It seems to come remotely from the Greek κυβερνάω kybernao (direct, drive a ship or chariot) used by Plato, metaphorically, to name the way of governing citizens, from which government also derives (through the Latin gubernatio). At the end of the Middle Ages, its use is recorded in modern languages, more from Latin than from Greek, with French gouvernance since the 1st century, designating the art or way of governing; from which it passes into English governance, with uses recorded since 1380. In Portuguese, governança, and in Spanish, gobernanza, they also seem to derive from French. It appears defined for the first time in the 1803 edition of the DRAE as "ancient. [formerly] the same as government."[5]​ Its use from the 1990s onwards by Anglo-Saxon academic media was initially applied, as a restriction of use, to the art or mode of government of international institutions; but with the purpose of, from a rarely used word and therefore quite free of connotations, to promote a new way of managing public affairs, based on the participation of civil society at all levels (national, local, regional and international).[6]​.

In the DRAE, a distinction is made between an ancient use of governance (2. f. ant. Action and effect of governing or being governed) and the more recent one (1. f. Art or way of governing that aims to achieve lasting economic, social and institutional development, promoting a healthy balance between the State, civil society and the economic market.)[7]​ The word governance, which is sometimes used as a synonym in Spanish,[8]​ most likely as a consequence of trying to translate directly from English, it does not appear in the DRAE.

The term governability, which in its first meaning of the DRAE means Quality of governability, and which is usually used especially in relation to its opposite (ungovernability), is, in its second meaning, synonymous with governance.[9]​.

Since the Old Regime, the expression was used (somewhat similar, but representing a completely different reality) good government"); for example, in the New Plant and Good Government Decrees that reformed the Hispanic Monarchy under Philip V. It had its "counterfigure" in the expression bad government"), of which the absolute king could never be accused, but rather his ministers (even in a revolt, like the Esquilache mutiny, the expression used was Long live the king and die the bad government!, similar to the cry of Dolores of the priest Hidalgo in the Mexican independence). Enlightened despotism largely sought its own legitimation in reforms that improved the situation of the people, but without compromising the theoretical primacy of the classical divine right legitimacy of absolutism.

In a democratic system of government, the legitimacy provided to the government by the ballot box is similarly constantly sought to be renewed with the "good quality" of its exercise or governance, measured by modern methods of demoscopy. The application of the term in today's world in countries that do not have democratic institutions comparable to Western ones is used to justify the different capacity to attract investment, as occurs with another widely invoked concept: legal certainty. Cases such as China[10]​ or Cuba[11]​ are usually analyzed from that point of view.

Criticism of the concept of governance from an anti-globalization point of view usually associates it with what is known as single thinking, confusingly called "neoliberal", linked to the economic policy proposals for Third World or developing countries of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The perspective from which the term governance is used from these institutions (or from academic or business circles) is not restricted to a purely technocratic position "Technocracy (bureaucracy)"), but rather assumes a certain degree of moral judgment (sometimes paternalistic) of states or political and economic systems, in which judgment they usually use qualifiers such as "virtuous practices" or "doing one's duties well or badly." On the other hand, we must not forget that, as Professor Ángel Iglesias says.

Global governance

In contrast to the meaning presented so far, authors such as James Rosenau") have used this term to denote the regulation of interdependent relations in the absence of a global political authority. The best example of this is the international system, that is, relations between independent states. The term can also be applied to a group formed by free and equal agents who need to form a regular relationship.

Corporate governance

The set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions that affect how a company (corporation) is directed, administered or controlled. It also includes the relationships between the many agents involved in them (from ownership to management, external controllers, creditors, investors, customers, suppliers, employees and the environment and the entire society).

Projective governance

As used in industry (especially the IT sector), it describes the processes that need to happen for a successful project. In particular, the issue of information technology governance receives a lot of attention.

From other points of view, we can talk about many other types of governance:

In the last two decades, the need to review the relationships between institutions and civil society has been perceived in Europe. It can be said that there is a tendency in favor of giving participatory instruments a chance. New directions on governance are being discussed and implemented very slowly, a term that has burst with some force into the political debate, both from the academic field and in the field of practical management. The concept, which has its origin in the tradition of the North American school of public administration studies (see Muñoz, 2005), has been imported by Europe when it noticed the need for new techniques and instruments to achieve strategic political management that combines the initiatives and interests of society, the State and the market.

According to the Commission on Global Governance, governance is:.

The European Commission in its White Paper on European Governance (2001) also provides a definition:

The reflection in favor of greater inclusivity is gaining ground, with citizen participation being one of the pillars of the new style of governance. However, the implementation of participatory instruments and processes is still an enormous challenge.

