Public Governance: A Comprehensive Review of Scholarly Literature

governance — Public Governance: A Comprehensive Review of Scholarly Literature First Author: Asma Ahmad Ali Musleh Doctorate Student – Hassan II University of Casabl…

Public Governance: A Comprehensive Review of Scholarly Literature

First Author: Asma Ahmad Ali Musleh

Doctorate Student – Hassan II University of Casablanca, Morocco

Second Author: Hassan Ouabouch

Permanent Professor of Economics – Hassan II University of Casablanca, Morocco

Abstract

This paper offers a comprehensive review of the scholarly literature on public governance, tracing its historical roots and examining its conceptual and practical evolution from ancient civilizations to contemporary digital and collaborative models. It begins with early governance systems in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, progressing through the development of public administration, New Public Management (NPM), and New Public Governance (NPG). The review explores how global challenges, such as climate change, urbanization, and digital transformation-have reshaped governance theory and practice. Special attention is given to non-Western paradigms, including Chinese hybrid authoritarianism and the African Ubuntu philosophy, thereby offering a pluralistic and comparative perspective. The paper concludes by outlining future research directions, emphasizing methodological pluralism, Southern epistemologies, and a deeper understanding of urban governance in the context of sustainability, civic participation, and multi-level coordination. It positions governance as a dynamic and evolving field, shaped by historical legacies and global imperatives.

Keywords

Governance, Public Governance, New Public Governance, Digital Governance, Collaborative Governance.

الحوكمة العامة: مراجعة شاملة للأدبيات العلمية

المؤلف الأولى: أسماء أحمد علي مصلح

طالبة دكتوراه جامعة الحسن الثاني بالدار البيضاء، المغرب

المؤلف الثاني: حسن وابوش

أستاذ الاقتصاد – جامعة الحسن الثاني بالدار البيضاء، المغرب

الخلاصة

تقدّم هذه الورقة مراجعة شاملة للأدبيات العلمية حول الحوكمة العامة، متتبّعةً جذورها التاريخية ومتفحِّصةً تطوّرها المفاهيمي والعملي من الحضارات القديمة إلى النماذج الرقمية والتعاونية المعاصرة. تبدأ باستعراض نظم الحكم المبكرة في بلاد الرافدين ومصر واليونان وروما، ثم تتابع تطوّر المجال عبر الإدارة العامة الكلاسيكية، ومرحلة الإدارة العامة الجديدة (NPM)، وصولًا إلى الحوكمة العامة الجديدة (NPG). وتستكشف المراجعة كيف أعادت التحديات العالمية—مثل تغيّر المناخ، والتحضّر، والتحوّل الرقمي—تشكيل نظرية الحوكمة وممارساتها. كما تولي اهتمامًا خاصًا للأنساق غير الغربية، بما في ذلك السلطوية الهجينة في الصين وفلسفة «أوبونتو» الإفريقية، بما يوفّر منظورًا تعدديًا مقارنًا. وتختتم الورقة بطرح مساراتٍ للبحث المستقبلي، مع التأكيد على التعددية المنهجية، وإبستمولوجيات الجنوب، وتعميق فهم حوكمة المدن في سياق الاستدامة والمشاركة المدنية والتنسيق متعدّد المستويات. وتشير كذلك إلى فجواتٍ بحثيةٍ راهنةٍ تشمل المساءلةَ الخوارزميةَ، وحوكمةَ الأزماتِ، ودورَ المعارفِ المحليةِ في تصميمِ السياسات، والعدالةِ والشفافيةِ المؤسسيةِ. وتُبرِز الحوكمة باعتبارها مجالًا ديناميكيًا آخذًا في التطوّر، تصوغه التركات التاريخية والمقتضيات العالمية.

الكلمات المفتاحية

الحوكمة، الحوكمة العامة، الحوكمة العامة الجديدة، الحوكمة الرقمية، الحوكمة التعاونية

1. Introduction

Public governance is no longer confined to traditional administrative hierarchies or technocratic decision-making models. It has evolved into a complex, interdisciplinary domain characterized by shifting roles, diverse actors, and blurred institutional boundaries. From classical administrative theory to modern paradigms such as digital governance, networked collaboration, and participatory mechanisms, the concept of governance has undergone a fundamental transformation across temporal, spatial, and ideological dimensions (Ansell & Sørensen, 2020; Krause, 2022).

