Talk:Governance/Archive 1

Archive 1

definitions

The problem with the current definition of Governance in this article is that it describes governing, not governance. Governing is an action, Governance refers to the system or structure of governing an organization. Also the definition below "Governance is the application of oversight to organized activities" describes good governance but does not define the word. I would propose the definition "Governance is the structure and rules that define the relationship between staff, directors and stakeholders in an organization" This definition allows the encompassing of both good governance and bad, and is applicable to government, business and other organizations. An organizational structure that does not provide proper oversight is bad governance. An organization that does not provide accountability to stakeholders is also bad governance. An organizational structure that provides both could be good governance. Any opinions? Kanada (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is more than 40 definition of Governance. Also, the term is used continually in publications, conferences and discussions with no definition, leaving it open for everyone to apply his or her own interpretation. Governance, because it has an important application and role in the success of governments, civil society organizations and businesses, should be addressed in a similar manner. The first step is to find a reasonable degree of common agreement on the fundamentals of governance. Here is an outline of governance fundamentals that might be added to the current article. What do you think?

2008 05 14 - we should start with offical/global/generic definitions: UN, OECD (lots to find here) initiatives, etc. Then goto sectoral official (BIS, World Bank), professional (IFAC, IIA, ISACA, ...) and regional specifics, later to the rest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.208.135 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Definition of Governance

Governance is the application of oversight to organized activities

• governments and government agencies (at all levels)
• civil society organizations
• businesses (for profit and not for profit)

to ensure, for the benefit of the resource providers to these activities (taxpayers, donors and investors), that these resources are managed in a sound manner and within established and agreed upon goals and time frames.

• Fundamental requirements for the application of Governance
• Appropriate structured governing bodies
• Qualified members of governing bodies
• Formal guidelines for members of governing bodies
• Clear delegations of authority
• Transparency and accountability to resource providers
• Essential tools to work with, such as –

• Mission statements for the organizations
• Business plans
• Performance measurement systems
• Management and financial audit authority

• Fundamental requirements for members of governing bodies

The appropriate education and experience to ensure the that organizations are managed in an effective, efficient, legal and ethical manner

There is much more behind this outline, of course, in a long term plan for implementation on a global basis that I would be pleased to discuss. --TW 75 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The definition presented above is quite good. I would love to be able to cite it in work that I'm doing. Unfortunately, there seems to be no original source to cite! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of original art. If this definition is original art, then regardless of its quality, it cannot be used in Wikipedia without first appearing in a cited authoritative source. Nickmalik (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Although the page does read better than it did I am concerned about an inconsistency in the position being presented. When I edited the page I was hoping to bring out the distinction between ‘government’ and ‘governance’ in terms of the traditional form of ‘government’ being but one form of ‘governance’. Now the article begins with an understanding of governance as ’administration’ that is in line with the ’World Bank’ definition and traditional ‘government’ but sharply out of line with the second more adequate definition. I think in contemporary thinking on governance the broader definition should apply where ’governance’ includes the three modes of governance as a response to perceived limitations of the modern state as identified by Foucault. The current position appears to suggest both that ’governance’ is merely ‘administration’ which is harmonious to traditional forms of ’government’. This position misses the central point of the turn to ’governance’ that includes, for example, ‘networks‘. This suggests that any attempt to distinguish between ‘administration’ and ‘politics’, ’governance’ and ’government’ is a dangerous illusion. What do others think. Should it be changed to present a consistent position or left?

Go ahead and make changes . You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject , so cite sources wherever possible eg You mention Foucault above but not in the article. Lumos3 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a commercial organisation (www.categoric.com/) which should be promoted. ~Giri Fox, 11 May 2007.

I find the use of the word 'governance' (in the UK) fascinating. To the best of my memory, I don't recall ever hearing the word used before the turn of the century. People (mainly politicians and media types in the UK) would always speak of "good government" and use such phrases as "the governing of the land". So, (as the article attests) the word 'government' was erroneously used. Today it is always "good governance" and sentences such as "This is good government" are no longer heard. Even sentences using 'governing' frequently seem to be rewritten to some form containing 'governance'. Has anyone else noticed this trend, and would it (if true) be of interest to include in the article? 1812ahill (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Harold Wilson's memoirs were called "The Governance of Britain", a title which was widely thought pretentious, as well as an erroneous use of the word.Deipnosophista (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

Using a the term being defined in its definition is circular logic; an oxymoron. If we can't do better than what's here the article should be deleted. Even the description above this headline fails to address this, (unless someone changed the article text after it was entered). Kernel.package (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

Using a the term being defined in its definition is circular logic; an oxymoron. If we can't do better than what's here the article should be deleted. Even the description above this headline fails to address this, (unless someone changed the article text after it was entered). Kernel.package (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

World Bank Definition

This page attributed the following definition to the World Bank:

"the exercise of political authority and the use of institutional resources to manage society's problems and affairs."

