Suchergebnisse

This article examines the changing transatlantic security architecture since the end of the Cold War. It argues that the absence of a unifying military threat and the subsequent broadening of the notion of security from states to societies has led to the increasing differentiation of security policy arrangements since the beginning of the 1990s. Not only have international institutions proliferated since the end of bipolarity, private actors — such as non-governmental organizations and private security companies — have gained considerable influence. Since these features are not fully grasped by traditional models in security studies, the article suggests that a new theoretical perspective might be required if we are to understand the emerging security system. It proposes that such a perspective can be based on the concept of `security governance', which describes the development from the centralized security system of the Cold War era to the increasingly fragmented and complex security structures of today.

This paper defines women's political empowerment borrowing from the UNDP's development framework using the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) "which examines whether women and men are able to actively participate in economic and political life and take part in decision making" (UNDP 1995:73). Furthermore, in modifying GEM this paper focuses only on women in local governance, since it is an area where efforts in political empowerment is easier studied using micro lenses. The modified GEM focuses on three main concerns: election of women local chief executives, local chief executives' advocacy of women-oriented programs and women's advocacy at the grassroots level. The paper also shows that gender alone is not the way to engendered governance. Female and male local officials must all be aware of the need to redress inequalities among the genders through policy and action.

Der auf die institutionelle Steuerung von Wirtschaft gerichtete Governance-Ansatz geht davon aus, dass nationale Ökonomien in ein Bündel nichtmarktförmiger Koordinationstypen (wie Firmenhierarchien, Netzwerke, Verbände und Staat) eingebettet sind. Die Governance-Forschung fragt nach der Konfiguration von Governance-Typen in sektoralen, regionalen oder nationalen Produktionszusammenhängen und nach deren komparativen Leistungsvorteilen. Die wachsende Integration von Märkten scheint jedoch Spielräume für kapitalistische Vielfalt zu reduzieren und Länder mit einer eher marktförmigen Organisation ihrer Wirtschaft zu begünstigen. Während die international vergleichende Governance-Forschung auch weiterhin von einer Stabilität nationaler Wirtschaftskontexte ausgeht, sieht eine jüngere, vorwiegend auf Deutschland bezogene Debatte nationale Ökonomien erheblichen Wandlungsprozessen unterworfen. Der vorliegende Beitrag vermittelt einen Überblick über den Verlauf der Governance-Diskussion und setzt sich kritisch mit den Vor- und Nachteilen des Varieties-of-Capitalism-Ansatzes auseinander. Abschließend wird für eine stärker prozess- und akteurorientierte Forschungsperspektive plädiert, die Antriebskräfte, Mechanismen und Dimensionen des Wandels kapitalistischer Institutionen in den Mittelpunkt stellt. ; The institutional governance approach sees national economies embedded in a bundle of non-market types of coordination (e.g. corporate hierarchies, networks, associations and the state). Governance oriented research explores configurations of governance types in sectoral, regional and national systems of productions and asks for their comparative advantages. The growing integration of markets, however, seems to reduce capacities for capitalist diversity and to benefit countries with market-like organisation of their economy. While comparative governance approaches still assume stability of national economic contexts, a recent, more on Germany centred debate discovers substantial change in the governance of political economies. The following article presents an overview of the course of the governance debate and discusses advantages and disadvantages of the varieties of capitalism approach. The paper argues in favor of a more process- and actor-centred research perspective which focuses on forces, mechanisms and dimensions of change in capitalist institutions.