Over the past two decades, governance has embodied a wide spectrum of institutional forms and functional mechanisms, ranging from bureaucratic control and market-based administration to stakeholder engagement and polycentric regulation. In this context, the shift from “government” to “governance”-often described as the “hollowing out of the state”-has sparked intense academic debates. Scholars have increasingly questioned the role of the public sector in an era marked by fragmented authority and heightened societal complexity (Rhodes, 2017; Torfing et al., 2020).

Although the origins of governance can be traced back to ancient civilizations and classical political philosophy, modern governance theory is fundamentally rooted in post-war public administration, the New Public Management (NPM) reforms, and the emergence of networked governance models in the 21st century. Furthermore, global challenges-such as climate change, digital transformation, urbanization, and democratic deficits-have compelled scholars and practitioners alike to reconsider how governance is conceptualized, practiced, and evaluated (McGuirk et al., 2022; OECD, 2021).

This literature review explores the development of public governance through both historical and thematic lenses. It begins with its classical foundations and progresses through to contemporary practices, including collaborative, transnational, and digital governance models. It also examines both Western and non-Western contexts, emphasizing the increasing significance of regional diversity, local adaptation, and epistemological pluralism within governance theory (Zhou & Pahl, 2021; Bevir & Rhodes, 2023).

The primary objective of this review is to clarify the major conceptual transformations in governance thinking, assess the dominant models throughout history, identify methodological gaps, and propose future research agendas. It also aims to present a cross-cultural and comparative framework. Governance is thus not portrayed as a fixed or uniform domain, but as a pluralistic and adaptive field—one that is often contested due to historical legacies, institutional reforms, and growing societal demands for accountability, efficiency, and inclusiveness (Osborne, 2021; Peters & Pierre, 2020).

2. Historical and classical foundations of governance

2.1. Mesopotamia and Egypt: Codification and centralization

Governance has emerged as a universal phenomenon, evolving throughout human history across all societies. Its earliest manifestations coincided with the rise of major civilizations such as ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia around 3500 BCE³, where populations underwent significant codification and centralization. In Pharaonic Egypt, a population of approximately two million was governed by a relatively small policing apparatus even before the Old Kingdom, and administrative activities were meticulously documented by scribes.

By 2920 BCE, King Enkishid had cultivated approximately 65,000 acres of maize, while in Mesopotamia, temples dominated the socio-economic structure, controlling over half of the fertile land. The Sumerians developed the earliest known written laws during the final stages of the Lagash Kingdom and the city-state of Umma. Under temple control, trade and artisanal production were subject to religious regulations. Economic stagnation around 2270 BCE triggered unrest in the city of Uruk, although the royal guard managed to suppress the uprisings.

In Egypt, the state engaged in regular warfare from the pre-dynastic era (3500–3032 BCE), and the unification of the Nile Valley was conducted under the symbolic protection of the god Horus. Later, King Narmer reinforced Egypt’s borders in response to threats from the Hyksos, leading to the construction of fortified boundaries.

During the Middle Kingdom (2055–1650 BCE), rulers commissioned the construction of a network of tiered fortresses, strategically supplied through a complex hierarchical system. The southern campaigns of Senusret III mirrored the defensive policies of Ramesses II of the Nineteenth Dynasty, ultimately earning Egypt’s southern borders respect from Nubians and other groups. Trenches and fortified walls were also used to protect the state and regulate access for those described as “desert savages” (Congleton, 2011).

2.2. Greece and Rome: Democracy and republicanism

The Mediterranean Basin played a pivotal role in shaping the foundational models of modern public governance, offering institutional, legal, and administrative innovations that would later underpin contemporary state structures (Kettl, 2015).