The introduction of the term governance in the field of science and technology has been promoted by the political dynamics of the European Union that has characterized the V and especially the VI Framework Program for Research and Development. A series of socio-political initiatives of the European Commission related to the reflection on the Common European Space in R&D (ERA) have been configuring a scenario that has brought to light the relevance of the concept of governance. Since then, the term has been incorporated almost automatically into numerous publications, without significant analytical contributions. According to Emilio Muñoz (2005), monitoring the references to the word governance reveals that practically all the citations are a simple translation of European initiatives. The European Commission has identified as the mission and fundamental value of the concept its operability to confront the problem of the different levels of promotion and management of science and technology in a context such as the European one, where various “spaces” – supranational, national, regional and even local –, political levels and actors coexist. Although this approach focused on the challenge of “operational coordination” is interesting for analysts, it also seems limited and even risky. E. Muñoz (2005: 296) warns of the danger of falling into a vicious circle: “we study what the decision-makers have introduced, while giving up understanding what supports the opportunity, validity and potential of the concept to develop a rational dynamic in social, economic and political terms in the field of science and technology.” Therefore, it will be necessary to delve deeper into the analytical, structural and prospective value of the concept.

Over the past decade, several efforts have been directed towards the international research and development community to assess and measure the quality of governance of countries around the world.

One such effort to create a measure of governance that can be used to compare countries internationally is the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, developed by members of the World Bank and the World Bank Institute. The project publishes global and individual indicators for more than 200 countries in six dimensions of governance: voice and accountability, political stability and lack of violence, government effectiveness, quality of regulation, rule of law, control of corruption.

To complete the Worldwide Governance Indicators, at a macro and cross-country level, the World Bank Institute developed governance studies called World Bank Governance Surveys, country-level governance assessment tools that intervene at the micro or infra-national level and use information collected from a country's own citizens, the business community and public sector workers to diagnose governance vulnerabilities and suggest concrete approaches to fight corruption.

A new Global Governance Index (GMI) has been developed and is available for improvement through public participation. The following themes, in the form of composite indicators and indices, have been chosen to be part of the IGM: peace and security, rule of law, human rights and participation, sustainable development, human development.

The Governance Analytical Framework (MAG) is a methodology with strong potential for research in social policies, especially in health policies. [15] Defining the concept of governance in a pragmatic way, it refers to the interaction processes between the actors involved in a public matter, which lead to decision-making or the formulation of social norms. It is postulated that there are governance processes present in any society and, unlike other approaches, these can be observed and analyzed from a perspective that is not normative or prescriptive. A methodology supported by several social disciplines is developed that serves to diagnose collective processes, which in turn is based on five main analytical units presented here: problems, actors, norms, processes and nodal points.

These analytical units aim to constitute a coherent and logically articulated methodology and their use as a methodological instrument for research in social policies is proposed. Public Health Magazine Article.

It seems to come remotely from the Greek κυβερνάω kybernao (direct, drive a ship or chariot) used by Plato, metaphorically, to name the way of governing citizens, from which government also derives (through the Latin gubernatio). At the end of the Middle Ages, its use is recorded in modern languages, more from Latin than from Greek, with French gouvernance since the 1st century, designating the art or way of governing; from which it passes into English governance, with uses recorded since 1380. In Portuguese, governança, and in Spanish, gobernanza, they also seem to derive from French. It appears defined for the first time in the 1803 edition of the DRAE as "ancient. [formerly] the same as government."[5]​ Its use from the 1990s onwards by Anglo-Saxon academic media was initially applied, as a restriction of use, to the art or mode of government of international institutions; but with the purpose of, from a rarely used word and therefore quite free of connotations, to promote a new way of managing public affairs, based on the participation of civil society at all levels (national, local, regional and international).[6]​.

In the DRAE, a distinction is made between an ancient use of governance (2. f. ant. Action and effect of governing or being governed) and the more recent one (1. f. Art or way of governing that aims to achieve lasting economic, social and institutional development, promoting a healthy balance between the State, civil society and the economic market.)[7]​ The word governance, which is sometimes used as a synonym in Spanish,[8]​ most likely as a consequence of trying to translate directly from English, it does not appear in the DRAE.

The term governability, which in its first meaning of the DRAE means Quality of governability, and which is usually used especially in relation to its opposite (ungovernability), is, in its second meaning, synonymous with governance.[9]​.

Since the Old Regime, the expression was used (somewhat similar, but representing a completely different reality) good government"); for example, in the New Plant and Good Government Decrees that reformed the Hispanic Monarchy under Philip V. It had its "counterfigure" in the expression bad government"), of which the absolute king could never be accused, but rather his ministers (even in a revolt, like the Esquilache mutiny, the expression used was Long live the king and die the bad government!, similar to the cry of Dolores of the priest Hidalgo in the Mexican independence). Enlightened despotism largely sought its own legitimation in reforms that improved the situation of the people, but without compromising the theoretical primacy of the classical divine right legitimacy of absolutism.

In a democratic system of government, the legitimacy provided to the government by the ballot box is similarly constantly sought to be renewed with the "good quality" of its exercise or governance, measured by modern methods of demoscopy. The application of the term in today's world in countries that do not have democratic institutions comparable to Western ones is used to justify the different capacity to attract investment, as occurs with another widely invoked concept: legal certainty. Cases such as China[10]​ or Cuba[11]​ are usually analyzed from that point of view.

