Search results

Dear colleagues, Welcome to the "Journal of Policy & Governance"! In my opinion, an editorial may reflect the general direction of the journal, values, strategy, priorities, goals and objectives, and so on. This is the first edition of the Journal of Policy & Governance where I act as the Editor-in-Chief. The title of the journal includes two key concepts, the "Policy" and the "Governance", and they are crucial for the target audience of the journal. That is, the field of "Policy Science": policy cycle, problem identification for analysis, policy environment, resources, stakeholders' analysis, communications (strategic, multilevel, etc.), policy tools and evaluation, etc. Also, these are values, objectives and methodology of the research and policy analysis, policy as the process and reasons for state intervention, evidence-based policy, quantitative and qualitative methods of data processing and the formation of evidence in the policy process and so on. The field of governance is also valuable for research: democratic, good, sensitive, multilevel, digital, and so on: Service State, public consultation, and interaction between government, business and civil society in the policy-making process. Common decisions, power and out of power policy makers, leadership, analysts and policy actors also require semantic and empirical content in the articles of the journal.

Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness. ; Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness.

Blockchain is a new information technology that can be used in many areas of human activity. The fi rst and most famous example of the use of blockchain technology is the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. Today, cryptocurrency has transformed into a publicly recognized means of payment, a virtual currency that is accepted by large and small enterprises, corporations and services. Today, they conduct research and implement a number of projects using Blockchain technology in such areas as healthcare, media, electronic voting, fi le storage, smart contracts, insurance, the public sector (issuing passports, collecting taxes, registering land plots), etc. The IBM Corporation is researching Blockchain technology and is working on the creation of software, with the help of which partners will be able to conclude digital contracts that will be recorded in the global network. IBM is also implementing a project called Adept, which aims to track network-connected devices using Blockchain technology. The purpose of this article is to study the directions of using Blockchain in public policy.

El artículo analiza las dificultades de la gobernabilidad y su carácter esquivo. Se trata de un estudio sobre cómo mejorar la gobernabilidad, partiendo de la base de que en muchas ocasiones lo que existe en la práctica, son condiciones de ingobernabilidad. El razonamiento central parte de que la ingobernabilidad puede en ocasiones imperar, sin que ello implique necesariamente una fractura en la democracia en su conjunto. Se continúa con un examen de la cohesión y la perdurabilidad de las sociedades, como ejes de la gobernabilidad. Luego se prosigue con con­sideraciones acerca de las redes de gobernabilidad a nivel local y regio­nal, y con el tratamiento de la crisis de información en las sociedades fragmentadas, así como con las condiciones de inestabilidad crónica y los gobiernos locales. Se finaliza con algunas consideraciones sobre el vínculo existente entre lo local y lo global, y el posible rol de ese proceso en el manejo de crisis y la educación para la paz. ; The article analyzes the difficulties of governance and the elusive nature of governability. lts main purpose is to make suggestions as to how to increase governability. Central to the argument is the suggestion that, despite the occasional reign of ingovernability, this does not imply the fracture of democracy altogether. Cohesion and perdurability are the keys to governability. The article analyzes local and regional governa­bility networks and the management of the information crisis in frag­mented societies, as well as the conditions of chronic instability and local co-governments. The article ends with several considerations on the local-to-global links, and the potential role of this process in the mana­gement of crisis and education for peace.

Governance is presented by undefined and confused areas that tend to expand in a more or less arbitrary way in the absence of stable and reliable normative standards. All this calls into question concepts and recompositive monolithic categories of modern political-legal rationality and in the first place sovereignty. At the same time the current neo-governmental structure does not stand as a technology of power, exclusionary or alternative to other rationalities, but rather it tends to bring out all the contradictions and ambiguities of the present time. ; La gobernanza es presentada por áreas confusas e indefinidas que tienden a expandirse de una manera más o menos arbitraria en ausencia de estándares normativos estables y confiables. Todo esto pone en cuestión conceptos y categorías monolíticas recompositivas de moderna racionalidad política-legal y en primer lugar de la soberanía. Al mismo tiempo, la estructura neogubernamental actual no se sostiene como una tecnología de poder excluyente o alternativa a otras racionalidades, sino que tiende a llevar a cabo todas las contradicciones y ambigüedades del tiempo presente.

Institutional analysis and analysis of documents of key educational integration
processes in Europe: Bologna process and Copenhagen process. Revelation of
mechanisms of governance of educational areas created on the basis of these
processes and comparison of this mechanisms with ones of governance of the
common space of research and education including cultural aspects that is being build
between the EU and Russia. Conclusions: no single center in Bologna process, in
spite of existence of the Bologna Follow-Up Group as formal governance body; the
governance body of Copenhagen process is definite and it is the same organization
that started the process; such model is more efficient.