According to Osborne (2006), civilizations such as Greece, Rome, Venice, and Byzantium contributed significantly to governance through their political philosophies, legal standards, and administrative practices. These cultures introduced essential concepts such as democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy, and played a vital role in the distribution of public goods, law enforcement, and the structuring of authority (Bryson & Crosby, 2014).

Athens, as emphasized by Hansen (1991), is considered the birthplace of European democracy, granting political participation to all free men regardless of wealth or social class. Political offices were rotated regularly, and public officials were held accountable by an independent body known as the “Board of Auditors” (Ober, 2008).

This system reflected an early form of the “social contract,” in which citizens were bound by collective rule, legality, and deliberation-supported by relatively simple judicial institutions that fostered trust and compliance. Athenian democracy laid the groundwork for modern social contract theory, which would later be reinterpreted by thinkers such as Hobbes and Rousseau to articulate the role of political institutions in articulating the public good and ensuring equitable distribution of resources (Held, 2006).

3. Post-War Governance Models and the Rise of NPM

3.1. From classical public administration to new public governance

To understand the five main trends in the literature on public governance, it is necessary to revisit the evolution of Western governance discourse, which is often analyzed through four major narratives: traditional public administration, New Public Administration (NPA), New Public Management (NPM), and network governance mechanisms (Kettl, 2015).

Classical public administration emerged after World War II, emphasizing welfare service provision, regulation, and administrative efficiency. These priorities paved the way for reforms aimed at responding to the expanding role of the state in economic and social life (Farazmand, 2006). During the 1960s and 1970s, the New Public Administration (NPA) movement gained momentum, particularly in developing countries, advocating for modernization strategies that mimicked the governmental structures of industrialized nations and facilitated administrative knowledge transfer-shaping global development policies (Cheung, 2005).

However, the oil crises of the 1970s and subsequent economic disruptions exposed the limitations of these traditional models. This catalyzed the emergence of New Public Management (NPM), which was based on market principles such as decentralization, privatization, and performance-based evaluation-intended to enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the public sector (Kuhlmann, 2010).

Later, the New Public Governance (NPG) model emerged as a response to the shortcomings of NPM. NPG emphasized pluralism, collaboration, and service delivery networks. Scholars such as Ongaro (2009) and Xu et al. (2015) identified NPG as a framework that prioritizes the involvement of multiple stakeholders and seeks to improve public service effectiveness through partnership-oriented approaches.

3.2. The shift from feudal fragmentation to enlightenment rationality

During the first millennium CE, much of the northern hemisphere experienced governance through feudal systems. These were characterized by militarized elites-dukes, marquises, earls, counts, and viscounts-who wielded local power. In France, a count might rule a single region or several provinces filled with castles, often leading private armies in regional conflicts. Following the fragmentation of the Carolingian Empire, these titles sometimes evolved into hereditary monarchies (Congleton, 2011; Bloch, 1961; Reuter, 1997; Wickham, 2009).

At the base of the feudal pyramid were serfs, treated as property and obligated to perform labor or pay tribute. Although less harsh than Roman slavery, this system remained burdensome. The gradual dismantling of feudalism gave way to capitalist agricultural production, increased efficiency, and the expansion of the rural labor force (Duby, 1978; Hilton, 1985).

Political authority was divided between military barons and ecclesiastical bureaucrats, who held symbolic legitimacy. In France, the Catholic Church-at times the largest feudal landowner-functioned as the principal bureaucracy. As the modern state evolved, tensions grew between spiritual and military power, with many monarchs viewing the church as a rival (Tierney, 1964; Tellenbach, 1991).

The Enlightenment reimagined the relationship between nature, authority, and civil society, laying the conceptual groundwork for ideals such as “good governance,” participation, and networked administration. While some scholars argue that these changes undermined classical notions of democracy and citizenship, others view them as a deliberate transition from “government” to “governance”- dismantling centralized authority and empowering civil society in the design of effective administrative mechanisms.

4. Digital and collaborative governance models

4.1. The rise of collaborative and digital governance

In recent decades, governments have increasingly embraced digital tools to enhance governance processes. The expansion of legal frameworks and protocols has facilitated this transition. Research indicates that digital platforms that allow access to information and public dialogue have become powerful instruments for fostering adaptive change and democratic engagement (Meijer, 2018; Criado & Gil-Garcia, 2019).

