Governance, Participation And Community Planning

By Author: Anthony W Bills
Total Articles: 158
Comment this article

Governance, Participation And Community Planning
Introduction

Governance is the process through which various decisions are made and implemented within a social setting. In urban planning context, good governance involves the process in which various decisions are made, in consideration of all social factors involved for the favor of the majority. With most governments becoming corrupt and engaging in unethical practices of misusing public funds, governance has technically replaced the roles of the government local urban decision-making processes. Since governance has its fundamental roots in good decision-making processes and their implementation, formal and informal aspects of social structures are involved (Kaufmann 2007, p 59). More specifically, in reaction to the shortfall resources across the world, both formal and informal sectors have been brought closer to enhance a sustainable and more productive society with the available scarce resources. This forms the utmost basis for the replacement of governments by governance in various decision-making for local urban planning.
According to Kaufmann (2005, ...
... p 22), good local governance is perceived on three main dimensions as shown in figure 1 below. Performance being the first dimension involves efficiency in allocating national resources and discharging of various responsibilities in the society. This promotes equitable economic development, since delivering of services made fair and just. On this basis therefore, good governance can be described overtaking the virtual role played by the central government in making decisions and implementing of a local urban development plan. In addition, good performance through governance is described by Hung (2006, p 795) being environmentally conscious and protective of natural resources.
Participation of the locals is highly promoted through good governance in making decisions and implementation of a local urban development plan. This is enhanced through democratic representation of the entire society to the central planning of any local development project. With reference to the development of Exeter city, it is through partnership between local governments, civil societies and other stakeholders in the society forms a very important dimension of good governance (Dwivedi & Iain, 1999, p 39). By being socially oriented, all the parties involved in god governance focus on achieving the best for all members of the society. In a local urban development decision making process and its implementation, productive partnership between local authorities, the entire members of the public and the civil society forms a basis for achievement of social cohesion and development.

It should be noted that, government plays a very significant role in governance, especially in local urban planning decision-making process. Since the context of an urban decision-making process is highly complex, various other actors are of crucial significance in any local urban decision making process (Hodges 2006, p 57). Such identities may include prominent proprietors, leaders of various religions, social associations and governmental and non-governmental institutes. As reflected in figure 2 below, local urban planning requires more of governance than just mere government participation, for successful implementation of the decisions made by involving a wider variety of stakeholders.
Figure 2

As IMF (2001, p 5) reveals the development of Manchester City has been realized through the involvement of the central government and the local authorities by actively involving the entire public in various decision-making processes. Through incorporation of all the stakeholders is a social setting in making decisions as well as implementing them for a local urban set-up, unity and achievement of social interest are achieved. Following the recent calls for public diplomacy in governance, social interests in decision making ought to be considered as first priority in any social decision making process. Certainly, the decisions made should incorporate the needs of all social classes including the urban poor, urban middle class, and the urban elite. Since government alone cannot understand fully the needs of all social classes social representatives from all classes should be incorporated in the local urban decision-making.
Bevir (2003, p 9) considers governance as empowering the local people in the process of deciding what to be included in the social projects in favor of the majority. Since the civil society, constituting of the government and the military, provides for financial support and guidelines for the implementation of the plans for local urban development, it influences a lot in the overall implementation processes process of local urban development. Since the civil society is the central point at social development plans and their implementation are made, its impact in local urban development plans is quite significant. Cheung (2003, p 111) perceives the failure of successful implementation or interference of decision making by politicians in their favor as corruption, which is not part of governance. This forms a basis for the replacement of government by governance in decision-making and the implementation of local urban development plan. As a result, development projects in the society are becoming society-governance-oriented rather than being central-government-oriented.
With reference to Boughton & Colin (2007, p 51), there are eight major characteristics of a good governance system for a locally based urban development set-up, as shown in figure 3 below. First, good governance should be participatory in the sense that, all the parties involved should be actively involved in the entire process. Secondly, governance is consensus oriented, which makes it possible to arrive at the best solution or decision in favor of the majority. Transparency is highly upheld in governance, which makes it absolutely a perfect replacement for governments in urban planning decision-making process National Development Commission, (2007, p 17). Responsiveness is another important characteristic of governance, since openness and awareness is freely created among the members of entire society. Being quite effective, governance ensures the fulfillment of the intended goals and objectives in any social setting. Efficiency on the other hand is highly upheld in good governance, since all the costs involved are rational to the benefits to be acquired (Keohane & Roy 2000, p 42). Accountability and abiding to the existing laws forms a realm for prospective governance.
Figure 3

