domestic political issue that is not within their mandate of social and economic development. Moreover, many public management specialists argue that the political regime type is not a critical factor to project success. But they are aware that in certain instances, the inter related nature of these three dimensions often causes crossover issues that make it difficult for change to be limited to just the latter two aspects of development governance.
In their development governance (often simply called governance) work at the World Bank and the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), seven specific areas of the DC public sector are targeted for improvement as embodied in their business operations: (1) public sector management, (2) accountability, (3) legal and regulatory framework, (4) transparency and information, (5) human rights, (6) participatory approaches, and (7) military expenditure. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) subscribe to the first four areas in much the same way. Some variations in interpretation, however, are evident in their operations and prescribed applications. Moreover, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), African Development Bank (AFDB), the United Kingdom's Overseas Development Agency (ODA), and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) all concur with this renewed concern in development governance but place a greater emphasis on basic public sector management in personnel pay and promotion, tax administration, budget, and finance.
At the United Kingdom's ODA, serious DC attempts at improving the quality of public administration (or in their terms "good government") are a key determining factor for development assistance, and certain cases of noncompliance with the ODA's good government guidelines have resulted in the suspension or reduction of a recipient country's aid ( Central Office of Information 1993).
In the United States, implementing governance changes is interpreted to mean simply the restructuring and reorganization of government, but new ways to manage the peoples' business have expanded beyond the context of government or the U.S. public sector. Mounting domestic pressure and a changing global environment have persuaded the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations to implement policies that encourage: (1) privatization of public services, (2) use of nongovernmental organizations, and (3) development of more public-private partnerships. Thus, a new era of governance concern was born in the United States.
The Clinton administration's "reinvention exercise" is one clear manifestation of the U.S. commitment to a new type of development governance even in a developed country setting. At the federal government level, it is envisioned that reinventing governance would eliminate overlapping and duplication to increase the speed by which central agencies respond to fast-changing public needs.
Popular usage of the generic term governance spans across a number of other disciplines and subfields -- business, political science, economics, sociology, and law -- aside from it being one of the core themes of international aid administration in the 1990s. Within the United States, private sector governance, more specifically known as corporate governance, refers to the framework of laws, regulatory institutions, and reporting requirements that condition the way the corporate sector is managed.
Development governance became a formal scholarly issue of concern within the academic community with the publication in 1991 of the International Political Science Association's Structure and Organization of Government (SOG) Research Committee journal, entitled Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. In terms of substantive content, policy, administration, and the organization of the state vis-á-vis society are covered from an intercultural perspective that goes beyond appropriate administration and management in the United States. Numerous other public administration journals such as Public Administration Review also have articles covering the various subthemes of governance.
JOAQUIN L. GONZALEZ III
Asian Development Bank, 1994. Report of the Task Force on Improving Project Quality. Manila, Philippines.
Brautigam, Deborah, 1991. Governance and Economy: A Review. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Working Paper (WPS 815).
Central Office of Information, 1993. Britain 1994: An Official Handbook. London: HMSO.
John, DeWitt, 1994. "What Will New Governance Mean for the Federal Government"? Public Administration Review, vol. 54, no. 2:170-175.
World Bank, 1991. "Managing Development: The Governance Dimension". Discussion paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
-----, Governance: The World Bank's Experience. Washington, D.C.: IBRD.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. A nonitinerant, goal-oriented, professional fund-raising expert who works as a staff member within a nonprofit organization and has primary responsibility for strategically planning, focusing, and coordinating the organization's fund-raising techniques with competence and ethical discipline. The officer may work alone or be part of a development team.
Fund-raising and development are irrevocably linked to each other. Development implies more than the process of solicitation. It includes the process of researching