Criticism of the concept of governance from an anti-globalization point of view usually associates it with what is known as single thinking, confusingly called "neoliberal", linked to the economic policy proposals for Third World or developing countries of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The perspective from which the term governance is used from these institutions (or from academic or business circles) is not restricted to a purely technocratic position "Technocracy (bureaucracy)"), but rather assumes a certain degree of moral judgment (sometimes paternalistic) of states or political and economic systems, in which judgment they usually use qualifiers such as "virtuous practices" or "doing one's duties well or badly." On the other hand, we must not forget that, as Professor Ángel Iglesias says.

Global governance

In contrast to the meaning presented so far, authors such as James Rosenau") have used this term to denote the regulation of interdependent relations in the absence of a global political authority. The best example of this is the international system, that is, relations between independent states. The term can also be applied to a group formed by free and equal agents who need to form a regular relationship.

Corporate governance

The set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions that affect how a company (corporation) is directed, administered or controlled. It also includes the relationships between the many agents involved in them (from ownership to management, external controllers, creditors, investors, customers, suppliers, employees and the environment and the entire society).

Projective governance

As used in industry (especially the IT sector), it describes the processes that need to happen for a successful project. In particular, the issue of information technology governance receives a lot of attention.

From other points of view, we can talk about many other types of governance:

In the last two decades, the need to review the relationships between institutions and civil society has been perceived in Europe. It can be said that there is a tendency in favor of giving participatory instruments a chance. New directions on governance are being discussed and implemented very slowly, a term that has burst with some force into the political debate, both from the academic field and in the field of practical management. The concept, which has its origin in the tradition of the North American school of public administration studies (see Muñoz, 2005), has been imported by Europe when it noticed the need for new techniques and instruments to achieve strategic political management that combines the initiatives and interests of society, the State and the market.

According to the Commission on Global Governance, governance is:.

The European Commission in its White Paper on European Governance (2001) also provides a definition:

The reflection in favor of greater inclusivity is gaining ground, with citizen participation being one of the pillars of the new style of governance. However, the implementation of participatory instruments and processes is still an enormous challenge.

The introduction of the term governance in the field of science and technology has been promoted by the political dynamics of the European Union that has characterized the V and especially the VI Framework Program for Research and Development. A series of socio-political initiatives of the European Commission related to the reflection on the Common European Space in R&D (ERA) have been configuring a scenario that has brought to light the relevance of the concept of governance. Since then, the term has been incorporated almost automatically into numerous publications, without significant analytical contributions. According to Emilio Muñoz (2005), monitoring the references to the word governance reveals that practically all the citations are a simple translation of European initiatives. The European Commission has identified as the mission and fundamental value of the concept its operability to confront the problem of the different levels of promotion and management of science and technology in a context such as the European one, where various “spaces” – supranational, national, regional and even local –, political levels and actors coexist. Although this approach focused on the challenge of “operational coordination” is interesting for analysts, it also seems limited and even risky. E. Muñoz (2005: 296) warns of the danger of falling into a vicious circle: “we study what the decision-makers have introduced, while giving up understanding what supports the opportunity, validity and potential of the concept to develop a rational dynamic in social, economic and political terms in the field of science and technology.” Therefore, it will be necessary to delve deeper into the analytical, structural and prospective value of the concept.

Over the past decade, several efforts have been directed towards the international research and development community to assess and measure the quality of governance of countries around the world.

One such effort to create a measure of governance that can be used to compare countries internationally is the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, developed by members of the World Bank and the World Bank Institute. The project publishes global and individual indicators for more than 200 countries in six dimensions of governance: voice and accountability, political stability and lack of violence, government effectiveness, quality of regulation, rule of law, control of corruption.

To complete the Worldwide Governance Indicators, at a macro and cross-country level, the World Bank Institute developed governance studies called World Bank Governance Surveys, country-level governance assessment tools that intervene at the micro or infra-national level and use information collected from a country's own citizens, the business community and public sector workers to diagnose governance vulnerabilities and suggest concrete approaches to fight corruption.

A new Global Governance Index (GMI) has been developed and is available for improvement through public participation. The following themes, in the form of composite indicators and indices, have been chosen to be part of the IGM: peace and security, rule of law, human rights and participation, sustainable development, human development.

The Governance Analytical Framework (MAG) is a methodology with strong potential for research in social policies, especially in health policies. [15] Defining the concept of governance in a pragmatic way, it refers to the interaction processes between the actors involved in a public matter, which lead to decision-making or the formulation of social norms. It is postulated that there are governance processes present in any society and, unlike other approaches, these can be observed and analyzed from a perspective that is not normative or prescriptive. A methodology supported by several social disciplines is developed that serves to diagnose collective processes, which in turn is based on five main analytical units presented here: problems, actors, norms, processes and nodal points.

These analytical units aim to constitute a coherent and logically articulated methodology and their use as a methodological instrument for research in social policies is proposed. Public Health Magazine Article.