With the currently increasing civilization due to globalization, participatory democracy is becoming an effective way of integrating civil government and the local society members. This best achieved through governance, since all the parties involved in any social decision making are thoroughly incorporated through consensus (Bhatta 2005, p 69). On this basis, the processes of decision-making and the implementation of a local urban development plan ought to involve the society actively. Since the central government developments plans rely on the utilization of public funds from taxation and custom duties, the re-distribution process of such funds in various development plans should not sideline the entire public. This is because, many societies have now understood their various rights, which has necessitated the government to cease in dominating public decisions. More precisely, governance has replaced the government, which is more participatory and more effective.
With political dimensions taking new forms, neo-liberalization and public diplomacy are becoming dominant in the currently integrated world cultures (Campbell 2006, p 25). In the re-construction of normative aspects of social values, good governance in social development projects has been one of the most significant mechanisms for both economic and social development. Since the society is interdependent, much attributes have been made on good governance to sustain and counter any form of disequilibrium in the society, where decentralization of power in various decision making is necessitated. As a result, the previously oppressive governmental oppressions in making decisions and implementation of local urban development plan have been technically replaced by good governance. For instance, Lincoln city in UK has reached its current economic and social development through local government governance. As Andrews (2005, p 49) holds, the apparent representation of public interests in local urban decision making process and its implementation is entirely dependent on good governance, rather than government decisions.
Considering the victims of the subsequent war calamities among nations, especially those in the Middle East because of post-conflict recovery, urbanization has become one of the major economic developments. As shown in figure 4 below, the incorporation of good governance in urban planning and policy implementation is effectively achieved, as opposed to involvement of central government alone (Kettle 2000, p 61). On this basis, the integration of internally displaced people and dislocated security guards has found its remedy through a well organized local urban development plan. Certainly, since the entire society, representatives are actively involved in the entire decision-making process and implementation through good governance, cohesion and unity in the entire society would be realized (Abed & Sanjeev 2002, p 36). Quite importantly, the implementation of the local urban development plan would offer employment to the entire society, since the society representatives would advocate for locally available labor. On this basis therefore, good governance has subsequently become a dominant policy implementation strategy, rather than the previously inefficient government planning and implementation of local public policies.

Conclusion
As it has been revealed, good governance in local urban decision making process and the entire implementation of various plans has replaced government subsequently. Considering the currently diplomatic society as a result of neo-liberalism, local governments are found to actively link the central government in planning for local urban development projects. This has been on the basis that, good governance involves active participation of the entire society members in making decisions for local urban developments. As a result, good governance has found its significance in the overall community development projects, with less regard on the government participation alone.
Considering the fundamental dimension of governance, participation, partnership and performance render good governance absolutely the solution to the previously experienced corruption among political leaders. With participatory democracy in the entire society through good governance, social and economic development would be realized largely. In the current post-conflict recovery process, active involvement of the society, with the help of the society would enhance effective re-integration of the post-violence victims in well-developed local urban centers. In consideration of all the above factors, it can ultimately be concluded that, good governance has largely replaced government in the planning of local urban developments.

List of References
Abed, T. & Sanjeev, G. (2002) Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance.
Victoria: IMF Press, 34-42.
Andrews, M. (2005) Citizen-Centred Governance; A New Approach to Public Sector Reform.
London: World Bank, 45-79
National Development Commission, (2007) Building Better Governance. London: Public
Services Commission Press, 14-27.
Bevir, M. Traditions of governance: interpreting the changing role of the public sector, Public
Administration, 81(1) (2003): 1-17
Bhatta, G. (2005) Post-NPM Themes In Public Sector Governance. Wellington: State Services
Commission, 65-81
Boughton, M. & Colin I. Global Governance: New Players, New Rules. Finance and
Development, 44(4), (2007): 45-52.
Campbell, C. (2006) Comparative Trends in Public Management: Smart Practices Toward
Blending Policy and Administration, Ottawa: CSPS, 23-29
Cheung, A. (2003) Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia: Paradigm Shifts or Business
as Usual, London: Routledge, 105-123.
Dwivedi, O. & Iain, J. (1999) From Bureaucracy to Public Management: The Administrative
Culture of the Government of UK. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 37-41.
Hodges, R. (2006) Governance and the Public Sector, London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 52-61.
Hung, N. The Dynamics of Running Government – A Developing Economy Perspective,
Background paper to APEC Public Governance, 34(2), (2006): 790-812.

IMF, (2001) Review of the Fund’s Experience in Governance Issues, Washington D. C.: IMF, 2-7.
Kaufmann, D. (2005) Myths and Realities of Governance and Corruption, Washington D. C.:
World Bank, 20-27
Kaufmann, D. (2007) Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996-2006,
Washington D.C.: World Bank, 57-60
Keohane, R. & Roy, J. (2000) Governance in a Globalizing World, Washington, D.C.;
Brookings Institute, 35-51.
Kettle, D. (2000) The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of
Governance, Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill Publishers, 54-68.

Auther's bio:
The author is associated with www.uktopessays.com and he can help you with essays,research papers,term papers,disserations,thesis,course work