Suchergebnisse

At the end of XX century, Western countries faced a serious management crisis: the failure of three traditional management models (bureaucracy management, market management and network management). The study notes that there are three typical management regimes in public administration and social management: bureaucratic management, market management and network management. Bureaucratic governance is a rational framework that relies on the government controlling economic and social issues from top to bottom. Market management is procedural rationality based on market mediation to regulate economic and social activities. Network management is a reflective rationality that emphasizes "decentralization", "denationalization" and "diversification" and relies on multiple actors in shaping the management network and facilitating the implementation of management. To cope with the crisis, the researchers propose a new concept of "Meta-governance", which means that there are "Meta-managers" for the development of a single managerial purpose, coordination of relations between management factors, promote the coordinated management and maintenance of coherence, efficiency, sustainability and stability control. "Meta-governance not only enriches the theory of governance, but also contributes to the development of public administration and global governance. Meanwhile, the implementation of "Meta-governance" should be based on its own status and characteristics of the state. According to the results of the study, it is noted that "Meta-management" is a reaction to management crises in Western countries. It is based on a developed market, a mature civil society and a perfect political structure of Western countries. The absence of these necessary conditions will inevitably affect the effective implementation of "Meta-governance". Imitation is the wrong way to deal with "Meta-governance." Based on local conditions, for the development of a "Meta-governance" regime that corresponds to the real governance of the country, it can help solve the problems of governance.

AbstractWe address the mixed empirical findings on how corporate governance affects dividend payout policy by analyzing a large sample of firms from 30 countries. Our results indicate that firms with better firm‐level governance pay more dividends, even after controlling for country‐level governance. However, this relation is pronounced only in countries with low shareholder rights. In addition, we find that when the shareholder rights index is high, firm‐level governance is unrelated to dividend payout in the full sample period. Finally, we show that in high‐shareholder‐rights countries, firm‐level governance changes its role from before to after the 2008–2009 financial crisis.

The fragmentation and complexity of governance are well recognized among scholars and policy makers. The debate on fragmentation has itself, however, also remained rather fragmented. This has inhibited the drawing of common lessons among the different communities, and has delayed the development of more concerted efforts to enhance synergies and address trade-offs between different societal goals. In order to move forward, this theme issue shows that the various disconnected debates are in essence trying to do the same thing—contribute to the discussion on the relationships between governance instruments. In order to do so, it is based on and advances the notion of Integrative Governance, defined as the theories and practices that focus on the relationships between governance instruments and/or governance systems. The theme issue serves the debate in two ways: (1) it contributes to the "defragmentation" of the debate by bringing together the different concepts and approaches used to study Integrative Governance and (2) it furthers the debate by addressing the main gaps in the Integrative Governance literature. Each article contributes to both aims of the theme issue by making conceptual links between the different approaches, and by addressing multiple gaps in the literature. As such, the theme issue as a whole contributes to a better understanding of the relationships between governance instruments, with a view to enhance these relationships and governance performance.

Mandating interactive governance arenas presents itself as an appealing strategy for determined public policy-makers at the frontier of New Public Governance. Yet, it also confronts researchers and practitioners with a new set of policy execution problems that prompts re-examination of one of the oldest research questions in public administration research: how and why are the high hopes of central policy-makers (not) translated into practice? By combining insights from the public policy implementation literature, network governance literature and theories of multi-actor institutional design, the article develops a theoretical perspective for studying top-down implementation of interactive governance arenas. The developed perspective enables researchers and practitioners to identify a number of critical junctions in the implementation process with important implications for the final design of the interactive arenas. A longitudinal case-analysis of the implementation of ten Local Crime Prevention Councils in one of twelve Danish police districts is conducted to demonstrate how the perspective may be deployed in empirical studies. ; Mandating interactive governance arenas presents itself as an appealing strategy for determined public policy-makers at the frontier of New Public Governance. Yet, it also confronts researchers and practitioners with a new set of policy execution problems that prompts re-examination of one of the oldest research questions in public administration research: how and why are the high hopes of central policy-makers (not) translated into practice? By combining insights from the public policy implementation literature, network governance literature and theories of multi-actor institutional design, the article develops a theoretical perspective for studying top-down implementation of interactive governance arenas. The developed perspective enables researchers and practitioners to identify a number of critical junctions in the implementation process with important implications for the final design of the interactive arenas. A longitudinal case-analysis of the implementation of ten Local Crime Prevention Councils in one of twelve Danish police districts is conducted to demonstrate how the perspective may be deployed in empirical studies.

This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro-level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state-society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy-making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state-society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed.