights holds that in the exercise of authority by leadership to ensuring the wellbeing of their subjects refers to governance. The power process in governance remains a complex factor that seeks to ensure that different facets of what is considered as a single body remains facilitated in a structured manner (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). The aim of governance in a larger spectrum aims at inspiring deliberate efforts that can lead to the realization of a better functioning regime or social order (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). Effective governance practices according to Goran Hyden provide politicians and administrators with governance responsibilities a chance for clarity in the sense that, they provide keen attention to structural and political matters. Leaders are therefore encouraged to go beyond the normal rules and structures of governance to make the lives of their societies better. Governance has become a uniquely important concept in institutional management as well as global geopolitics. Key policymakers both at government and intergovernmental levels have always worked on several modalities that warrant resource mobilization and allocation. Institutions such as IMF and local treasuries have always relied on competent governance structures to align their development plans. According to Howlett, Ramesh, and Wu (2015), the IMF and other global financial institutions, financial assistance is always anchored on the governance index. Such measurements are incurred through ensuring that there exists a conscious and clear regime that not only allows for effective management of resources but fosters maximum benefits at the grassroots level of dependency. Politics occupies a central role in the governance system. Institutions and governments are formed based on politics, the struggle between power and will, the potential that lies in politics remains attributed to the existence of ability among leaders to identify and spearhead change processes in their institutions (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Governance hence revolves around the need to create political actors in the forms of interventions as a way of inspiring change processes. The comparative nature and analysis required in governance ensure that the preferred approach in decision making are elaborate and factors aspects of both macro as well as micro-politics (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). Governance, in essence, allows for a continuous establishment in rules that govern political conduct. The dynamics of management according to the works of Goran Hayden emphasize the influence creating stronger relationships has on governance. The focus hence remains on how governments align themselves with the incoming managerial structures (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). The efforts herein are capable of moving societies forward without necessarily changing the productive directions occupied by society. Hayden's conclusions on governance point to the importance the concept holds on public administration, political development, and legitimacy in public resource mobilization. The efforts that exist within such concepts are considerably elaborate in the sense that, it becomes allowable to divulge the need for comparative politics. Governance, therefore, is a gauge of political and managerial development. Governance acts as a useful mechanism, which plays the role of enhancing public legitimacy. The particular aspects of governance include among other features networking, control, domination, and resource mobilization. Government institutions and the private sector always work towards ensuring that there exists a connection as well as an effective governance structure for purposes of resource management (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). In essence, governance refers to the continued exercise of authority for the purposes of ensuring a need to protect the citizenry through legal frameworks. The enactment of laws by the government and all participating institutions are all geared towards ensuring that human interaction with the institutions has a common objective, a better sectorial development (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). The common objective aligned with governance has remained in ensuring that resources are utilized effectively for the benefit of the community. Governance-based studies allow learners to remain objective in their understanding of power, politics, and resource management. According to Howlett, Ramesh, and Wu (2015) understanding governance enables citizens in any society to realize what best works for them in different situations in life. The awareness levels created by ideal governance situations allow for continued empowerment processes that not only act as indicators of governance but inform critical actions in resource use and decision-making (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). The decision-making aspect of governance makes it a significant tool in the implementation of communal needs as it allows governments and other structures of administrations to elevate themselves above self-defeating processes. Projected associations in government ensure that there exists an understanding of how to actualize different government decisions. The definition of governance elaborates on the fact that it is a process of decision-making and implementation of already existing decisions. Decision making as per the term governance refers to the dynamics around socio-economic structures and institutions. Decisions in society are arrived at after periods of involvement, having good governance processes ensures that actors in society are all involved in the process of arriving at the decision (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). The logic behind actualization of ideas through the decision making and implementation of such decisions forms a key part of processes that actors of governance consider as they aspire to constitute constructive governance or government. Implementation and decision-making are therefore regarded as co-processes that are dependent on one another for there to be realized a functional governance process. Analyzing the functioning of state and institutions that play a key role in its formation requires a close understanding of “actors” and “structures”. Decision-making and subsequent implementation rely on the existing formalities and key players that harbor the mechanisms and facilitate the entire governance process (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Actors in governance refer to the groups of sectors and in most cases institutions involved in participating across localized jurisdictions for purposes of making decisions or implementing already formulated structures (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). Actors normally participate in decision-making processes as a way of setting into motion other key institutions into action. Governments and lead agencies are always expected to pass on legislation or policies through communication channels. It is from such communication that other facets of government or liaison committees then receive the mandate to implement such decisions made at a higher level of the governance structures. The existing structure between different actors helps in formalizing any decisions made by institutions. The faceted nature of governance ensures that its scope of application remains wider. The application of governance takes different contexts including local and national governance, corporate governance, as well as international governance. At these different levels of governance, institutions form the actors at all levels of governance. The commitment nature of these institutions plays an important role in determining how effective the structures are at implementing the decisions made at the lead agency level (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). As key players, it becomes imperative that governance actors at varied levels, either national or international are keen on implementing the nature of decisions made at the leading level of governance. Depending on the scope the decisions made by any organization are felt, it becomes a determining factor on how to explore and implement any key decisions within the governance structure. The different structures allow for the establishment of either an effectively working governance system or an ineffective system of governance that would be considerate of the decisions made and the needs of the larger society. Governments at state levels are always regarded as the main actors in the structure of governance. Regardless of the players and actors, the government plays an important role in the different levels of decision-making. Government policies and legislated laws are always binding at the state jurisdiction level. Government policies and key ministerial policies are important in ensuring that governments are capable of managing their expectations and setting the national agenda. It is from government decisions in the forms of policies that different players both at sectorial levels are capable of aligning their institutions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Government departments, local corporates, and even households are always influenced by government policies on issues such as taxation policies, budgetary allocation, and development investments (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Government decisions and how they are implemented hence takes a significant influence on how other facets of the economy operate and respond to demands in society. The responsibility of governments in any economy remains in setting the agenda for development and depending on development policies that it passes, they are directly influential in how sectors respond to implementing these concepts (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). The government working within the public sector, institutions charged with implementing government policies ensure that there exists a common good within the sectorial level as well as the intergovernmental level where participants are mandated to taking part on ensuring that there exists a favorable environment of operation for other actors to plan and execute their roles. Civil societies, non-governmental organizations, are community-based enterprises that form a critical sectorial facet of governance. Examples of community-based actors include cooperative societies, charitable institutions, political parties, religious organizations, and research institutions. The aspiration of these institutions remains focused on the existing need to fulfilling the void created by different factors that limit holistic living in society. The civil societies as private entities are responsible for ensuring that public functions as specified by the government are beneficial to the communities (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Depending on their expertise, non-governmental organizations are always considered effective in providing supporting roles as well as services to disaster units. Decision making at government levels has always been perceived as the key determinant in understanding how institutions such as the media, multinationals organizations, international donors, and other humanitarian agencies are always affected significantly by the diverse nature of government decisions. Governments have always worked towards ensuring that all actors within their jurisdiction operate within the allowable designations of its key decisions. Establishments such as the media and other private actors always seek to confine their roles within what is permissible in government policies. The association of governance with government has always been derived from its two key aspects, politics and power. Governance has remained aligned to various actors including public sector and private sector actors that diversely serve alternating interests in ensuring that citizens benefit from better resource-use. Sectorial governance plays out around three tenets including civil society, private sector, and the public sector (World Economic Forum, 2015). The civil society includes non-governmental organizations that remain keen on serving special interest groups (World Economic Forum, 2013). The public sector refers to government inclined institutions, majorly the state-owned facilities whose main role is to ensure that the government remains in a position of delivering services to the civilians (Howlett, Ramesh, & Wu, 2015). The private sector includes include privately owned properties such as companies and households. Private sector actors directly benefit their owners and offer a link between the public and private sectors. Governance actors are an important concept of an understanding relationship between different cogs of decision making. The creation of networks remains an important aspect of ensuring that governments are capable of achieving their social obligation from both sectorial and social aspects of involvement (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). The network's efficiency allows for a broader spectrum in the manner in which they integrate the different roles of government both at the governmental as well as intergovernmental levels (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Governments have always worked towards ensuring that there exists real level management of resources as a way of creating a balance in power dynamics. Governments ostensibly have to continuously rely on the socially sound structures that pattern the needs of the society in where such authority is exercised. Governance helps create an understanding between the factors of power such as domination and control. The aspects of control in governance allow scholars and authorities exercising facets of governance to consider issues such as decentralization of power, relational management, and the nature in which power is exercised across different sectors of society (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Governance structures are hence patterned like control and command where governments through its institutions of influence have always been associated with how power is exercised. Governance as a model of management continues to be used as a modality in measuring factors that determine resilience within the sectors of any economy as well as the effectiveness of government strategies. Concepts of governance such as power decentralization help in measuring the impact and influence delegation of responsibility to lower sectors have on the well-being of the governed members of the society. According to Bovaird and Löffler (2004) decentralization allows for the introduction of new levels of decision-making promoting autonomy and independence among the key sectors of society. The realization that governments cannot change lives but facilitate the change process informs the entire idea of governance. Governments adopting effective governance systems have in context banked on the ability of their citizens to form an initiative that not only allows them to be self-reliant but create wealth within the economy (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Governance allows governments not only to depend on the public sector to generate wealth but a collective effort from all three sectors of governance. Decision-making at the state level should, therefore, be a holistic trend that sees different sectors other than the public and government both participate in making decisions that directly affect the welfare of the entire society. Governance advocates for a shift in ideology with several scholarly findings suggesting the idea that organizations need to debunk the traditional decision-making hierarchy. According to Bovaird and Löffler (2004), governance structures should be dispersed following the ideas of decentralization to ensure that both power and governance are all but objectively aligned to the needs of the public. Governments and governance provide society with a platform from which they can objectively use powers derived from politics and resource management. Governments are hence structured systems in the forms of institutionalized bureaucracies that control resources while governances entail means of facilitating the exploitation of such resources without resorting to dominance (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Governance and government hence allow for a coherent existence in resource mobilization without necessarily resorting to abuse of power. Through effective and good governance, citizens can realize the benefits of their efforts. Governance allows governments and other state sectors to plan, facilitate, and execute roles without incurring objections from the beneficiaries. Understanding good governance calls on a better understanding of the decision-making and implementation processes. Good governance relies on several factors that if effectively implemented, the operations of the three sectors would objectively respond to the needs of the immediate society (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Good governance emphasizes on these developmental pathways that seek to divulge the need for good governance and development trajectory for the local community (World Bank, 2019). Good governance depending on the objectives of the government and institutions observing the concept is all aimed at ensuring that human capital is effectively expended for people empowerment (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Key among the objectives of good governance has always remained in ensuring that social rights, needs, and prosperity are achieved. Good governance indicators act as contemporary channels of measuring how creating a better environment would help in ensuring that the society as an actor in government is involved and benefits from the leading decisions made at the higher levels of government (Langbein, & Knack, 2010). The target of the majority of government decisions has always remained socio-economic geared towards elevating the status of the common members of society (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Members of the society under good governance feel that they have adequately participated in making key decisions through actively getting involved in decision-making. As such, public participation continues to remain a critical aspect of governance. A highly recommended approach of decision-making has been described as the bottom-up approach where decisions are made at the remote level of governance structure and adopted by the top levels of administration. The method takes a horizontal structure in making decisions making it quite inclusive of all opinions and decentralizes power and responsibilities to the local levels of administration. Good governance remains observant of the rule of law in that actors remain critical and observant of the leading laws that work to govern resource use and decision-making (Thomas, 2010). The decisions in forms of laws and policies have to appear to be observant of justice and existing legislation. The decisions have to be responsive to the needs of the population. According to Bovaird and and Löffler (2004) good governance has to be effective in its execution of roles as a way of ensuring that the needs of the society are met, efficient in using available resources to spur maximized benefits among the population. The processes adopted in governance measures have to be considered transparent in ways with which they help prevent the advancement of self-interest (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). Responsibility should focus on delivering what many might look to describe as a responsive governance system that is interested in making a better life for the citizens through responding to challenges such as gender issues, resource allocation, security, and other needs that makes it possible to achieve success (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Finally, good governance has to ensure that there exists an equitable structure through which resources can be effectively and inclusively delivered to the needing members of society. The systems of governance adopted should be regarded as acceptable among all the involved parties; hence governance decisions have to be considerably consensus-oriented. The formal governance structure and actors are elaborately defined in the preceding paragraphs. The existence of informal governance structure has always been limited to the responsibility of governance systems to work towards elevating families into what would then be regarded as legitimate objectives. Informal actors in governance are always considered as the cause of bad governance. According to Bovaird and Löffler (2004) bureaucracies within government or private corporate structures of governance lead to manipulation of laws and government policies and decisions. The local authorities are most affected by such private interests that often lean to the influence of a few individuals in society. Such structures are always associated with those in positions of power and influences that use their authority to manipulate governance processes for self-gain. Examples of informal actors in governance include crime-syndicates, service delivery cartels, and brokers of government services (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Through the use of their positions in office or that of those close to them, such individuals have always managed to aggrandize themselves with public resources. The impact of such diverted resources and decisions lead to bad governance as well as mismanagement of public resources. Informal actors of governance disrupt the normal operation of institutions and well as government structure. The effect of such disregard of the law remains on the continuous abuse of office or disruption of the legitimate intentions of government decisions. Bad governance as a result of self-interests propagated by informal actors always curtails the objectives of government decisions (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). The mismanagement of resources for self-gain ensures that governance players are not in a position of initiating development projects that benefit society as always is the objective. It is on such grounds that we have seen governments, institutions of finance, and international monetary organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank peg their lending models on factors such as resource utilization. Resources are targeted at projects and their economic impacts as opposed to blanket lending for the sake of lending. The good governance index has been a key factor in the international relationship between the institutions and their member states (Bovaird & Löffler, 2004). For example, the IMF continues to demand good governance and management of existing resources based on their conditionality guidelines before they can extend development concessions, loans, or grants. The objective has always pegged on the need to align the member states lending money from financial institutions to ensure that such resources are accessed in the interest of the public rather than individuals who have no civilian interests (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2019). Development and good governance structures have always meant that there exists a need to reforming faulty systems of governance while seeking to implement policies that have a real impact on the lives of the subjects. Without such dedication, it becomes difficult to realize the potential of the policy statements made at different levels of governance. Governance in the context of public administration refers to the role of government as the de-facto decision-maker where the leading agencies are entrusted by executing the will of the government. According to Niemandt (2015), the government, through its legal powers, plays the role of control and delegation of resources. From a biblical perspective, authority as granting to Kings and other leaders of the society was anchored on their ability to discharge justice, protect, and offer a stable environment for prosperity (Niemandt, 2015). The government has the responsibility and the power to control what is regarded as acceptable in society for the sake of meeting the needs of the members of society. Such attributes of government and governance are captured in the Book of Roman 13:4, where governments through ministers of God are expected to protect the society from evildoing. The scripture bestows upon governments the necessary authority to control and make justice a key aspect in decision-making while punishing any evildoers. Biblical governance perspective as shared in the scripture 1 Peter 2:13-14, where the faithful are urged to submit themselves before authority and any human institution that is perceived to administer justice. In this aspect, the bible recognizes the rule of law as an integral aspect of governance and better living in society. Finally, the quote from Jesus when he preached on the topic of governance and where the authority lies between religion and government institutions, Jesus responded to the argument as captured in Mathew 22:20-22. Different scriptures from biblical perspectives can be used to justify the essence of good governance as a precursor to meeting the needs of the public.
References
Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2004). Understanding public management and governance. In Public management and governance (pp. 27-38). Routledge.
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2019). Understanding Corporate Governance through Learning Models of Managerial Competence. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 48 (1), 7-29.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics, governance, and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration, 30 (3-4), 209-220.
Langbein, L., & Knack, S. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Six, one, or none? The Journal of Development Studies, 46 (2), 350-370.
Niemandt, C. J. (2015). Together towards life and mission: A basis for good governance in church and society today. Verbum et Ecclesia , 36 (1), 1-10.
Thomas, M. A. (2010). What do the worldwide governance indicators measure? The European Journal of Development Research, 22 (1), 31-54.
Thomas, M. A. (2010). What do the worldwide governance indicators measure? The European Journal of Development Research, 22 (1), 31-54.
World Bank. (2019). The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). Retrieved from https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
World Economic Forum. (2013). The Future Role of Civil Society. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FutureRoleCivilSociety_Report_2013.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2015). Responsive and Accountable Public Governance. Retrieved from http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN95253.pdf
