Introduction

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 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).

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.

The Academic Perspective of Governance

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 Governance Theories and Models 7 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

The Aid Agency's Perspective of 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 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).

Issues and challenges for the Academic and Aid Agency’s

Perspectives of Governance
Over the past decade there has been increasing concern with aid effectiveness, and,
more generally, development effectiveness. As the calls for increased aid continue
to be made, the amounts disbursed have been less than demanded—and required—
and the results have been poorer than anticipated in terms of poverty reduction in
general, and the growth and development of access to a quality education for all.
Regarding the latter, some countries have made more progress than others, but as
has been shown in repeated Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Reports,
many countries remain “off-track” in achieving either the relevant Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) or the EFA targets. In light of often disappointing
progress, new ways of delivering aid have been developed, including sector-wide
approaches and direct budget support, the aim being to make the aid given more
effective. This paper reports on the progress that has been made through some of
these new modalities of aid to education, as perceived by some of the senior staff
of a handful of the major development agencies. What is clear from the particular
set of views of staff in the development agencies included in this study is that there
is general concern with programme implementation and the quality of the
educational reforms being supported. While, especially with general budget
support, the attention of staff has been directed at cross-sectoral institutional
development, including improving public financial management, planning,
resource allocation prioritization and decision making, the educationists in the
agencies nonetheless reflect a certain frustration at not being able to influence
programme implementation as they used to in the project approach.

Governance Theories: Experience of Bangladesh

Governance practices in Bangladesh reflect an evolving relationship between

competing interests whose members are located at pivotal points of control in the
overarching systems of political, administrative, economic, regulatory and
legislative power. Moreover, the country’s history of military dictatorship and
dysfunctional democracy has brought additional challenges in terms of establishing
a sound system of governance through building on existing practices and
institutions. The five pillars of public governance (administrative, political,
economic, regulatory and legislative) have posed formidable obstacles to
establishing and reforming key institutions, refining processes and strategies of
management and guiding the country toward a more efficient and effective system.
In this paper, we analyse the social, political and economic backgrounds of
legislators elected to parliament in 1991, 1996 and 2001, legislative accountability
practices, functional mechanisms, and the constraints of regulatory, administrative
and economic institutions in order to examine how poor governance practices have
created conditions for an unprecedented level of patronage distribution in return for
short-term political gain. This paper examines how state institutions have been
used by members of a powerful nexus who have developed a symbiotic
relationship with the state in order to accumulate capital. In so doing they have
destroyed the institutional architecture of good governance practices.

However good governance is a contestable concept. The definitions of good

governance advocated by Stoker, Rhodes, Pierre and Peters, Hirst, Nanda and the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) focus mainly on accountability
in the public sector and the institutional capacity of the executive branch of the
state.4 In a broader sense, good governance refers to a set of structures and
processes through which individuals and institutions manage their common
affairs.5 Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith provide a more acceptable definition whereby
governance is the process through which individuals and state officials interact to
express their interests, exercise their rights and obligations, work out their
differences and co-operate to produce public goods.6 In the 1950s and 1960s, the
prevailing idea was that developing countries were caught up in a vicious cycle of
poverty mainly due to the savings gap and the foreign exchange gap. If only these
two gaps could be plugged by foreign aid/foreign trade, things would start moving
in a positive direction. While some countries such as the Newly Industrialising
Countries (NICs) of Southeast Asia made progress due to foreign aid and other
external stimuli, the record in most developing countries was far from satisfactory.
In the post-1990s period the emphasis shifted from resources alone to resources
plus ‘getting the policies right’. However, even this mantra did not produce the
desired results of transforming policies into outcomes.

Some core principles of good governance can be used to assess the countryspecific
practices that hinder even the practice of good enough governance. Sarker rightly
states that an accountable and democratic governance system is a precondition for
building an institutional and policy architecture that can make those exercising
power in the governmental system accountable.

Conclusion

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. 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, highlights 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.