Several countries, such as Australia, have adopted interactive platforms to strengthen participatory democracy (Karpouzou & Papadimitriou, 2021). These digital gateways allow communities to engage with parliamentary work by accessing deliberations, understanding legislation, and participating in public discourse (OECD, 2020). During periods of rapid change, the promotion of democratic values and community adaptation becomes a policy priority.

For instance, in Tasmania, the government launched the “Digital Heritage” initiative in 2019, which included community consultations to raise awareness of Indigenous cultural heritage. The initiative is part of a broader reconciliation strategy (Department of Premier and Cabinet Tasmania, 2019). The resulting heritage databases provide access to explanatory materials and educational content, enabling public and visitor engagement with the cultural and historical landscape (UNESCO, 2021).

4.2. New public governance (NPG) and policy networks

Contemporary academic debates around governance emphasize two key dimensions: structural/systemic and political/behavioral (Kjaer, 2004; Peters & Pierre, 1998). Within this context, New Public Governance (NPG) belongs to the non-structural stream of governance studies-often referred to in lowercase as “governance” (de Oliveira Fornasier & Franklin, 2019; Osborne, 2006).

Modern governance theories emphasize policy implementation involving multi-level and cross-sector actors, reflecting an increase in stakeholder pluralism (Rhodes, 1997; Torfing et al., 2020). Although governance did not receive focused attention during the foundational stages of political science, the discipline gradually developed an interest in public institutions and bureaucratic behavior by the late 19th century (Heclo, 1978; Easton, 1953). By the mid-20th century, pluralist traditions had reframed the state as an arena for interest group competition (Truman, 1951).

However, dynamic conceptualizations of the state were largely overlooked. Much of the analysis focused on “legalistic” models under public/private law frameworks, disregarding institutional complexity. In the latter half of the 20th century, multidisciplinary approaches gained ground (Majone, 1994; Hood et al., 2001), prompting governance theorists to move beyond traditional constitutional perspectives.

Rational choice theory (RCT) emerged as a dominant lens, providing insightful analyses into the relationships between information, politics, bureaucracy, and interest groups (Downs, 1957; Ostrom, 1990). Despite critiques of its limitations, RCT helped expand institutional studies and the analysis of regulatory mechanisms across various fields.

In contrast, NPG is conceptualized as a complex policy-making approach involving multiple actors and overlapping logics, with governments playing a coordinating role in defining the “rules of the game” (Bevir, 2011). Nevertheless, the literature seldom addresses power asymmetries or the growing influence of economic and financial crimes, indicating the need to hold non-governmental actors accountable as well.

4.3. Four contemporary developments in NPG

Recent research has highlighted four major developments that have accelerated the rise of New Public Governance in the past decade:

Digital Transformation and Smart Governance: Rapid advances in digital technologies have led governments to adopt smart tools for real-time service delivery, data analytics, and decision-making (Meijer, 2018; Mergel et al., 2019).

Interactive Participation: Digital participation platforms have become integral to daily governance processes, reinforcing the legitimacy of decisions and aligning public policies with citizens’ actual needs (Sørensen & Torfing, 2018).

Social Justice: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated socio-economic crises have renewed attention on integrating social justice principles into governance frameworks (Christensen & Lægreid, 2019).

Sustainability and ESG Governance: Incorporating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards into public governance is now essential to address climate change and support sustainable development goals (OECD, 2020).

5. Non-western governance models

5.1 Hybrid authoritarianism in China

China’s governance model is frequently described using terms such as fragmented, soft, enlightened, or oligarchic authoritarianism (Lieberthal & Oksenberg, 1988; Zhao, 2009; Pei, 2006). These conceptualizations have evolved through the adaptation of Western governance theories and developmental models, including Weberian bureaucracy, common pool resource theory, and polycentric governance-each of which emphasizes the separation of political authority from the mechanisms of rule (Weber, 1946; Ostrom, 1990; Kooiman, 2003).

