Talk:Good governance

Copyvio ?
There are a lot of similarities between the current article and http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp. Copyvio? (Seems unlikely UNESCAP copied w/o acknowledgement..) Glimz


 * Looks sufficiently different now. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A few comments
I'm a Wikipedia newbie though a writer of some years. So my comments are as a reader not as an experienced Wikipedian. "those countries' institutions often set the standards by which to compare other states' institutions.[2] Thus good governance is generally defined in ways that are advantageous to or in alignment with the agendas of aid organizations or authorities of developed countries.[3][4][5]"

Reads better without: "Thus the term good governance, though it seems to be something that could be objectively defined, is often very nebulous." First of all, you've given me a definition that doesn't seem all that nebulous. . . yet. Perhaps this idea could be worked into the criticism section, or into a conclusion, after you've shown how nebulous the concept becomes as various organizations champion their own definitions. Not to mention that this gets rid of two "Thus" sentences in a row ;)

Bullet should read "Follows the rule of law."

"the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)" is a direct quote from the UNESCAP website so it should be given as a quote.

The references are incomplete. Who is Khan? Agere? I assume these are books so we need the book title, etc. Check out the Citation templates.

This article is not in my normal area of expertise. So I would like to read something longer that fleshes out the ideas a bit more. You cite UNESCAP and the IMF - perhaps provide a concise synopsis of their core ideas.

Hope this helped. Canuck100 (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. References are there, see the book sources section. It reduces the clutter in the reflist. SADADS (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * they are not in the book section. e.g. there's no Khan 2016. The last publication year there is 2012. There's a Khan 2004 though. ~ 154.118.216.97 (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Good government <-> good government.
As the article on good government states, this phrase was popularised in the 19th century in the US. As the article says, the phrases 'good government' and 'good governance' have frequently been used erroneously in an interchangable manner. If my memory is correct, 'good governance' as a phrase was unheard of in the UK before the turn of the century and 'good government' was always used. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing the word 'governance' itself before then. Anyone else notice that, and should it be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1812ahill (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything documenting it? I'm in the U.S. and it seems to be entrenched in a lot of political rhetoric.SADADS (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

good enough governance
Can someone please write something about "good enough governance"? It's both discussed in science and in international politics

http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=%22good+enough+governance%22&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.132.102 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * anyone?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.29.35 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback
The lead section is lengthy and descriptive. The Key points are: Forms, Reforms, Effects of Good Governance and examples, Role of Political Parties, Scholarly approaches, and Criticism. It clearly analyzes the subject of Good Governance on all of these topics and does a great job at providing examples for each. All of the points and examples are supported by reliable sources, but in the reference section there seems to be an error that is pointed out by Wikipedia. Besides that it provides a lengthy list of reliable sources.

The article has a scholarly tone and does not state opinions as facts. The ‘Controversy’ tab does a good job of balancing out the article and does away with any bias.

Overall it is easy to read and informative. The structure and formatting is done in a scholarly way. Only further revision I could not would be on the ‘Reference’ tab. --Jamilethortega (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
The opening section is filled with useful information. The main points are: Benefits, Reforms,examples, and Criticism. The article breaks down and clearly explains the topic. The examples are supported by references and facts. The references come from a reliable source, however this is an error. However i think there needs to be more explanation on the terms listed under UN. This article was very informative and easy to understand.Elm86 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
While reading the page I noticed how simple of a read it was. I believe the page describes what "Good Governance" is well. All topic were clear while the correct amount included criticism. I found a citation error?. Overall It was well formatted and put together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunajacob2016 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Feed Back
Intro was very descriptive, included full definition that creates understanding of Good Governance. Could possible be more concentrated. The Key points are: Forms, Reforms, Effects of Good Governance and examples, Role of Political Parties, Scholarly approaches, and Criticism. Great use of Hyperlinks and citation through out article from scholarly sources. Has unbiased multiple perspectives on good governance providing critics and advocates of both positions. Provided multiple interpretations of good governance by multiple scholars and had very little grammatical issues as far as I could tell. (Haydenjones93 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC))

Suggestion for criticism is to focus on the controversy with the IMF, UN, and WB and their connection to third world countries and Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelliehenson (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the citations are pretty confusing and some links are also broken. Each of the sections seem pretty specific which I don't know if that is a good or bad thing. YmiLee (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Good governance
Mmk 103.10.224.195 (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Bad governance with Good governance. BG is just the opposite of Good governance. It's completely redundant and treads the same grounds as the Good governance article. It's a poorer version of Good governance. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Good governance. The existing of both articles lead to watered down articles, as editor contributions are spread across two articles. Thenightaway (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I propose that both be merged with the main article Governance for similar reasons of reducing redundancy and raising the editorial standard. 82.43.113.208 (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree 2604:3D08:B880:5700:30E9:3CE8:36BB:5549 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Civic education
Define good governance 102.150.109.5 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

La bonne gouvernance
Mohamed Tagar barry ne le 28 septembre 2006 à Conakry caloum 197.149.245.119 (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

La bonne gouvernance
M.tagar 197.149.245.119 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Défense de l'organisme
M.tagar 197.149.245.119 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)