Suchergebnisse

Ende Mai des Jahres 2000 hat Bundeskanzler Schröder die Regierungskommission Corporate Governance eingesetzt. Der Auftrag der Kommission beschränkt sich nicht nur darauf, Vorschläge zur Verbesserung des gesetzlichen Modells der Unternehmensführung und -kontrolle zu erarbeiten. Die Kommission soll sich darüber hinaus auch mit anderen Bereichen des Aktienrechts, etwa der Unternehmensfinanzierung, befassen. Der Autor, Vorsitzender diese Ausschusses, präsentiert in dem Übersichtsartikel die Rahmenbedingungen der Gründung, die Aufgaben und die Ergebnisse der Corporate Governance-Kommission. Bei Corporate Governance geht es um die Steuerung der Großunternehmen, insbesondere der börsennotierten Aktiengesellschaft. Dabei vor allem um die Kontrolle und das Miteinander der Leitungsorgane, also im deutschen Modell von Vorstand und Aufsichtsrat. Das erste Kapitel umfasst die Anlässe und Ursachen für die Gründung der Regierungskommission, wozu (1) die Globalisierung der Kapitalmärkte, (2) die veränderte Aktienkultur in Deutschland, (3) die Entwicklung der Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie, (4) der Wettbewerb der Regelsysteme sowie (5) die Bedürfnisse von Venture Capital Unternehmen zählen. Das zweite Kapitel widmet sich der Zusammensetzung bzw. den Beratungen der Corporate Governance-Kommission. Das dritte Kapitel dokumentiert den Bericht der Regierungskommission Corporate Governance. Hier stehen die Aspekte (1) Rechte und Pflichten des Vorstands und des Aufsichtsrats, (2) Partizipation und Rechte der Aktionäre und Anleger, (3) Unternehmensfinanzierung, (4) Unternehmenspublizität, (5) Rechnungslegung und Abschlussprüfung sowie (6) die Entwicklung eines Corporate Governance-Kodex' im Mittelpunkt des Interesses. In einem abschließenden Ausblick äußert sich der Autor zu den zukünftigen Entwicklungen im Bereich Corporate Governance, wie beispielsweise dem Reformbedarf der Innen- und Außenhaftung der Vorstands- und Aufsichtsratsmitglieder.

In this article, we seek to explain both the origins of gender mainstreaming as a `policy frame' in International Relations, as well as the variable implementation of mainstreaming over time and across various international organizations. We emphasize that in the years since the UN Fourth World Women's Conference in Beijing (1995), mainstreaming has been endorsed and adopted not only by European organizations and governments, but also by nearly every important international organization, and we compare the adoption and implementation of mainstreaming in two international organizations, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme. We suggest, however, that the rhetorical acceptance of mainstreaming by various international organizations obscures considerable diversity in both the timing and the nature of mainstreaming processes within and among organizations. This variation, we argue, can be explained in terms of the categories of political opportunity, mobilizing structures and strategic framing put forward by social movement theorists.

Urban governance in general and partnerships in particular are commonly legitimised as being more efficient than traditional forms of government, whereas their relationship to democracy is only mentioned in passing or even neglected. In most of the literature a number of efficiency–related arguments in favour of the partnership approach are presented, although its alleged capacity to create synergetic effects for the partners normally ranks number one. Of course it is an empirical question, whether a partnership is efficient or not, but the point is that the efficiency rhetoric is strong enough to legitimise the creation of partnerships anyhow. Partnerships are more or less ascribed the function to solve any governance problem. Taking its point of departure in a theoretical discussion of partnerships and their role in urban governance, and using illustrations taken from recent empirical studies, the main aim of the paper is to develop a research strategy for cross–national/cross–country research on partnerships and urban governance. The paper concludes by discussing some policy implications of the growing role of partnerships in urban governance, high–lighting their so–far neglected relationship to democracy.

Urban governance in general & partnerships in particular are commonly legitimized as being more efficient than traditional forms of government, whereas their relationship to democracy is only mentioned in passing or even neglected. In most of the literature, a number of efficiency-related arguments in favor of the partnership approach are presented, although its alleged capacity to create synergetic effects for the partners normally ranks number one. Of course it is an empirical question, whether a partnership is efficient or not, but the point is that the efficiency rhetoric is strong enough to legitimize the creation of partnerships anyhow. Partnerships are more or less ascribed the function to solve any governance problem. Taking its point of departure in a theoretical discussion of partnerships & their role in urban governance, & using illustrations taken from recent empirical studies, the main aim of the paper is to develop a research strategy for crossnational/crosscountry research on partnerships & urban governance. The paper concludes by discussing some policy implications of the growing role of partnerships in urban governance, highlighting their so far neglected relationship to democracy. 32 References. Adapted from the source document.