INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7674

Utilization of the New Public Governance Approach to Conflict

Management: A Case Study of the Border Communities in Southern-

Gambia.

Kebba Gibba

, Banna Sawaneh

Department of Management Sciences, School of Business and Public Administration, University of The

Gambia, Gambia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000626

Received: 26 October 2025; Accepted: 01 November 2025; Published: 19 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines the application of the New Public Governance (NPG) approach to conflict management in

the border communities of Southern Gambia, where persistent land disputes, resource scarcity, and political

tensions undermine local stability and development. The main aim is to investigate how NPG principles-

emphasizing inclusive participation, networked governance, and bottom-up accountability-can offer a context-

specific and sustainable framework for conflict management in fragile borderland contexts.

A qualitative case study design was employed, with data collected from 35 community members and 30 security

officials in Brikama LGA and neighbouring border areas through interviews, focus group discussions, and

document analysis. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic framework, supported by NVivo 15, guided the

analysis.

Findings indicate that NPG enhances conflict management by integrating indigenous mechanisms, such as joking

relationships (sanankuyaa, Jola-Fula-Serer), which foster cohesion, humour, and respect. Cross-border

collaboration through joint patrols, training, and harmonized protocols builds trust and strengthens coordination

among stakeholders. Community perceptions highlight that participatory dialogue, peace education, and cultural

practices reinforce inter-ethnic cohesion, reconciliation, and shared identity. Strategies to strengthen NPG

include improved infrastructure, secure communication, early warning systems, and livelihood initiatives such

as cross-border markets and youth/women empowerment. Multi-level adaptive governance and hybrid councils

further institutionalize inclusive conflict transformation. Despite these benefits, challenges persist, including

complex socio-political dynamics, capacity gaps among traditional leaders, and uneven resource distribution,

which limits the full realization of NPG’s potential.

This study is motivated by a critical research gap while prior research has examined conflict in the Senegambia

borderlands; limited attention has been given to how a governance framework like NPG can operationalize local

cultural mechanisms for sustainable conflict transformation. Addressing this gap can provide evidence-based

strategies for policymakers, practitioners, and community actors to enhance peacebuilding in fragile border

contexts.

Keywords: New Public Governance, conflict management, border communities, Senegambia, indigenous

mechanisms, participatory governance, cross-border collaboration.

INTRODUCTION

The Gambia’s southern border settlements in the West Coast Region (WCR) and Senegal’s Casamance area

represent a socio-cultural continuum characterized by shared linguistic, cultural, and traditional political

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7675

affinities among ethnic groups such as the Fula, Mandinka, Serer, and Jola (Bayo, 1977). Despite these deep-

rooted connections, the region remains a hotspot of intermittent tensions and complex border disputes. Key

Gambian border posts-Giboro and Omorto in Kombo East, Kartong in Kombo South, and Darsilameh and

Dimbaya in Kombo Central-serve as important points of interaction between the two countries. Yet, contested

spaces such as Touba-Tranquil, claimed by residents to be part of Senegal, illustrate the persistence of boundary

ambiguities and the fragility of cross-border relations. The Gambia–Casamance border, therefore, encapsulates

the historical, political, and socio-economic challenges that have long shaped intercommunal relations and

governance in the region (Nugent, 2007).Niang (2013) observes that the persistence of tensions along this border

is largely due to weak coordination between Gambian and Senegalese authorities, compounded by divergent

administrative structures, poor communication, and historical mistrust. These factors have limited the

development of a coherent framework for conflict management and sustainable peacebuilding. In multi-ethnic

settlements such as Darsilameh, Giboro-Koto, and Dimbaya, long-standing grievances over land ownership,

access to resources, and political representation continue to escalate conflicts, highlighting the need for more

inclusive and participatory approaches to governance.

The New Public Governance (NPG) paradigm (Osborne, 2010) offers an innovative framework for addressing

these cross-border challenges. Unlike the hierarchical and bureaucratic nature of traditional public administration

or the efficiency-oriented focus of New Public Management (NPM), NPG emphasizes collaboration, inclusivity,

and participatory decision-making. It advocates for the integration of diverse actors-including local communities,

traditional authorities, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private sector

entities-in governance and conflict management processes. Within the context of borderland dynamics, NPG

promotes decentralized and cooperative mechanisms that reflect local realities and empower communities to

take ownership of peacebuilding initiatives.

