Suchergebnisse

This article traces the creation and demise of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) and assesses the prospects for restoring an ACIR‐like capability to the federal system. Recent initiatives by the National Academy of Public Administration, the Big 7 state and local government official associations, and Congress are summarized, and the facilitating and inhibiting factors associated with intergovernmental institutional development are examined. At least three ingredients in the formula that gave birth to the ACIR in 1959 will need to be present more than 50 years later: (1) support from congressional champions, the president, and public interest groups; (2) visibility and urgency of intergovernmental fiscal and management issues and the need for a permanent intergovernmental presence to address them; and (3) "homework and spadework" to enlist potential conservative and liberal interest group and think tank backers.

I. Climate Change and The Science-Policy Divide In response to a growing body of research pointing to human-induced warming of Earth's climate, and in recognition of the potentially sweeping impacts of climate change for humanity, the world's governments launched the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC is a consultative body of volunteer scientists charged with periodically assessing the state of knowledge in the many areas of research relating to climate change, including both the physical and social sciences. Given the scope of these assessments, the IPCC has come to be viewed as the singular authority on climate change. The IPCC derives this authority from the credibility of its scientists, the comprehensive review that its assessments undergo, and the consensus that the assessments require from a broad range of participants, including governments and civil society organizations. The IPCC has been object of intense criticism since its creation, largely because of the considerable implications of climate change for public policy. The tension between the IPCC and its critics serve as a clear example of the uneasy relationship between science, the authority it aims to represent, and the rest of society.

This entry has been realised in the framework of the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2018 project "LoGov - Local Government and the Changing Urban-Rural Interplay". LoGov aims to provide solutions for local governments that address the fundamental challenges resulting from urbanisation. To address this complex issue, 18 partners from 17 countries and six continents share their expertise and knowledge in the realms of public law, political science, and public administration. LoGov identifies, evaluates, compares, and shares innovative practices that cope with the impact of changing urban-rural relations in five major local government areas: (1) local responsibilities and public services, (2) local financial arrangements, (3) structure of local government, (4) intergovernmental relations of local governments, and (5) people's participation in local decision-making. The present entry addresses intergovernmental relations of local governments in South Africa. The entry forms part of the LoGov Report on South Africa. To access the full version of the report on South Africa, other practices regarding intergovernmental relations of local governments and to receive more information about the project, please visit: https://www.logov-rise.eu/. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 823961.