ارائه چهارچوبی اکتشافی در ارزیابی نظام های حکمرانی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مطالعات متعددی در خصوص ارزیابی و مقایسه نظام های حکمرانی انجام شده است، این مطالعه با هدف ارائه یک چارچوب یکپارچه حاصل از آنها است. تداوم و تغییرات در شیوه های حکمرانی جهانی نیازمند ارزیابی های عمیق است. هر نظام حکومتی بر اساس دلایل، راهبردها و فرآیندهای اجرایی مختلف اصلاح می شود، اما همه آنها یک هدف نهایی دارند و آن حفظ صلاحیت نظام حکمرانی است. به عبارت دیگر پذیرش و حمایت از نهادها به مثابه هنجارها، قواعد و رویه های یک نظام حاکمیتی مستلزم اصلاحاتی است که قابل ارزیابی است. در این مقاله سعی شد با مقایسه نظام های حکمرانی چارچوبی برای ارزیابی نظام های حکمرانی به دست آید. ارزیابی به شناسایی عملکردهای کلیدی، عملکرد پاسخگویی و بهبود بررسی و تغییر خط مشی کمک می کند. مزیت این چارچوب این است که می تواند تعامل شاخص های ارزیابی و بخش های مختلف سیاست گذاری را بررسی کند و اصلاحات لازم را برای دستیابی به اهداف آن نظام انجام دهد. در این پژوهش با مطالعه کتابخانه ای و کسب نظرات کارشناسان، شاخص های ارزیابی نظام های حاکمیتی استخراج و با استفاده از پیمایش و استفاده از روش تحلیل عاملی تاییدی به کمک نرم افزار SPSS نسخه 26 مورد تایید قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که از مهمترین شاخص های ارزیابی نظام حکمرانی ارزیابی داخلی و مستمر، پاسخگویی و حمایت از ظرفیت سازمانی ذی نفعان است.Providing an exploratory framework in the evaluation of governance systems
Introduction :
The evaluation system can measure governance performance based on structures and organizations, risks and threats, and resource management, and even lead to their optimal use (1و Kosek and Rist, 2004; Naidu, 2011; Gunder, 2013; Tangan et al. colleagues, 2018).In addition, the existence of an evaluation system in governance helps to reduce corruption in the management of public affairs. In other words, it usually improves financial performance, which can lead to better economies of countries and thus increase people's living standards (Crib et al., 2018; Mir and Oriacombe, 2019; Dusso et al., 2021). A comprehensive and integrated evaluation system has the ability to evaluate a government system internally and externally. Internal control is done by organizations and companies, and external control is done by legislators and national and international authorities. Most scholars agree that the basic structures of governance have changed, but there are differing views on exactly what has changed and how (Song et al., 2017; 51, 2019; Hilscher and Kivima, 2019). What is evident is the diversity and complexity of these systems. This study aims to provide an integrated framework resulting from them.
Methodology:
This research is developmental in terms of purpose because it pursues new knowledge in reality and is based on descriptive and analytical data collection method and its strategy is interview and survey. Because this research is looking for governance evaluation indicators and has no hypothesis, as a result its approach is exploratory. The method of doing the work is a combination that in the qualitative part of this research in order to extract indicators related to each of the concepts using the snowball method, a sample of the statistical population of relevant managers and experts in the policy making process in Iran was selected and by determining the time of the interview and Questions were sent to them in advance for a 40-minute interview. The interview results were analyzed by thematic analysis method and the main indicators were extracted. Reliability was confirmed through Kappa coefficient with values higher than 0.7, and validity was also confirmed by several studies. In the quantitative section, 380 people were selected from the questionnaire obtained from the interview section using Cochran's method and the collected data were analyzed using the method of confirmatory factor analysis and Friedman's prioritization. Validity was confirmed through content validity and reliability through Cronbach's alpha with a value of 0.86.
