Search results

This paper offers a constructivist theory of governance. It begins by challenging rational choice and institutionalist accounts for neglecting meanings. If we are to take meanings seriously, we need to allow for the constructed nature of governance -- governance depends on concepts that are themselves in part products of wider webs of belief. The paper then argues, first, that constructivism is compatible with various forms of realism, and, second, that constructivism is strengthened by recognition of situated agency. Finally, the paper identifies the kind of aggregate concepts associated with this type of constructivism. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by (1) T. Christensen & P. Laegreid [Eds], Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007); (2) M. Hill & P. Hupe, Implementing Public Policy (London: Sage, 2008); (3) E. C. Page & B. Jenkins, Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands (Oxford: Oxford U Press, 2005); (4) E. Sorenson & J. Torfing, Theories of Democratic Network Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007); & (5) F. Vibert, The Rise of the Unelected: Democracy and the New Separation of Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2007).

This article explores the capacity of the concept of multi-level governance to respond to the analytical, empirical & normative challenges posed to political science by EU decision-making processes & structures. After exploring the relationship between governance & multi-level governance (MLG), the article tackles the question of the empirical fruitfulness of this latter concept. It argues that the concept is best understood as describing those decision-making processes in which territorial jurisdictions with different competencies end up collaborating on a par, thus upsetting & recasting traditional territorial hierarchies. It also discusses whether MLG, by involving different groups of citizens & fostering the diffusion of shared norms & convictions, contributes to more legitimate decision-making. The conclusions, on all counts, are somewhat mixed. Although MLG appears to describe effectively a new class of phenomena & to suggest intereasing novel hypotheses as to the transformation of the structures of democratic rule, it has not yet succeeded in generating new testable propositions nor in suggesting new convincing criteria of legitimacy. References. Adapted from the source document.