Suchergebnisse

Nearly all fractions within the political, economic, and social spheres gave responses to the recent financial crisis. In broad terms, both left-leaning and right-leaning scholars and commentators presented their explanations for the crisis, with confident agendas defining 'what is wrong' and how to deal with it. However, as intellectual history shows us, most of those explanations were no less fascinating precisely because they shared more that they acknowledged. A major divide has been over the role of governments in coordinating markets, or, in the case of Roberts'sThe Logic of Discipline, the role of markets in coordinating governments. In this essay, I offer an overview of Alasdair Roberts's arguments inThe Logic of Discipline. Gradually, I extend the examined issues beyond the state-market dichotomy, arguing that only in understanding the interactive force of the two can a systemic analysis of capitalism hope to be plausible.

Adaptive governance focuses our attention on the relationships between science and management, whereby the so-called 'gaps' between these groups are seen to hinder effective adaptive responses to biophysical change. Yet the relationships between science and governance, knowledge and action, remain under theorized in discussions of adaptive governance, which largely focuses on abstract design principles or preferred institutional arrangements. In contrast, the metaphor of co-production highlights the social and political processes through which science, policy, and practice co-evolve. Co-production is invoked as a normative goal (Mitchell et al., 2004) and analytical lens (Jasanoff, 2004a and Jasanoff, 2004b), both of which provide useful insight into the processes underpinning adaptive governance. This paper builds on and integrates these disparate views to reconceptualize adaptive governance as a process of co-production. I outline an alternative conceptual framing, 'co-productive governance', that articulates the context, knowledge, process, and vision of governance. I explore these ideas through two cases of connectivity conservation, which draws on conservation science to promote collaborative cross-scale governance. This analysis highlights the ways in which the different contexts of these cases produced very different framings and responses to the same propositions of science and governance. Drawing on theoretical and empirical material, co-productive governance moves beyond long standing debates that institutions can be rationally crafted or must emerge from context resituate adaptive governance in a more critical and contextualized space. This reframing focuses on the process of governance through an explicit consideration of how normative considerations shape the interactions between knowledge and power, science and governance. ; This research was funded by a Land and Water Australia PhD scholarship and a top-up scholarship from the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Fund.

Adaptive governance focuses our attention on the relationships between science and management, whereby the so-called 'gaps' between these groups are seen to hinder effective adaptive responses to biophysical change. Yet the relationships between science and governance, knowledge and action, remain under theorized in discussions of adaptive governance, which largely focuses on abstract design principles or preferred institutional arrangements. In contrast, the metaphor of co-production highlights the social and political processes through which science, policy, and practice co-evolve. Co-production is invoked as a normative goal (Mitchell et al., 2004) and analytical lens (Jasanoff, 2004a and Jasanoff, 2004b), both of which provide useful insight into the processes underpinning adaptive governance. This paper builds on and integrates these disparate views to reconceptualize adaptive governance as a process of co-production. I outline an alternative conceptual framing, 'co-productive governance', that articulates the context, knowledge, process, and vision of governance. I explore these ideas through two cases of connectivity conservation, which draws on conservation science to promote collaborative cross-scale governance. This analysis highlights the ways in which the different contexts of these cases produced very different framings and responses to the same propositions of science and governance. Drawing on theoretical and empirical material, co-productive governance moves beyond long standing debates that institutions can be rationally crafted or must emerge from context resituate adaptive governance in a more critical and contextualized space. This reframing focuses on the process of governance through an explicit consideration of how normative considerations shape the interactions between knowledge and power, science and governance. ; This research was funded by a Land and Water Australia PhD scholarship and a top-up scholarship from the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Fund.

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueDo firms take advantage of the flexibility of the "comply or explain" corporate governance disclosure regime to adopt governance practices that are best suited to their needs and value‐added to the firms as predicted by economic theories of the firm? Using the Canadian "comply or explain" corporate governance disclosure regime, we construct a board score measure based on the Canadian code's 47 "best practices." We employ a unique approach by positing that the "explain" disclosures indicate higher agency costs of best practice adoption or indicate the ability of the firm to improve its governance practices relative to "best practices" in light of firm specific circumstances.Research Findings/InsightsWe find that our measure is strongly and positively associated with higher firm value and weakly and positively associated with better operational performance. Further, our measure is more strongly associated with both than best practice adoption measures.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsOur unique measure of governance quality reveals differences in governance efficiency and effectiveness that are consistent with the theorized advantages of "comply or explain" governance disclosure regimes. Further, our results suggest that firms in a "comply or explain" regime are not employing, on average, the discretion permitted by such a regime to avoid improvements to their corporate governance practices.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsOur results support the proposition that the flexibility of a "comply or explain" governance regime provides tangible financial benefits to shareholders in terms of higher firm value and returns on shareholders' equity investment.