The long-standing disputes between Touba-Tranquil in Senegal and Gambian villages such as Darsilameh,

Giboro-Koto, and Dimbaya are deeply rooted in overlapping ethnic identities, historical rivalries, and contested

land claims. The emergence of the Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance (MFDC) in the 1990s further

destabilized the region, resulting in population displacement and economic disruption (Niang, 2013). More

recently, the deployment of Senegalese forces under the ECOMIG peacekeeping mission in 2017 has intensified

sovereignty concerns among Gambian border communities, contributing to mistrust and weakening social

cohesion. These dynamics have significant implications for peace, security, and development, particularly by

constraining cross-border trade and cooperation.

Within this context, the NPG framework offers a pathway toward more sustainable conflict management by

fostering shared responsibility among multiple stakeholders. By promoting dialogue, inclusion, and local

participation, it seeks to address the structural and relational causes of conflict rather than merely managing their

outcomes. This participatory orientation resonates with global trends in governance and peacebuilding, which

emphasize locally, led solutions and trust-building in fragile border environments.

Institutionally, The Gambia has established several key agencies to manage its borders and ensure national

security. The Gambia Immigration Department (GID), created by Act No. 2 of 1965, regulates migration and

border control (Jallow, 2018). The Customs Department (established in 2004) safeguards economic interests

through trade regulation and revenue collection (Touray, 2020). The Gambia Armed Forces, founded under

Sections 186–187 of the 1997 Constitution, defend territorial sovereignty and assist civil authorities, while the

State Intelligence Service (SIS), created by Decree 45/1995, focuses on intelligence and counterintelligence

operations. The Ministry of Defence oversees strategic coordination of defense policies (Njie, 2021), and the

Ministry of Lands and Regional Government manages land administration and regional development (Baldeh,

2019).

Collectively, these institutions-when guided by the principles of New Public Governance—can foster

collaboration, transparency, and community engagement. Such an approach holds promise for transforming the

Gambia–Casamance border from a zone of recurring tension into a model of cooperative governance, peace, and

sustainable development.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7676

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

This section reviews key concepts; conflict management, New Public Governance and public administration,

alongside relevant theories that inform the study.

Conflict Management

Conflict management is viewed as a process addressing situations where groups compete for scarce resources

necessary for survival. Scholars such as Maslow, Burton, and Wallensteen define conflict through elements of

incompatibility, action, and actors, emphasizing how unmet human needs and competing goals often trigger

hostilities (Oishi, 2016). Bartos and Wehr (2002) further describe conflict as adversarial behaviour driven by

incompatible objectives and emotional hostility. The concept extends beyond containing violence to include

addressing root causes such as inequality and injustice. Rubenstein (2011) and Hamad (2011) note that while

conflict management seeks to prevent escalation, it also promotes systems for peaceful engagement and

transformation. Non-violent strategies-dialogue, negotiation, and compromise-are crucial, and third-party

interventions (mediation, arbitration, and peacekeeping) play vital roles in facilitating these processes

(Chareonwongsak, 2018; Amer, 2016). At the international level, institutions like the UN support state-led

conflict management, emphasizing diplomacy and cooperation (Oishi, 2016).

The New Public Governance

New Public Governance (NPG) represents a shift from traditional hierarchical administration and market-driven

New Public Management toward a more inclusive, collaborative, and network-based model of governance.

Rooted in social work and organizational sociology, NPG emphasizes stakeholder engagement, co-production

of solutions, and the interdependence of actors across public, private, and civil society sectors (Osborne, 2006;

2010). It promotes partnerships and “self-organizing, inter-organizational networks” (Rhodes, 1997) that enable

shared decision-making, resource pooling, and policy innovation-crucial in addressing complex challenges like

border conflicts.

