Could you please give an example about the governance factors that are not consistent with non western countries?

Well, I have to admit that maybe the word ‘non-Western’ is not appropriate. Anyhow, for example, when I want to use this approach in analyzing a case of public policy in China, then the political system, the relationship between different levels of government, the relationship between the government and non-governmental actors, etc. are different with the ‘home territory’ of this approach. So, do you have some advices about how to deal with the relationship between the theoretical concepts and indigenous sociopolitical concepts? 

Almost non-English speaking countries have a problem inn dealing with the meaning opf governance. It is an English language archaism revived for the use in "corporate governance" and later transferred to politics, and to public administration in particular. It's easier if you remain in the "sphere" of English language. It's becoming quite difficult in other languages and cultures. There are two distinctions. 1. In market-oriented institutions there is a difference between corporate governance and corporate management and in politics there is a difference between ruling and governance. Some other explanations are in the book: Kooiman Jan., Governing as Governance, SAGE Publications, London 2003. 

Sorry, for a possible redundant information. 

Sorry Czeslaw, I beg to differ. Governance is actually a very well defined and widely studied concept and has significant theoretical and practical value. Policies (e.g. health, welfare, environment) and other such phrases are top-down concepts and if implemented this way (legislation, enforcement, often also incentives) usually do not work as planned. Governance is a much more integrative concept, and if applied in a realistic and functional way, is much more effective. Cities around the world like Copenhagen, Stockholm, Vancouver and Singapore are well-known examples of effective or “good” urban governance in most policy areas for which the city administration is responsible.

What is good governance? In short, it is the specifically appropriate mix of stakeholders (e.g. of a city) involved in decision-making and implementation. Stakeholders are the obvious (political and economic interests, the electorate, the state), as well as the not so obvious: children and the elderly, active neighborhood groups, local, national and international NGOs. Many cities are connected in international networks, and many are attentive to what goes on in the international policy discourse, for example on public health, environmental issues, etc.

As to  Hongze Tan’s original question. Why shouldn’t this approach be relevant to studying non-western countries? My research areas include, among others, how cities around the world cope with the many aspects and implications of climate change. One thing cities in the so-called “global south”, (e.g. in India) expect and even demand when they partner with a “northern” city to promote a common project is to learn how to improve their governance. City officials know very well that in the absence of improved governance the project will fail, even for very basic reasons like bad budget management or a new mayor. By the way, there are professional consultants to assist cities in long-term and sustainable urban planning.

Sorry for the lengthy answer.

Dear Avi, We do not differ but we operate at different linguistic levels. Of course, as I have mentioned, in  the English-language cultural sphere governance in public policy is well-efined - not ruling (governing?) but participatory governance. My headache is deriving from another area, namely corporate governance. I do know what are linguistic problems with transferring that term to German, Dutch, not-mentioning the Slavic languages. So if somebody begins to apply a "cultural" dimension to governance or corporate governance, then a deeper linguistic approach is needed. BTW, you have opened up another interesting area. As a "moderate constructivist" with a relative good knowledge of social sciences and mathematics, I am beginning a project titled: "Good practices of corporate governance as a social construct". What does it mean "good"?  For me the dissemination of all "good" practices, governances, etc., is a wonderful example of the impact of constructivism upon the modern science. 30 years ago it would have been mathematically-grounded "optimal" governance. Now it's just a "good" one. "Good" according to what criteria, who is setting the criteria, are they universal, what are cultural subtleties of the "good"?Unfortunately, I have only a draft presentation on that in Polish. In September I will have a text in English submitted to a journal, or perhaps presented at conferences.  

P.S. My spelling errors are deriving from fast writing and not from ignorance. There is another story with "a" and "the" but they are sometimes difficult to comprehend by somebody form outside the Anglo-Saxon language sphere. Smiilarly as the Slavic "baroque" grammar is difficult to grasp by the Anglo-Saxons and many others.