This paper, to appear in revised form in the third volume of the series on governance in Australia editied by Glyn Davis, Michael Keading, John Wanna and Patrick Weller, examines the place of accountability in the emerging framework of Australian national governance. The aim is not to map the institutional configuration of accountability agencies in government but to examine a number of basic tensions surrounding accountability and the role of accountability agencies. Although the term 'accountability' is fundamental to governance discourse, expectations of accountability vary quite markedly with different institutional and community perspectives. This paper attempts to sort through some of the more basic tensions associated with the mixed expectations of accountability by identifying how the one term of 'accountability' is often attached to mechanisms that operate at cross-purposes, to the detriment of national governance. The paper begins with a review of the conventional forms of accountability in Australian national governance and then examines three challenging arenas of accountability. First, the arena of open government associated with the agenda of the so-called new administrative law. This is a model of process-accountability which is frequently criticised as having become (i) too costly given the meagre range of benefits it has generated, and (ii) too burdensome on government decision-making given the rights of interested parties to stay the hand of government through round after round of administrative review. The second model is the new public management one of results-oriented accountability, which is frequently criticised as detrimental to due-process safeguards of accountability. The third line of inquiry concerns changing public expectations of accountable government. In the Conclusion, we place these accountability developments in the increasingly international context of Australian governance. Emerging international practices, such as those involving United Nations committees with monitoring responsibilities in relation to Australian government compliance with treaty obligations, highlight growing 'accountability gaps'. We use this term to refer to gaps between the nature of information required by demanders and suppliers of accountability. We note that increasingly public officials who appear before some accountability agencies find themselves in 'accountability traps', where no amount of performance reporting can ever satisfy the demands made of their accountability obligations. We acknowledge that accountability requires more than simply the provision of information from decision-makers, but debates over the qualities of information provide us with a focus for analysing wider trends. Our basic argument is that Australian governance suffers from an increasing number of 'accountability gaps'. We are not original in drawing attention to the messy state of accountability in Australian governance. We conclude that it is unrealistic to expect anything much in the way of an 'accountability accord' until some of the more fundamental accountability gaps are bridged, on the basis of a new appreciation of the information requirements required by each set of demanders and suppliers of accountability.

This paper, to appear in revised form in the third volume of the series on governance in Australia editied by Glyn Davis, Michael Keading, John Wanna and Patrick Weller, examines the place of accountability in the emerging framework of Australian national governance. The aim is not to map the institutional configuration of accountability agencies in government but to examine a number of basic tensions surrounding accountability and the role of accountability agencies. Although the term 'accountability' is fundamental to governance discourse, expectations of accountability vary quite markedly with different institutional and community perspectives. This paper attempts to sort through some of the more basic tensions associated with the mixed expectations of accountability by identifying how the one term of 'accountability' is often attached to mechanisms that operate at cross-purposes, to the detriment of national governance. The paper begins with a review of the conventional forms of accountability in Australian national governance and then examines three challenging arenas of accountability. First, the arena of open government associated with the agenda of the so-called new administrative law. This is a model of process-accountability which is frequently criticised as having become (i) too costly given the meagre range of benefits it has generated, and (ii) too burdensome on government decision-making given the rights of interested parties to stay the hand of government through round after round of administrative review. The second model is the new public management one of results-oriented accountability, which is frequently criticised as detrimental to due-process safeguards of accountability. The third line of inquiry concerns changing public expectations of accountable government. In the Conclusion, we place these accountability developments in the increasingly international context of Australian governance. Emerging international practices, such as those involving United Nations committees with monitoring responsibilities in relation to Australian government compliance with treaty obligations, highlight growing 'accountability gaps'. We use this term to refer to gaps between the nature of information required by demanders and suppliers of accountability. We note that increasingly public officials who appear before some accountability agencies find themselves in 'accountability traps', where no amount of performance reporting can ever satisfy the demands made of their accountability obligations. We acknowledge that accountability requires more than simply the provision of information from decision-makers, but debates over the qualities of information provide us with a focus for analysing wider trends. Our basic argument is that Australian governance suffers from an increasing number of 'accountability gaps'. We are not original in drawing attention to the messy state of accountability in Australian governance. We conclude that it is unrealistic to expect anything much in the way of an 'accountability accord' until some of the more fundamental accountability gaps are bridged, on the basis of a new appreciation of the information requirements required by each set of demanders and suppliers of accountability.