Some governance experts refer to as “the structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say.” It is a social function involving the establishment and administration of rights, rules and decision-making procedures to direct social-ecological systems along pathways that are collectively desirable. It is designed to inter alia, generate social capital needed to solve a variety of collective-action problems (Graham et al., 2003; Delmas and Young, 2009; Young, 2012).

When this definition is juxtaposed with the definition of institutions it does appear that instituions are embedded within governance and therefore there is only a nuanced difference. Institutions appear to be the constitutive part of governance that needs the operational part of governance to put it into effect.

To my view "Governance" should be compared and contrasted to "Government" and not to the term "Institution(s)". At least initially, the term Governance was introduced to refer to the transference from a socio-political structure (1) where the national state enjoys priority in policy-making processes and hierarchical relationship with the other co-involved actors (top-down processes) to a different socio-political structure (2) where (at least theoretically) there is no hierarchical relationship between the several governmental and non-governmental actors involved in policy-making. Hence Governance is a specific case of institutional structure reflecting and consolidating political power relationships as in case (2).

Many thanks Kalliopi for your thoughts.

Dear Andrew, I would like to offer the following views:

Governance as we understand is a set of processes by which we manage the affairs of a given society towards some objectives. In other words, we can say that it is a theoretical concept as to what we want as a nation or society. Institutions are the tools of governance that we will adopt to take us towards our objectives.

For example, we want social justice in our country. So, first we get to define what we mean by social justice in our sociocultural context. Second, we legislate these definitions into laws through a body that we may call as legislature in a democratic system (council of ministers, in a monarchy, perhaps). Third, we put in place a policing organization to take cognizance of violations; Fourth we out in a system of courts to adjudicate; fifth, we set up a penal system that will safe keep the offenders till they are fit to be released back. We also will as a seventh step, set up institutions to educate the society.

In the example that I have tried to give above, steps 1 to 7 are institutions. Their relationship to governance is as a tool to carry governance to the targeted population. In countries where institutions become power centers, we see a clash between the institutions and other power centers, obviously to the peril of the population. In countries where governance lacks conceptual clarity, we see ineffectual institutions being set which aimlessly carry out bureaucratic functions again with no benefit to people. Only in countries where institutions are set up with clear conceptual basis, where the bureaucracy is trimmed to execute the procedures and processes in a transparent manner, we see the objectives of governance reach the people.

I hope my comments are helpful. Have a nice day!

Many thanks Srinivassan for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion

Andrew Agyare and Srinivasan Rajamanickam have both suggested a close connection between governance and institutions, and I agree with their comments.

Another aspect of the difference between governance and institutions concerns organizations. In the new economics of organizations, firms are institutions, as are other organizations. In this view, institutions are more general in the sense that governance involves institutions, but not all institutions are directly involved in governance. Thus many firms, churches, cultural institutions, soccer leagues and other organizations are institutions, but these institutions are not necessarily involved with governance.

Thanks Barry for your contribution.

Yes I agree that governance involves institutions but if I take the more general view of institutions as you have alluded to then I guess that institutions comprise the structural organisation and the rules, regulations, policies, legislation and the rest of it that guide the "conduct"of those organisations.

if governance involves structures and processes of decision making, and also determines how power and responsibilities are exercised then contextually can we really have institutions like churches, soccer leagues etc that are not necessarily involved in governance? who makes decisions for them and how.

Barry R. Weingast: your contribution, especially that distinguishes institutionalised organisations that are INVOLVED and NOT in governance leaves me wondering what you mean by that. Taking the examples you gave, does it mean that churches and soccer leagues, for example, have no governance systems that deciding on their affairs? What do you mean by some institutions not involved in governance? Which governance?

Andrew Kyei Agyare: Thanks for bringing up this conversation on governance. As a novice researcher who is interested in environmental policy and governance, I always struggle to understand the definition of "institution" itself--Ostrom defines institutions as formal and informal rules, norms and customs. At times policies, for example, are given as example of institutions, the other times you will find writings in which institution and policy appear one after the other (such as institutional and policy framework) which somehow try to differentiate the two terms.

However, I understand governance to be the structures and processes through which societal actors (individuals, groups, organisations, etc.) make decisions that affect the natural environment and linked human population. What are these processes?