It's a relevant question! I share with you the following references, I hope you will find it helpful.

- Little, J. (2001). New rural governance?. Progress in Human Geography, 25(1), 97-102.

- Pierre, J. (1999). Models of urban governance: The institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban affairs review, 34(3), 372-396.

- Kearns, A., & Paddison, R. (2000). New challenges for urban governance. Urban studies, 37(5-6), 845-850.

- Pierre, J. (2011). The politics of urban governance. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Best regards.

In terms of collaborative governance, it is quite different in sources and potential actors and partners in governing public services.

In Marxist terms, it has everything to do with size. Small is different from large. In rural areas, people must be generalists, like the general store, the family practitioner. Urban can be specialized; department stores, specialists. Just carry on from there.

Concept of Governance

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/geqaf/technical-notes/concept-governance

Governance has been defined to refer to structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-based participation. Governance also represents the norms, values and rules of the game through which public affairs are managed in a manner that is transparent, participatory, inclusive and responsive. Governance therefore can be subtle and may not be easily observable. In a broad sense, governance is about the culture and institutional environment in which citizens and stakeholders interact among themselves and participate in public affairs. It is more than the organs of the government.

International agencies such as UNDP, the World Bank, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and others define governance as the exercise of authority or power in order to manage a country’s economic, political and administrative affairs. The 2009 Global Monitoring Report sees governance as ‘power relationships,’ ‘formal and informal processes of formulating policies and allocating resources,’ ‘processes of decision-making’ and ‘mechanisms for holding governments accountable.’

Often there is a tendency to equate governance with management, the latter primarily referring to the planning, implementation and monitoring functions in order to achieve pre-defined results. Management encompasses processes, structures and arrangements that are designed to mobilize and transform the available physical, human and financial resources to achieve concrete outcomes. Management refers to individuals or groups of people who are given the authority to achieve the desired results. Governance systems set the parameters under which management and administrative systems will operate. Governance is about how power is distributed and shared, how policies are formulated, priorities set and stakeholders made accountable. Table below summarizes the difference between governance and management:

In the development literature, the term ‘good governance’ is frequently used. In particular, the donors promote the notion of ‘good governance’ as a necessary pre-condition for creating an enabling environment for poverty reduction and sustainable human development. Good governance has also been accepted as one of the targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The good governance agenda stems from the donor concern with the effectiveness of the development efforts. Good governance is expected to be participatory, transparent, accountable, effective and equitable and promotes rule of law.

_________________________________________________________________________

Community Governance

by Christopher Gates,

Futures - Volume 31, Issue 5, June 1999, Pages 519-525

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37376941

The concept of community governance: A preliminary review

The Concept of Community Governance: A Preliminary Review.

Authors: Totikidis V1, Armstrong A F & Francis R D. Centre for International Corporate Governance Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, VIC 8001, Australia.

Refereed paper presented at the GovNet Conference, Monash University, Melbourne, 28-30th November, 2005.

ABSTRACT: An emerging model of governance gaining popularity within the public and community sectors is that of Community Governance. The concept usually refers to community participation, engagement and decision-making in public matters and is related to terms such as local governance, social governance, network governance and participatory governance. This paper provides a review of Australian and international literature related to the concept of community governance to assist understanding of the accumulating and sometimes confusing literature in this field. The paper begins with a workable definition of community governance, provides a discussion of some theoretical and historical aspects of ‘community’ from a community psychology perspective and presents an overview of the distinction between corporate, public and community governance to provide a context to the review. The remainder of the article presents the themes of: models and perspectives, network governance and community and community sector governance. A major conclusion is that community governance, by definition, is about community management and decision making but also implicates the broader aims of addressing community needs and building community capacity and well being. 1 Acknowledgments: The author (Vicky Totikidis) wishes to thank Professor Anona Armstrong, Director, and Professor Ronald Francis, Professorial Fellow, Centre for International Corporate Governance Research, Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University for their support and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Keywords: Community Governance; Community Psychology; Public Sector; Community Sector. INTRODUCTION An emerging model of governance gaining popularity within the public and community sectors is Community Governance. Communitygovernance is sometimes used to refer to community participation, engagement and decision making in public matters and is related to terms such as local governance, social governance, network governance and participatory governance. Community governance is an important concept that needs further clarification. A study on the community governance of crime prevention and community safety in Victoria, was recently conducted by Victoria University in partnership with Crime Prevention Victoria (see Armstrong, Francis, Bourne & Dussuyer, 2002, Armstrong, Francis & Totikidis, 2004). One of the definitions offered in this research was as follows: [Community governance may be defined as] community level management and decision-making that is undertaken by, with, or on behalf of a community, by a group of community stakeholders. The focus on ‘community’ rather than on a corporation, organisation, local government or the public sector is the distinguishing feature of community governance vis a vis these other forms of governance (Totikidis, Armstrong & Francis, 2005). The ‘by, with or on behalf of a community’ in the definition may be seen as a continuum by which to assess community governance theories and interventions. This idea is illustrated in Figure 1. The question arising from this tool is: Is the management and decision making of this particular community issue or intervention undertaken independently by community members at the “grass roots” level; with assistance from some community or government agency; or for or on behalf of the community by those who have the power and authority to do so. Community Management and Decision Making

BY? WITH? FOR? Community Figure 1. Community governance continuum tool for assessing community governance theories and interventions A critical question in community governance is therefore about the degree to which community members are involved in this decision making process or what is commonly referred to as citizen or community engagement. Literature in the field seems to indicate a shift away from the extreme right of the continuum to the middle (where decisions are made ‘with’ community members) in Western countries such as Australia, America, Canada and the United Kingdom. This will be demonstrated in this paper by means of a review of literature on community governance and related concepts. Figure 1 is a basic definition and not a complete theory; it outlines what community governance is and who can be involved but not how it should be done or the overall purpose or goals. A richer understanding of the concept of community governance will be an outcome of this review. The following two sections consist of a discussion of some theoretical and historical aspects of ‘community’ from a community psychology perspective and a discussion on the distinction between corporate, public and community governance to provide a context to the review. The Community Context The rise of community governance can be better understood in reference to some basic theory and history of community. Community can be defined in various ways and while definitions about community are often debated, many community psychologists agree with the distinction of relational communities and geographical communities (Rudkin, 2003). In her book on community psychology, Rudkin also discusses the advent and presence of virtualcommunities. The concept of community governance has not been widely recognised in the field of community psychology; however, cross-disciplinary literature on the community governance almost always refers (implicitly or explicitly) to geographical communities. This may be because relational and virtual communities are more elusive and cannot be ‘governed’ in the

The level of political participation in the rural is lesser compare to the urban counterpart

USA and Myanmar colleagues and I are completing a study of village/village tract level governance-building in Myanmar. The study will consider evidence from 3 rural states. We are applying some dimensions of analysis that have been applied in urban settings.

Charles David Crumpton Very interesting project! Look forward to your report or paper on that project.