This definition isn't actually in the cited source, as far as I can see. The paper does define governance, but it's a very different definition. I've not been able to find any published source from the World Bank which uses this definition. As far as I can see, it was added to the article in 2005 (without a source) by an anonymous editor. The citation to the World Bank's 1991 discussion paper was added in 2008 by another anonymous editor. There are a number of printed sources that attribute this definition to the World Bank but again, as far as I can see, they're all recent and postdate this quote's appearance on Wikipedia. Most of them provide no citation or, if they do, cite it to the same 1991 discussion paper Wikipedia cited, so I suspect Wikipedia is their actual source.

It seemed best to me to remove the definition. I've done so, and replaced it with the (very different) definition that actually does appear in the discussion paper. If anyone can find an actual World Bank source with the first definition, feel free to revert. -- Arvind (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger.

I propose that the page Seat of government be merged with this one. The reasons being:

• There is a significant overlap of subject matter.
• The other page contains very little information which could be equally well presented as a section on this page.

If no objection is raised, I will perform the merger (and I'm interested in reforming this entire page) tomorrow at ~6:00 pm GMT.
I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just embarked upon a project to reform the page entirely. My work's progress may be seen here. If anybody would like to contribute, please contact me on my talk page.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the merger was not a good idea (I have no opinion about your other work on this page, that may be excellent). I see very little overlap between both articles, since governance is predominantly about organisational matters (regardless of physical space) and seat of government is about the actual neighbourhood where the government institutions are located (regardless of what's going on there). Bever (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored Seat of government and removed the section here. Bever (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Old Comments

What about integrating recent highlighting of governance in policies of multilateral development organizations such as the World Bank? In recent years, these organizations have moved from concentration on structural adjustment to concentration on governance, or institutional reform, as necessary for economic development. -- Imagine&Engage 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be about the general (anthropological, sociological) aspects of governance, and give links to the more specialized topics rather than including them here? The definitions (improvable, but not too bad now) should be followed by a listing and explanation of the different types of governance (autocratic, oligarchic, democratic, consensual). These apply whether we are talking about governments, corporations, families, or social networks. Pring (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC) 14 July 2015

Origins of the word

The section on the origin of the word "governance" is factually incorrect. The word was not "recoined" in the 1980s, and its use in English does not begin in the 1860s. I'd attempted to fix the problems yesterday, but my changes were reverted without explanation, presumably because they fell afoul of some policy or the other.

Briefly, the word has been used in English to refer to the activity of ruling a state since at least the Tudor period, as the two illustrative examples I added to the article yesterday indicated. It may well be that my sources were unacceptable under your policies, but I would respectfully point out that your current claim - that its use only dates back to the Victorian period - is entirely unsourced. The only source in the paragraph is a note prepared by the EU's translation service, which does not even address the history of the word in English before the 1980s (its concern is primarily with its usage in French). A brief note which was prepared solely to assist translators, which cites no literature or examples and does not even seek to actually analyse the word's history, hardly qualifies as a reliable source for a such a broad claim about a contested political concept.

Given that you folks rejected my attempt to fix the most egregious errors (and I'm not seeking to contest the rejection), I don't think it lies within my ability to fix the problem. This graph of the word's usage over time should, however, give you some sense of this very complex history of this fascinating concept. Note that the uptick in the word's usage began in the 1960s, not the 1980s as your article currently claims (without, it should be said, citing any academic sources). -- 86.186.5.171 (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that more precision is needed in summarizing the history of what is, as 86.186.5.171 says, a politically contested concept. It has, as that user says, for centuries had occasional use in English to refer to the activity of ruling a state. The word saw a slight uptick in usage in the 1960s (I haven't looked to see if the sense was changing then), and since the 1980s its usage has increased dramatically. In its recent usage the scope of the term has been self-consciously widened: the concept now refers to activities of governing envisaged as shared by different sorts of social organization (whether, e.g., states, companies, or NGOs.) As Wendy Brown (Undoing the Demos, chapter 4) has recently argued from a critical perspective, this change in both frequency and meaning seems fairly clearly linked to the rise of neoliberalism, which elides distinctions between states and market actors.82.6.167.128 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413110418/http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/references/PL111-532StratML.htm to http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/references/PL111-532StratML.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413110418/http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/references/PL111-532StratML.htm to http://xml.fido.gov/stratml/references/PL111-532StratML.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New section: effective governance

Dear Wikipedia colleagues,

Since I noticed a section about effective governance does not exist yet, I would like to create one. In this section, I would like to state what effective governance is and what components it exists of, how it is measured and how it differs from good governance, which has a more normative character. By stating what effective governance is and of what components it exists of, I want to use resources conceptualizing effective governance, and resources about effective governments and effective policies, including the following:

Golazole99 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained[3] , regulated and held accountable."

How can rules, norms, or actions be held accountable? People can be held accountable. Rp (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicole Lizbeth. Peer reviewers: Reethespiethes, Ericklemusss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

maths

english 45.215.253.199 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Economics

Difine governance with Example 103.153.39.252 (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)