Suchergebnisse

AbstractThough the literature on decentralization has clarified some issues, it has left unsettled the question of the administrative structure for its implementation: who should take what decisions, and at what level? There are limits to the conventional methods of classification. where answers have been sought in terms of Western experience, participation and management. and a legal perspective has been adopted with decentralization seen in terms of fully elected local governments. semi‐autonomous local governments. or coordinating committees. Rather than stress procedures of participation. the substantive content of decision‐making needs to he analysed. A classification of rural development programmes provides an alternative model for the reallocation of functions within the system of government to meet development needs. The case of district planning in Agra District. India. illustrates the process of decentralization. underlines its composite character. and shows the importance of the budget in initiating reform in the political‐administrative system. Since decentralization is now motivated by different factors than in the past. the requirements of the anti‐poverty programmes will move the decision‐making process closer to the cutting edge of the village level, with even greater responsiveness to demands from below.

The case of district planning in Agra District, India, illustrates the process in decentralization, underlines its composite character, and shows the importance of the budget in initiating reform in the political-administrative system. (DSE)

AbstractWhat decision‐makers in countries want to know from science is more than just an understanding of what is a good and environmentally aware society, or the human dimensions of global change. They also want to know how to achieve comparable levels of human wellbeing keeping within global ecological limits. In the absence of agreed criteria on who has to do what, global cooperation as well as national action now needs new insights for potential policy choices and these could come from Special Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

AbstractThere is a new role for global climate policy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support national implementation. For keeping within global ecological limits, public debate has shifted from concerns about the reliability of model‐based climate projections to national legislators considering questions of when, where, and how to modify longer term trends. However, modeling remains the essential scientific tool by which the climate problem is defined assuming that society and the economy can be transformed, actually re‐engineered, with relative ease. Inputs from the IPCC to the new governance process, the global 'stocktake', suggesting solutions will now influence deliberations between stakeholders, national actions and global cooperation. How best to shape a different science architecture and agenda linking science with both policy and society requires, for example, giving as much importance to reports of multilateral bodies and business consultancies as to peer‐reviewed literature. This paper lays out some ideas how legitimacy can be maintained even as the IPCC recommends policy options and not just advice that is policy relevant.