Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this article is to explore the impact of devolution to Wales on the policy control of the UK core executive. Our case study is the implementation of the additionality principle guiding EU structural funds. Successive UK governments have been reluctant implementers of this principle and have played the 'gatekeeper' role in controlling the financial impact of EU funds on domestic public spending. Devolution presents a challenge to central control over this policy. In this context, we seek to refine the 'gatekeeper' concept by drawing on the insights of the core executive approach.

This article considers attempts to incorporate lessons and transfer policies from Britain in the reconstruction of Higher Education in Kosovo after 1999. In doing so, it employs aspects of the lesson-drawing framework developed by Rose (1991 and 2001) and the related concepts of policy transfer and policy diffusion. Drawing on contributions from anthropology and democratization studies, we suggest development of the public policy frameworks for lesson drawing and policy transfer in circumstances characterised by asymmetric interdependence, in which the tactics and strategies of policy resistance by 'subordinate' recipient actors can be crucial. This article details the nature of policy resistance and sets out hypotheses for future research.

The purpose of this article is to explore the impact of devolution to Wales on the policy control of the UK core executive. Our case study is the implementation of the additionality principle guiding EU structural funds. Successive UK governments have been reluctant implementers of this principle & have played the "gatekeeper" role in controlling the financial impact of EU funds on domestic public spending. Devolution presents a challenge to central control over this policy. In this context, we seek to refine the "gatekeeper" concept by drawing on the insights of the core executive approach. 39 References. Adapted from the source document.

Partnership has become a central principle of European Union (EU) policies, particularly in relation to the structural funds. This article considers the diffusion of the partnership principle in the EU, focusing on Britain and Sweden. It is concerned with two questions. First, has the partnership principle led to a process of harmonisation across states or to national resistance? Second, to what extent has the partnership principle enhanced the legitimacy of EU decision making?The evidence presented here suggests that though there has not been significant resistance to the partnership principle within Britain and Sweden, the EU's requirements have been interpreted and implemented differently in the two states. Thus it is more appropriate to speak of 'adaptation' to partnership rather than 'adoption'. This is explained by what we summarise as 'national democratic traditions'.In terms of democratic legitimacy, the Swedish adaptation to partnership was nominally more democratic in that local politicians were readily involved from the outset, whereas in Britain they were not. However, the importance of this inclusion should not be overstated in relation to substantive democratic legitimacy. The Swedish model was not supported by well‐articulated democratic strategies or principles. Despite the limitations of the Swedish model, recent developments suggest that Britain is following a similar path.

peer-reviewed ; This paper introduces a project recently started by the authors on the relationship between European integration and regionalisation in both extant member states and applicant countries. Our main question is whether we are witnessing a process of Europeanisation in relation to sub-central state structures; a common pattern of regional governance within member states. Related to this, we are concerned with the extent to which EU membership, and EU institutional actors in particular, have influenced the pattern of regionalisation. This paper situates the influence of the EU in the context of other potential explanations for change in European regions beyond the EU system (globalisation) and within the member states (sub-central demands for greater autonomy). It also places the public policy literature on policy diffusion and policy transfer alongside the concepts of globalisation and Europeanisation to provide a framework for comparative analysis. We provide a brief picture of developments in regional governance in a number of states and reflect on the issues this picture raises for future research.

Charles Lees describes the planning and execution of the Economic and Social Research Council research project (with Andrew Taylor, Andrew Geddes, and Ian Bache) "Multi-Level Governance in South East Europe: Institutional Innovation and Adaptation in Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, and Slovenia" (ESRC response mode RES-062-23-0183). Lees describes the rationale for the research; the research design, choice of cases, research questions, and hypotheses; the management of fieldwork; and how the team set up and operationalized their method of Social Network Analysis. Lees assesses the team's use of Social Network Analysis and finishes with four key conclusions he has drawn from the experience that are relevant to all research projects, including PhD theses.

The Climate Change Act 2008 received global acclaim for embedding an ambitious set of targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in legislation. This article explores the policies and institutional frameworks in place to deliver transport-related carbon reductions as part of the subsequent Carbon Plan. A detailed methodology involving institutional mapping, interviews and focus groups combined with a theoretical approach that combines the theory of multi-level governance with the literature on 'blame avoidance' serves to reveal a complex system of 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability'. Put simply, it reveals there are no practical sub-national implementation levers for achieving the statutory targets. Apart from symbolic or rhetorical commitments, the emphasis of policy-makers at all levels in the delivery chain has switched from carbon management and reduction to economic growth and job creation. This raises fresh research questions about the pathologies of democratic competition and future responses to the climate change challenge. Adapted from the source document.

Research Highlights and AbstractThis article provides the first detailed and evidence-based account of the coalition government's approach to transport-related carbon management. It exposes the existence of a 'governance vacuum' between the statutory target and a very weak devolved implementation system (i.e. 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability'). Research in four major city regions reveals a systemic switch from an emphasis on carbon management and reduction towards economic growth and job creation. Officials within the policy design and delivery chain emphasise the manner in which the demands of democratic politics tend to frustrate meaningful policy change. A general demand by actors at the local level not for the discretions delivered by localism but for a more robust and centrally managed—even statutory—governance framework.The Climate Change Act 2008 received global acclaim for embedding an ambitious set of targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in legislation. This article explores the policies and institutional frameworks in place to deliver transport-related carbon reductions as part of the subsequent Carbon Plan. A detailed methodology involving institutional mapping, interviews and focus groups combined with a theoretical approach that combines the theory of multi-level governance with the literature on 'blame avoidance' serves to reveal a complex system of 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability'. Put simply, it reveals there are no practical sub-national implementation levers for achieving the statutory targets. Apart from symbolic or rhetorical commitments, the emphasis of policy-makers at all levels in the delivery chain has switched from carbon management and reduction to economic growth and job creation. This raises fresh research questions about the pathologies of democratic competition and future responses to the climate change challenge.