Unlike earlier models that prioritized control or efficiency, NPG highlights dialogue, negotiation, and

participation as mechanisms for achieving collective outcomes. It views governance as a process involving

diverse institutions-government bodies, NGOs, businesses, and communities-working together to enhance public

service delivery and policy implementation (Xu et al., 2015; Sawaneh, 2021). Citizen governance, an integral

aspect of NPG, reflects the public’s active role in managing societal issues through partnerships and agreements

beyond formal government structures. By fostering inclusivity, accountability, and trust, NPG seeks to align

public interests with shared governance practices. Overall, it provides a flexible framework suited to managing

multidimensional issues like cross-border conflicts through participatory and cooperative approaches.

Public Administration

Public Administration encompasses the activities and institutions through which governments implement

policies, deliver public services, and uphold the rule of law. It operates within a political environment,

distinguishing it from private administration, and emphasizes the execution of legislative mandates through

legally established bodies (Shafritz et al., 2017). As both a practice and an academic discipline, public

administration studies how management principles apply in the public sector while incorporating insights from

law, political science, sociology, and business. Originating with Woodrow Wilson’s The Study of

Administration (1887), the field evolved into a distinct discipline in the 20th century, reflecting changing roles

of governance in a globalized world (Shafritz et al., 2022).

The discipline promotes transparency, fairness, accountability, and the ethical pursuit of public values

(Rosenbloom & Chanin, 2017). While rooted in bureaucratic models emphasizing hierarchy, efficiency, and

professionalism, traditional public administration also limited citizen participation, casting individuals as passive

“clients” dependent on state services (Callahan, 2006). However, modern public administration recognizes the

need for adaptability, sustainability, and innovation in service delivery-whether through public agencies, private

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7677

contractors, or nonprofit organizations. Its central challenge lies in balancing efficiency with democratic values,

ensuring that governance structures remain responsive, ethical, and oriented toward public interest amid evolving

political and societal demands.

Empirical Review

The New Public Governance (NPG) paradigm emerged as an evolution of Public Governance and New Public

Management, emphasizing inclusivity, pluralism, and collaboration among diverse governance actors such as

governments, private sectors, NGOs, and civil society groups (Xu et al., 2015). NPG promotes participatory

governance, decentralization, and multi-level cooperation across local, regional, and global structures, aligning

public administration with modern societal changes like globalization, informatization, and marketization. It

advocates for equitable decision-making, transparency, and networked interaction among actors, moving beyond

hierarchical and monopolistic state control toward shared authority and citizen engagement.

Empirical studies demonstrate both the potential and limitations of NPG in managing complex conflicts.

Examples include the Ethiopia–Eritrea conflict, where external mediation lacked sustained collaboration

(Abbink, 2003), and the South China Sea dispute, where multilateral negotiations under ASEAN–China

frameworks reflect partial NPG principles but are hindered by power asymmetries (Thayer, 2011). The Good

Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland exemplifies successful collaborative governance fostering inclusivity and

trust (O’Flynn, 2007), while environmental management in the Colorado River Basin illustrates NPG in

sustainable resource cooperation (Schlager & Heikkila, 2011).

In West Africa, the protracted Casamance conflict in Senegal, shaped by colonial border legacies and ethnic

fragmentation, reveals weak governance coordination and limited citizen participation (Bayo, 1977; Evans &

Ray, 2013). Applying NPG principles-through networked peacebuilding, participatory dialogue, and regional

collaboration-offers a pathway for addressing cross-border conflicts, particularly between The Gambia and

Senegal’s Casamance region.

Traditional African conflict management systems are community-driven frameworks rooted in dialogue,

consensus, and reconciliation, aimed at preserving social harmony and restoring relationships rather than

punishing offenders (Zartman, 2018). Elders, chiefs, and spiritual leaders play central roles as mediators and

negotiators, using customary laws and cultural rituals-such as libations, oaths, and palavers to ensure fairness,

forgiveness, and accountability. Examples like Rwanda’s Gacaca courts and Uganda’s Mato Oput process

demonstrate the strength of traditional methods in promoting communal healing, reconciliation, and local

ownership of justice. These approaches are cost-effective, culturally legitimate, and accessible, especially in

rural or post-conflict settings.