Within this framework, public governance is interpreted as the state’s functional response to shifting societal preferences and structural conditions (Peters & Pierre, 2000). However, overgeneralized portrayals risk reducing governance to a linear narrative of political progress while overlooking the complex realities of specific national contexts.

Recent state capacity research suggests that dominant frameworks often fail to account for the nuances of China’s governance experience (Ang, 2020; Heilmann & Perry, 2011). Thus, categorizing Chinese governance as a hybrid form of authoritarianism does not fully capture its institutional richness or socio-political complexity (Tsai, 2007).

5.2. Ubuntu governance in Africa

In Africa, the concept of governance is deeply embedded in the philosophy of Ubuntu, which translates to “I am because we are”. Ubuntu promotes the dignity of the individual within the collective well-being of the community (Munyaradzi Mashasha, 2014; Ramose, 2002). In contrast, Western governance models tend to emphasize individualism and the notion that societal advancement results from individual well-being (Held, 2006).

Ubuntu serves as a normative framework for ethical governance, grounded in seven enduring principles: dignity, honor, respect, participation, community, lasting peace, and regenerative peace. It is also linked to justice, liberation, and wealth redistribution for the poor (Metz, 2007; Van Breda, 2019).

In Western paradigms, the public sector is viewed as the domain of public goods, legal accountability, and political responsibility (Weber, 1946), while the private sector operates in pursuit of profit under competitive pressures. Inefficient entities are left to fail without state intervention (Friedman, 2002).

In contrast, Arab and African governance practices often reflect a synthesis of religious, legal, and political traditions that prioritize communal well-being. In the Maghreb, Islamic jurisprudence and historical concepts like “covenant and kinship” guide leadership norms (Al-Farabi, 1991). In African folklore, governance is metaphorically likened to steering a ship-requiring wisdom to avoid sinking (Van Breda, 2019).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, local epistemologies play a central role in shaping governance values, empowering or constraining the public sector through indigenous cultural narratives (Wiredu, 1996).

6. Theoretical debates and future research agenda

6.1. Urban governance and fragmented authority

Urban governance-whether conceived as networked, postmodern, or megacity governance-has become a highly diverse and fragmented field of study. Over the past decade, it has received growing academic attention (Pierre, 2011; Sørensen & Torfing, 2007). This interest often reflects concerns about the declining influence of elected public officials and the growing dominance of non-governmental actors such as charities, business organizations, consultants, and supranational institutions (Stone, 1993; Jessop, 1998).

However, some scholars argue that governance is not a modern invention but a historically continuous process. Cities have long served as centers of authority and multi-actor interaction (F. da Cruz et al., 2018; Brenner, 2004). Despite this, the field remains marked by conceptual ambiguity-governance is often treated as an elastic metaphor: is it a replacement for government, an outcome of it, or merely a control mechanism? Its normative and organizational dimensions frequently intersect (Rhodes, 1996; Healey, 2006).

Empirical studies of urban governance still face significant challenges. In some cases, data are partial or derived from limited interviews with city officials, such as in research on London’s housing authorities (Imrie & Raco, 2003). This fragmentation makes it difficult to generalize findings across contexts.

As a result, governance has remained a concept that is simultaneously flexible and elusive. Its meanings differ significantly by region, with the “global capitalist city” model representing just one among many governance types (Sassen, 2001; McCann, 2013).

6.2. Decentralization and multi-level governance

Public governance has become increasingly globalized over recent decades. This shift is characterized by a growing diversity of actors and the cross-border diffusion of regulatory functions, particularly in Western democracies where regulatory authority has been partially delegated to both international and subnational levels (OECD, 2021; Peters, 2019).

This transformation has also brought greater emphasis on stakeholder participation and deliberative engagement, reshaping bureaucratic mechanisms toward more networked governance arrangements (Ansell & Sørensen, 2020). Two analytical models have emerged in this context: the bureaucratic governance model, which emphasizes hierarchical state authority, and the stakeholder governance model, which integrates non-state actors into the policy process (Piattoni, 2020).

