, 2000: 6). The second perspective, however, is based on a much broader understanding of its function within a larger political context. Put differently, while the former defines governance in relation to the state and policy-making, the latter analyzes governance within the broader institutional meta-context of political regime. "Because [governance],"explains Hyden, "transcends the boundary of the state, it is a regime issue (i.e., it relates to the framework of rules that guide both state and society)" (Hyden et al., 2000: 8). Moreover, Hyden draws an additional distinction between the two frameworks by emphasizing the importance of ethical norms and social rules. While most authors tend to deal with the issue of regime transition in the context of democratization, Hyden et al. further considers the necessary influence of a constantly changing civil society on policy analysis and its implementation. By doing so, Hyden et al appeal to a more permanent theme "that gives the concept of regime-and, by implication, 'governance"-a significance in the study of both policy and politics that it currently does not enjoy" (Hyden et al., 2000: 9).

             The broader analytical framework employed by Hyden et al. in the study of governance serves as a basis for understanding and explaining the substantive differences which separate their interpretation of democratization and regime transition from that of other authors. Most immediately, this distinction is clearly evident in the contrasting explanations purported by Hyden et al. and Adrian Leftwich concerning the failure of democratization in several Third World African states (most notably, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania). By adopting a more global analysis, Hyden et al attribute the failure of reform efforts to the deterioration and under-development of a necessarily fundamental civil institution-the public realm.