Results and Discussion:
In order to identify the evaluation indicators of the governance system, first, using a library study, a semi-structured questionnaire was prepared for the interview, questions were designed and used as an input and a source of brainstorming in 26 interviews. After completing the questionnaires, the interviews were stopped because the content of the answers to the questions reached the stage of repetition and so-called theoretical saturation. In other words, thematic analysis was done after each interview, and considering that after 24 interviews, the themes were repeated more than 5 times, the operation was continued until 2 interviews and the results were summarized. After that, profiles were extracted using the inductive theme analysis method. These indicators include: internal evaluations, accountability, supporting the organizational capacity of stakeholders, transparency, capacity building, central justice, non-discrimination and compatibility, effective consensus processes, stakeholder participation, legitimacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency, the degree of achievement of goals. Management, coordination between stakeholders, the existence of rules and their compliance, the existence of appropriate roles and responsibilities, learning policy, group learning. Finally, by using confirmatory factor analysis, all indicators were confirmed and the structural equation model had suitable fit indicators. Then, using the Friedman test, prioritization was done that the most important components are transparency, capacity building, central justice, non-discrimination and compatibility, effective consensus processes, stakeholder participation, joint decision-making, the existence of laws and their compliance, and the existence of appropriate roles and responsibilities.
Conclusion: Based on the obtained results, it can be seen that indicators such as transparency, which are emphasized in Freeman's (2010) research, with an emphasis on the dissemination of information and building trust (30). Capacity building is another indicator mentioned in Turfing et al. (2021) as a political power or source of power. Central justice is mentioned in the studies of Hawa et al. (2020) as a serious responsibility of leadership and a sign of trust. In the studies of Ansel and Gash (2021), non-discrimination and compatibility are considered as a key concept and the basis of justice. Joint decision-making and effective consensus processes have been emphasized in the study of Emerson et al. (2012) for the interaction between stakeholders, as well as the participation of stakeholders in the studies of Klein and Edlenbos (2013) (و 2646). Vision, value and action plan have been emphasized in the studies of Bryson (2004) and the necessity of doing it has been evaluated by providing resources (10). The existence of laws and the existence of appropriate roles and responsibilities have the main priority over other indicators, which are mentioned in the studies of Holt et al. (2017) as part of the policy process (40). By examining the sub-components, it is clear that, for example, the transparency index includes elements such as the use of innovative solutions in social communication, the amount of diversity of information in the performance of governing institutions and the level of stakeholder satisfaction. It shows the amount and quality of information provided, the reporting mechanism and the level of understanding of important aspects of governance, which are all very important in terms of transparency. Capacity building is another indicator that determines the extent of conflict resolution mechanisms and mechanisms, expertise to fill gaps and performance evaluation, and the success rate of government lobbying, and similarly each of the sub-components shows how well a successful governance system can work. In order to achieve this success, it is necessary for each of the governance systems to be able to evaluate and collect the necessary information on time and at appropriate time intervals, set goals for them in line with its development and improvement, and obtain sustainable results. Therefore, while suggesting the use of these indicators for future researches, this research recommends that other researches deal with the point of what kind of problems may occur in which type of governance system in terms of evaluation indicators and the weaknesses and strengths of governance systems and what is its basis. and how it can affect the results of the development of a system. Future researches can better understand the functions and mechanisms and their adaptation to the desired system. It is also suggested that: necessary planning regarding education, awareness and cultural building should be done at different levels of society, from policy makers to the strata of society. This should be done with the help of developing a comprehensive and complete program with global and up-to-date resources. The evaluation system should be seen in the system and hierarchically at different levels of zero to two VSM methods and should be implemented for all the organizational structures of the system, especially in the field of education and training system. In order for the proper functioning and effectiveness of actions, inter-institutional structures should be seen in organizations and the system, so as to strengthen communication foundations and eliminate information and communication gaps. In regards to the development of the governance system and improvement towards usefulness, various researches should be conducted and by reducing the political approach, the meritocracy system should be implemented so that the management moves towards productivity.
تبلیغات