However, traditional mechanisms face limitations. They often exclude women and youth, lack consistency across

regions, and struggle with large-scale or politicized conflicts. Their reliance on moral authority can hinder

enforcement, while biases, elite influence, and contradictions with statutory laws-such as in Cameroon or

Somalia-undermine credibility (Ghebretekle & Rammala, 2018). To address these weaknesses, judicial

interventions and hybrid mechanisms have gained prominence. Judicial approaches, including the International

Court of Justice (ICJ), provide legality and impartiality but are slow, expensive, and sometimes unenforceable-

as shown in the Western Sahara dispute (Sone, 2016). Hybrid methods, combining mediation, arbitration, and

judicial processes, balance inclusivity with legal rigor, though they require strong coordination and resources,

as demonstrated by the African Union Border Programme (Adegbonmire, 2015).

Emerging frameworks like the New Public Governance (NPG) model offer a collaborative alternative by

emphasizing inclusivity, multi-stakeholder engagement, and shared power (Osborne, 2010). NPG’s network-

based approach fosters dialogue between governments, civil society, and communities, addressing local

grievances in complex border conflicts such as The Gambia-Casamance region. Despite its potential for

participatory and adaptive conflict management, NPG faces challenges of accountability gaps, power

asymmetries, and weak institutional capacity-factors that must be strengthened for effective and sustainable

peacebuilding.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7678

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A theoretical framework provides a structured guide for researchers, helping to formulate hypotheses, select

methodologies, and link findings to established theories (Adom, Hussein & Agyem, 2018; Ravitch & Carl,

2016). Conflict Transformation Theory, developed by John Paul Lederach (1995, 2003), focuses on addressing

the root causes of conflict through long-term, culturally grounded, and relationship-centered approaches. Unlike

traditional conflict resolution, it seeks to transform social structures, relationships, and discourses that sustain

conflict, emphasizing inclusivity, local ownership, and indigenous knowledge, such as joking relationships

among the Jola, Serer, Fula, and Kaabunka. Multi-track diplomacy and integration with New Public Governance

(NPG) principles-participatory decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and decentralized governance-

enhance legitimacy and sustainability of peace processes. Evidence from Northern Ghana and Casamance shows

culturally informed, governance-integrated models are effective. The proposed Community-Based Conflict

Transformation Model for the Gambia-Casamance border aligns Lederach’s theory with local practices and

NPG, offering a culturally legitimate, participatory, and systemic approach to sustainable peacebuilding.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The study examined the application of the New Public Governance (NPG) approach to conflict management in

the border communities of Southern Gambia-specifically Darsilameh, Giboro Koto, and Dimbaya. Findings

indicate that while NPG principles of collaboration, inclusiveness, and multi-actor engagement have contributed

to enhanced cross-border governance and security, their effectiveness is contingent upon structural, institutional,

and socio-political factors.

Joint patrols between Gambian and Senegalese security forces illustrate the potential of NPG to foster

cooperation, trust, and coordinated security management. Regular mixed patrols and intelligence-sharing

meetings have mitigated smuggling and petty crime while promoting mutual understanding, reflecting similar

successes in other West African border regions (Mbumega & Cyril, 2019). Community engagement

mechanisms, including “border watch” boxes, SMS sharing, and village meetings, strengthened intelligence

gathering and reduced fear of reprisals, demonstrating that legitimacy and trust are critical for governance

effectiveness. However, these successes are not uniform: bureaucratic, cultural and colonial language differences

between The Gambia’s and Senegal’s administrative systems, along with political interference and elite

dominance, significantly undermine efficiency and impartiality. Standardizing reporting formats, decision-

making procedures, and disciplinary measures emerges as a key requirement for sustaining collaborative

governance.

While participants from the three communities reported fewer violent incidents and increased confidence in law

enforcement due to visible joint patrols, inclusivity remains limited. Youth and women frequently feel excluded

from decision-making, reflecting broader governance challenges observed in Niger’s Agadez region (Bradley &

Erdilmen, 2023). Furthermore, the dominance of elite actors in cross-border coordination reduces perceived

fairness, and discrepancies between Gambian common law and Senegalese civil law complicate joint

enforcement, constraining NPG’s collaborative potential (Gilbert & Pasque, 2023). These findings underscore

that NPG is not a universally applicable solution; its success relies heavily on local institutional, legal, and

cultural contexts.