It is generally perceived that an Economy will experience rapid growth provided following Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) are in positive direction i.e. political instability is low, mechanisms for voice and accountability exists, control of corruption subsists and the rule of law prevails. The study aims at exploring relationship between aforementioned WGI indicators and economic growth (GDP) using estimates related to Pakistan, provided by World Bank. Moreover, researchers attempt to identify which of the WGI indicators under consideration contribute most towards economic growth. A quantitative research strategy has been adopted and statistical tools (Spearman's rho correlation and regression) have been used to test the hypotheses that researchers developed using available literature. The study concludes that out of the four dimensions of good governance, political stability contributes highly towards economic growth.

International governance is increasingly defined by multilevel governance; with short-term projects, transnational cooperation between different groups, and unclear institutional space. In this situation, a key issue is the resilience of governance arrangements or the ability of governance arrangements to respond to political and ecological shocks to the system. Using international biodiversity governance, this study explores the question: What social and political processes produce resilient governance? This study argues that the key to understanding resilient governance is the network structure within and outside of the governance arrangement. Modular network structures are able to generate ideas from multiple sources, able to solve political problems on small scales, and able to insulate institutions from political contagion. Centralized network structures, in contrast, often result in top-down learning, politicization of the entire governance arrangement, and inability to adapt in response to problems. Those governance arrangements with limited network structures are unlikely to learn at all. The network structure theory argues that network dynamics are shaped by the structure and result in different learning and different adaptive outcomes. This argument is made in the context of international biodiversity governance which presents has a number of cases of resilience in difficult to explain cases. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 look at the network impacts in 10 different international biodiversity governance arrangements. Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 explore these dynamics in the context of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) and the Caribbean Challenge. These empirical cases present a complex and robust analysis showing that network structures, more than the governance institutions or national context, shape the resulting impact of governance arrangements. The implication of this finding is that effective institutions also need resilient modular networks in order to have lasting environmental impacts. Strong institutions can be constrained by centralized networks which limit learning opportunities following shocks. This study thus complements studies of effectiveness in international relations by providing a crucial dynamic piece of the overall situation. Response to shocks is shown to be shaped by network structure and importantly by early learning and network connections. Without these, effectiveness can be disrupted by political or environmental shocks.

ABSTRACTSchool boards are typically removed from nonprofit sector analyses because they are part of the "MUSH" set of organizations (municipalities, universities, schools, and hospitals) that both stand outside of the more typical nonprofit sector and tend to be closely affiliated with government. Nevertheless, school boards offer a unique opportunity to examine the governance of a large system of regulated activity that affects millions of citizens. How such systems should be governed has been a matter of concern for nearly 40 years. This study presents data from Alberta school board chairs regarding their perception of governance transformation being brought about by legislative changes. Five dimensions of governance are proposed as defining the current and anticipated governance domain within which school boards operate. Tensions within and between these dimensions signify symbolic boundary constructions that need to be scrutinized in anticipation of the governance transformation and boundary spanning activities of school boards required by the new legislation.RÉSUMÉLes conseils scolaires sont généralement retirés des analyses du secteur communautaire parce qu'ils font partie de l'ensemble d'organisations « MUSH » (les municipalités, les universités, les écoles et les hôpitaux); ces organisations se distinguent du secteur communautaire typique et ont tendance à être étroitement associées au gouvernement. Néanmoins, les conseils scolaires offrent une occasion unique d'observer la gouvernance d'un vaste système d'activités réglementées qui affecte des millions de citoyens. La façon dont de tels systèmes devraient être gérés fait l'objet de préoccupations depuis presque 40 ans. Cette étude présente les perceptions de présidents de conseils scolaires de l'Alberta en ce qui a trait à la transformation de la gouvernance apportée par des modifications à la loi. Cinq dimensions de la gouvernance sont proposées pour définir à la fois le domaine de gouvernance dans le cadre duquel fonctionnent actuellement les conseils scolaires et celui dans le cadre duquel il est prévu qu'ils fonctionneront. Les tensions entre ces dimensions et les tensions au sein de celles-ci indiquent des constructions de frontières symboliques qui nécessitent un examen minutieux dans le but de prévoir la transformation de la gouvernance ainsi que les activités d'expansion des conseils scolaires exigées par la nouvelle législation.