Who governs when nobody governs ?" This question is addressed by looking at phenomena that have become characteristic of cities today: violence, crime, immigration, mobility. Answering this question also requires paying more attention to different forms of regulation : state, market, along with cooperative/reciprocal modes of regulation. Risk embodies these different forms : it has become a common way of framing and addressing a wide variety of urban problems, suggesting that to govern is to identify and to manage vulnerabilities through different modes of regulation. Lastly, the question points to the uncertainty that characterizes city borders : these are constantly being redefined both by demographics, urbanization and political reforms.
Who governs when nobody governs ?" This question is addressed by looking at phenomena that have become characteristic of cities today: violence, crime, immigration, mobility. Answering this question also requires paying more attention to different forms of regulation : state, market, along with cooperative/reciprocal modes of regulation. Risk embodies these different forms : it has become a common way of framing and addressing a wide variety of urban problems, suggesting that to govern is to identify and to manage vulnerabilities through different modes of regulation. Lastly, the question points to the uncertainty that characterizes city borders : these are constantly being redefined both by demographics, urbanization and political reforms.
Democratic Governance examines the changing nature of the modern state and reveals the dangers these changes pose to democracy. Mark Bevir shows how new ideas about governance have gradually displaced old-style notions of government in Britain and around the world. Policymakers cling to outdated concepts of representative government while at the same time placing ever more faith in expertise, markets, and networks. Democracy exhibits blurred lines of accountability and declining legitimacy. Bevir explores how new theories of governance undermined traditional government in the twentieth century
Democratic Governance examines the changing nature of the modern state and reveals the dangers these changes pose to democracy. Mark Bevir shows how new ideas about governance have gradually displaced old-style notions of government in Britain and around the world. Policymakers cling to outdated concepts of representative government while at the same time placing ever more faith in expertise, markets, and networks. Democracy exhibits blurred lines of accountability and declining legitimacy. Bevir explores how new theories of governance undermined traditional government in the twentieth century.
Current discourses in science, technology and innovation policy describe a shift from formal, governmental, or statutory regulation to non-hierarchical, informal, and cooperative self-regulatory approaches. They narrate a turn from government to governance, described as a "governance turn." Governance as a new and popular mode of regulation, deliberation and shared responsibility is often linked to favored attributes of science and technology development, and policy making such as democracy and responsibility. This article analyzes the connection between governance and ideas of accountable and democratic science and technology development in the case of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. For this purpose, soft law measures, self-regulatory initiatives, and public engagement projects in Europe and the U.S. were analyzed using the concept of social robustness (Nowotny et al. 2001). The study showed that most of the analyzed governance approaches and engagement projects only partially met aspects of social robustness, and that the governance and deliberative turn in science and technology policy has not led, so far, to greater democracy and responsibility in nanoscience and nanotechnology development. As a consequence, the delegation of techno-political decision making to less socially robust governance approaches might lead to a vacuum in science and technology policy and affect not only academic knowledge production but also the innovative force of a society.
It has now become quite obvious that the Internet has brought significant changes to our society and a break on how we lived before its emergence. It is still too early to assess the impact on society of the new services at our disposal, such as the capacity to communicate faster and cheaper on a global scale, access information and, perhaps more importantly, to produce and disseminate information in a way that is accessible to all. It is clear that the advent of the Information Society implies changes in our society that constitute a point of no return. However, contrary to what happened when we entered the Industrial Age about three centuries ago, when the changing process was slow and led by older individuals, these days the entrance into the Information Society is taking place rapidly and the decisive players are younger people. The global nature of the Internet, the possibility of producing and distributing any type of content in digital form at almost zero cost, as well as the vast number of people who use the web, have highlighted the need for new forms of intervention in a sector where there are many types of players. It is in this context that the problem of Internet Governance becomes a very current issue, inasmuch as one feels the need to guarantee a diversity of rights and duties, which may appear difficult to reconcile. This paper presents a brief overview of the main players and initiatives which, in the field of Internet Governance, have tried to contribute to turning this network into a factor for social development and democraticity on a global scale.
PurposeThis paper seeks to bring together ethical governance theory and empirical findings to examine the shifting nature of governance in global value chains, and the implications of this shift for mainstream companies. In particular, it aims to examine one of the more mature models of ethical value chain governance, Fairtrade, and how this is being used by business.Design/methodology/approachInformation is derived from a longitudinal study of multi‐stakeholder co‐governance in Kenya and the UK, and an analysis of the literature on similar co‐governance models.FindingsThe paper shows that mainstream companies are looking to multi‐stakeholder models not only to protect their reputation, but as a way of governing ethical dimensions of their value chains. However, rather than a form of co‐governance, it has become a way of outsourcing governance, enabling companies to strengthen their public credibility, while simultaneously transferring an especially difficult element of modern value chain governance to organizations enjoying high consumer trust. Yet, primary data suggest that these governance systems are not delivering the benefits promised, at least at the producer level.Practical implicationsBy outsourcing governance to initiatives with dubious credibility in this way, companies may seem at risk. However, the mismatch between the promise and delivery of Fairtrade does not seem to be affecting consumer confidence and, until it does, companies may continue to benefit from the halo effect of being a Fairtrade ally. But there are also opportunities for companies to use Fairtrade's weaknesses to make the value chain a better avenue for delivering ethical governance, with implications for similar co‐governance models.Originality/valueThe study draws on one of the very few pieces of longitudinal field research on the impacts of Fairtrade. It approaches Fairtrade from a governance rather than reputations perspective, and emphasizes the implications for mainstream business rather than the co‐governance movement.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the most generally applied definitions and other aspects of emotional intelligence, as well as its associated managerial leadership competencies in corporate governance.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopted a descriptive methodology in describing emotional intelligence leadership for effective corporate governance.FindingsThe paper finds that the speed of change in the affairs of formal organizations worldwide tends to require the operations of those institutions to continually think and react to different situations. If people's emotions are pushed toward the range of enthusiasm performance can soar; if people are driven toward rancour and anxiety, they will be thrown of stride.Originality/valueThe emotional intelligence leadership discussed in this paper requires that for effective corporate governance, organizations have to grow emotional capital to handle issues of low morale, organizational stress, high staff turnover and lack of work/life balance. The paper propose that further research efforts could empirically assess the extent to which these emotional intelligence domains can influence managerial competence in diverse cultures.
Serious questions are being asked concerning the manifestation of instability in society. The phenomena of maladministration, corruption, unrest, protests, failure in leadership, and the results of protest marches and poor service delivery, make one believe that the value, functioning and contribution of co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations is a myth. When public protests and instability are analysed, the main issue found at the heart of the problem concerns co-operation, implementation and co-ordination between the various spheres of government. Co-operation is needed to ensure satisfactory service delivery. The question can be asked if there is a direct relationship between poor service delivery, public protests and co-operative governance and good governance. Firstly the conceptual and constitutional framework of co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations will be discussed. In the following section the problems and challenges facing good governance will be analysed. Aspects pertaining to structural tension, policy choices, responsibility, accountability and implications of problems with good governance will be assessed. The manifestation of practical situations will be viewed against the background of co-operative governance.