Strengthening NPG implementation in these border communities requires both technical and institutional

interventions. Cross-border cooperation can be enhanced through joint training, harmonized protocols, and

intelligence-sharing, as observed along the Kenya-Uganda border (Mkutu, 2008). Investment in infrastructure,

communications, and early warning systems improves state visibility and responsiveness, while integrating

traditional practices, such as joking relationships (sanankuyaa) and community dialogues, aligns with Lederach’s

(1997) conflict transformation framework, ensuring culturally resonant peacebuilding. Economic initiatives,

including cross-border markets and youth employment programs, reduce grievances and foster interdependence

(Charles, 2012). A multi-level governance model linking local peace committees, national institutions, and

ECOWAS frameworks can support adaptive, coherent regional responses (Okpara, 2020).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7679

Despite these opportunities, several institutional weaknesses limit NPG’s full potential. Inadequate funding, poor

infrastructure, limited technology, and fragmented authority perpetuate inefficiency (Korf & Emmers, 2019).

Out-dated colonial boundaries, weak communication networks, and rigid legal systems further constrain

effective cross-border governance. Bureaucratic silos, elite interference, and insufficient digital tools hinder real-

time coordination (Andreas & Nadelmann, 2006; Newman, 2006). Additionally, neglecting community feedback

and failing to adapt to evolving smuggling and security dynamics undermine the sustainability of NPG-based

interventions. Therefore, while NPG provides a promising framework, its application in Southern Gambia’s

borderlands requires deliberate attention to institutional reform, local adaptation, and sustained capacity-

building.

CONCLUSION

This study set out to examine how the New Public Governance (NPG) framework has been implemented in

managing cross-border conflicts in the Gambia–Casamance region, focusing on cooperation, inclusivity,

institutional coordination, and community participation. The findings indicate that while notable progress has

been made, challenges remain in achieving full alignment between NPG principles and the complex realities of

border governance.

A major success has been the improvement in cross-border cooperation. Joint security patrols, intelligence

sharing, and harmonized operational procedures between Gambian and Senegalese authorities have reduced

misunderstandings and improved stability. These efforts highlight how NPG’s collaborative approach can build

trust and institutional synergy across national boundaries.

The study also found increased community participation in peacebuilding processes. Through traditional

mechanisms such as joking relationships and participatory dialogue forums, communities are taking an active

role in resolving disputes and fostering social cohesion. This bottom-up engagement reflects the NPG emphasis

on inclusivity and shared governance, marking a gradual move away from centralized, state-dominated conflict

management.

Furthermore, institutional coordination has improved through the creation of cross-border committees and joint

decision-making platforms that facilitate dialogue and policy consistency. Complementary socio-economic

initiatives, including youth and women empowerment programs and cross-border trade activities, have addressed

local grievances while strengthening interdependence and peacebuilding.

However, structural and political barriers-such as colonial administrative legacies, resource constraints, weak

infrastructure, and centralized governance-continue to hinder the full realization of NPG’s potential. These

limitations underscore the need for deeper institutional reforms and sustainable resource investment.

To conclude, the study concludes that the objectives were successfully met. While NPG has advanced

cooperation and community involvement, its overall impact remains constrained by systemic challenges. The

research partially supports Proposition I and rejects Proposition II, confirming that NPG fosters participatory

governance and enhances community acceptance in cross-border conflict management.

REFERENCES

1. Abbink, J. (2003). Ethiopia–Eritrea: Proxy wars and prospects of peace in the Horn of Africa. Journal of

Contemporary African Studies, 21(3), 407–426.

2. Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: Mandatory

ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 438–441.

3. Adegbonmire, J. (2015). Conflict situations and ways to resolve conflicts. African Union Commission,

Hybrid Court & Transitional Justice, South Sudan.

4. Amer, R. (2016). The conflict management framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

(ASEAN). In Conflict management and dispute settlement in East Asia (pp. 39–62). Routledge.

5. Bartos, O. J., & Wehr, P. (2002). Using conflict theory. Cambridge University Press.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7680

6. Bayo, K. M. (1977). Mass orientations and regional integration: Environmental variations in Gambian

orientations towards Senegambia (Doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

7. Bradley, M., & Erdilmen, M. (2023). Is the International Organization for Migration legitimate? Rights-

talk, protection commitments and the legitimation of IOM. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(9),

2332–2354.