Whereas the bureaucratic model restricts the role of non-governmental participants, the stakeholder model recognizes a polycentric structure in which legitimacy is co-produced through collaboration (Dahlberg & Vedung, 2020).

This evolution raises key questions: Does the proliferation of governance actors represent a decline in local authority or an expansion of collaborative potential? (Hajer & Versteeg, 2019). Research shows that public governance does not always align with the dominant “governance narratives,” especially in the Global South, where contexts differ significantly (Krause, 2022; Gisselquist & Resnick, 2018).

In urban governance specifically, research often remains disconnected from the lived realities of city managers, contributing to a gap between theory and practice. This is particularly problematic given the importance of cities in tackling climate change, promoting social justice, and driving digital transitions (McGuirk et al., 2022; Swyngedouw & Lin, 2020).

6.3. Methodological pluralism and southern epistemologies

In light of these challenges, this review calls for strengthening methodological pluralism and incorporating Southern epistemologies into governance studies. Greater attention is needed to how legitimacy and accountability are constructed within diverse urban governance systems.

By recognizing regional differences and historical legacies, future research can better evaluate the dynamics of multi-level governance and develop tools that reflect the complexity and adaptability of governance practices across varied contexts (Zhou & Pahl, 2021; Roy, 2019).

7. Conclusion

Over the past three decades, research on public and urban governance has evolved from a normative and descriptive discourse-rooted in post-Fordist theory and socio-productive paradigms-into a more diverse and analytical field of inquiry. While early studies primarily focused on Western cities, recent research highlights the complex dynamics of governance shaped by digital, climatic, and demographic transformations (da Cruz et al., 2018; Acuto, 2020).

This shift has led to the emergence of multi-level and multi-actor governance arrangements in which authority is distributed across the state, civil society, and the private sector. Contemporary literature views urban governance as a flexible process shaped by the interaction of global and local forces, informal practices, and contestation over urban space (Bulkeley et al., 2019; McGuirk et al., 2022).

Moreover, research has expanded to include cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, offering alternative institutional models that challenge Eurocentric governance frameworks (Zhou & Pahl, 2021; Roy, 2019). According to Meijer (2020) and the OECD (2021), these global reviews seek to provide critical analyses of theoretical and practical developments in governance through key themes such as decentralization, digital governance, urban resilience, and participatory planning.

This review does not claim to exhaust the topic but rather aims to contribute to framing public and urban governance as an adaptive and pluralistic domain-shaped by historical legacies, contemporary challenges, and the uncertainties of the future.

References

Acuto, M. (2020). Urban governance in the age of the Anthropocene. Urban Studies, 57(4), 805–819.

Adshead, M., Kirby, P., & Millar, M. (2020). Ireland and the politics of social partnership. Manchester University Press.

Al-Farabi. (1991). Al-Madina al-Fadila [The Virtuous City]. Dar Al-Mashreq.

Ang, Y. Y. (2020). China’s Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption. Cambridge University Press.

Ansell, C., & Sørensen, E. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? Public Management Review, 22(5), 749–756.

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public innovation through collaboration and design. Routledge.

Bevir, M. (2006). Democratic Governance. Princeton University Press.

Bevir, M. (2011). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2023). Interpretive Political Science: Mapping the Field. Oxford University Press.

Bloch, M. (1961). Feudal Society. University of Chicago Press.

Brenner, N. (2004). New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford University Press.

Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley-Blackwell.

Cheung, A. B. L. (2005). The politics of administrative reforms in Asia: Paradigms and legacies, paths and diversities. Governance, 18(2), 257–282.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2019). Performance and public sector reform: The Norwegian experience. Palgrave Macmillan.

Congleton, R. D. (2011). Perfecting Parliament: Constitutional reform, liberalism, and the rise of Western democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101399.

da Cruz, N. F., Rode, P., McQuarrie, M., & Avelino, F. (2018). New urban governance. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 4–26.

Duby, G. (1978). Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Easton, D. (1953). The Political System. Alfred A. Knopf.

Evans, P. (2004). Development as Institutional Change: The Pitfalls of Monocropping and the Potentials of Deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 30–52.