8. Callahan, K. (2006). Elements of effective governance: Measurement, accountability and participation.

CRC Press.

9. Chareonwongsak, K. (2018). ASEAN’s limitations in conflict resolution. In International Security in the

Asia-Pacific (pp. 85–98).

10. Evans, M., & Ray, C. (2013). Uncertain ground: The Gambia and the Casamance conflict. In C. Perfect

(Ed.), State and society in The Gambia since independence (pp. 247–287). Routledge.

11. Ghebretekle, T. B., & Rammala, M. (2018). Traditional African conflict resolution: The case of South

Africa and Ethiopia. Mizan Law Review, 12(2), 325–347.

12. Gilbert, C., & Pasque, P. A. (2023). Defining culturally responsive research: Learnings and tensions in

minoritized researcher perspectives. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication.

13. Hamad, J. R. J., Hanafiah, M. M., & Yaakob, W. Z. W. (2017). Water resources management in Libya:

Challenges and future prospects. Malaysian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 1(2), 2–5.

14. Johnson, F. I., Laing, R., Bjeirmi, B., & Leon, M. (2023). The impacts of multi-stakeholders collaboration

on management and mitigation of oil pipeline disasters in Nigeria. AIMS Environmental Science, 10(1),

1–18.

15. Krogh, A. H., & Triantafillou, P. (2024). Developing New Public Governance as a public management

reform model. Public Management Review, 26(10), 3040–3056.

16. Korf, B., & Emmers, R. (2019). Border governance and conflict management in Africa. Conflict, Security

& Development, 19(4), 293–311.

17. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse University

Press.

18. Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States

Institute of Peace Press.

19. Mkutu, K. A. (2008). Uganda: Pastoral conflict and gender relations. Review of African Political Economy,

35(116), 237–254.

20. Nadelmann, E., & Andreas, P. (2006). Policing the globe: Criminalization and crime control in

international relations. Oxford University Press.

21. Niang, A. (2013). The (in)commodities of laissez-faire integration: Trade and mobility in a cross-border

market. African Studies, 72(1), 41–63.

22. Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: Borders in our ‘borderless’ world. Progress in

Human Geography, 30(2), 143–161.

23. Nugent, P. (2007). Cyclical history in the Gambia/Casamance borderlands: Refugee settlement and Islam

from 1880 to the present. The Journal of African History, 48(2), 221–243.

24. O’Flynn, I. (2007). Divided societies and deliberative democracy. British Journal of Political Science,

37(4), 731–751.

25. Oishi, S., & Gilbert, E. A. (2016). Current and future directions in culture and happiness research. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 8, 54–58.s

26. Osborne, S. P. (2010). Introduction: The New Public Governance – A suitable case for treatment. In S. P.

Osborne (Ed.), The New Public Governance? (pp. 17–32). Routledge.

27. Okpara, U. T., Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., & Bila, M. D. (2015). Conflicts about water in Lake Chad:

Are environmental, vulnerability and security issues linked? Progress in Development Studies, 15(4), 308–

325.

28. Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and

methodological. SAGE Publications.

29. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and

accountability. Open University Press.

30. Rosenbloom, D. H., & Chanin, J. (2017). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and

law in the public sector. McGraw-Hill Education.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 7681

31. Rubenstein, R. E. (2011). Reasons to kill: Why Americans choose war. Bloomsbury Publishing.

32. Sawaneh, B. (2021). Interrogating the relevance of New Public Management and New Public Governance

paradigms to public service delivery in The Gambia. Ilorin Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 23(2),

1–15.

33. Schlager, E., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Left high and dry? Climate change, common-pool resource theory,

and the adaptability of western water compacts. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 461–470.

34. Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W., Borick, C. P., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Introducing public administration (9th

ed.). Routledge.

35. Sone, P. M. (2016). Relevance of traditional methods of conflict resolution in the Justice Systems in Africa.

Africa Insight, 46(3), 51–66.

36. Xu, R., Sun, Q., & Si, W. (2015). The third wave of public administration: The New Public Governance.

Canadian Social Science, 11(7), 11–21.

37. Zartman, I. W. (2018). Soft power and traditional African conflict management. In Stability and security

in Africa: The role of hard and soft power (p. 21). Springer.