Farazmand, A. (2006). Public Administration and Globalization. Public Administration Review, 66, 498–512.

Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.

Gisselquist, R. M., & Resnick, D. (2018). How can donors improve governance in fragile states? World Development, 106, 323–335.

Heclo, H. (1978). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The New American Political System. American Enterprise Institute.

Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Polity Press.

Heilmann, S., & Perry, E. J. (2011). Mao’s Invisible Hand: The Political Foundations of Adaptive Governance in China. Harvard University Asia Center.

Hilton, R. H. (1985). The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages. Oxford University Press.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2018). A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less? Oxford University Press.

Hood, C., James, O., & Scott, C. (2001). Regulation of Government: Has it Increased, is it Increasing, Should it be Diminished? Public Administration, 79(1), 1–44.

Imrie, R., & Raco, M. (2003). Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Policy Press.

Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.

Karpouzou, E., & Papadimitriou, D. (2021). Digital public services and participatory democracy. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101586.

Kettl, D. F. (2002). The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kettl, D. F. (2015). Politics of the Administrative Process. CQ Press.

Kjaer, A. M. (2004). Governance. Polity Press.

Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. Sage Publications.

Krause, M. (2022). Comparative Public Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kuhlmann, S. (2010). Performance Measurement and Benchmarking in Public Administration. In Bovaird, T. & Löffler, E. (Eds.), Public Management and Governance (pp. 231–245). Routledge.

Lieberthal, K., & Oksenberg, M. (1988). Policy Making in China: Leaders, Structures, and Processes. Princeton University Press.

Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77–101.

McGuirk, P. M., Dowling, R., Brennan, C., & Bulkeley, H. (2022). Urban governance in a climate emergency. Urban Studies, 59(4), 657–676.

Meijer, A. (2018). Digital transformation of government. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 565–572.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.

Metz, T. (2007). Ubuntu as a moral theory. South African Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), 331–345.

Munyaradzi Mashasha. (2014). Ubuntu: A philosophical perspective on social justice. Journal of African Ethics, 1(2), 22–34.

OECD. (2020). Digital Government Index. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2021). The Principles of Good Governance. OECD Publishing.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. Addison-Wesley.

-Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.

Osborne, S. P. (2021). Public service logic. Routledge.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.

P-ei, M. (2006). China’s Trapped Transition: The Limits of Developmental Autocracy. Harvard University Press.

Peters, B. G. (2010). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Routledge.

Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutional Theory in Political Science. Edward Elgar.

Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.

Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Palgrave Macmillan.

Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. Palgrave Macmillan.

Piattoni, S. (2020). Multi-level Governance: A Comparative Framework. Edward Elgar.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press.

Ramose, M. B. (2002). African Philosophy Through Ubuntu. Mond Books.

Reuter, T. (1997). Germany in the Early Middle Ages, c. 800–1056. Longman.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance. Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (2017). Network Governance and the Differentiated Polity. Oxford University Press.

Roy, A. (2019). Rethinking urban informality. Planning Theory, 18(3), 323–338.

Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City. Princeton University Press.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2018). Interactive political leadership. Oxford University Press.

Stillman, R. J. (2004). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Houghton Mifflin.

Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(1), 1–28.

Swyngedouw, E., & Lin, G. C. S. (2020). The Urban Political. Wiley-Blackwell.

Tierney, B. (1964). The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300. Prentice Hall.

Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2020). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford University Press.

Truman, D. B. (1951). The Governmental Process. Alfred A. Knopf.

Tsai, L. L. (2007). Accountability Without Democracy: Solidary Groups and Public Goods Provision in Rural China. Cambridge University Press.

UNESCO. (2021). Digital Heritage Strategies. UNESCO Publishing.

Van Breda, A. D. (2019). Developing the notion of Ubuntu as African theory for social work practice. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 55(4), 439–450.

Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. University of California Press.

Wiredu, K. (1996). Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective. Indiana University Press.

Zhao, S. (2009). The Concept of Soft Authoritarianism in China. Journal of Contemporary China, 18(62), 401–418.

Zhou, Y., & Pahl, S. (2021). Rethinking Governance Models in the Global South. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2011–2029.

---