Suchergebnisse

AbstractStudying collaborative governance has become a booming business. However, the empirical literature still struggles to produce robust generalizations and cumulative knowledge that link contextual, situational and institutional design factors to processes and outcomes. We still have not mustered the broad and deep evidence base that will really help us sort fact from fiction and identify more and less productive approaches to collaboration. The current empirical evidence in the study of collaborative governance consists chiefly of small-N case studies or large-N surveys. The challenge is to move from case- based, mid- range theory building to more largeN- driven systematic theory- testing, while also retaining the rich contextual and process insights that only small-N studies tend to yield. This article, and the articles in the accompanying special issue, introduces an attempt to provide this middle ground – the Collaborative Governance Case Database. The database has been developed to serve as a free common pool resource for researchers to systematically collect and compare high- quality collaborative governance case studies. This article is an introduction to the database, exploring its design, opportunities and limitations. This article is also an invitation; inviting all researchers to freely use the cases in the database for their own research interest and to help strengthening the database by adding new cases there are eager to share with colleagues.

Studying collaborative governance has become a booming business. However, the empirical literature still struggles to produce robust generalizations and cumulative knowledge that link contextual, situational and institutional design factors to processes and outcomes. We still have not mustered the broad and deep evidence base that will really help us sort fact from fiction and identify more and less productive approaches to collaboration. The current empirical evidence in the study of collaborative governance consists chiefly of small-N case studies or large-N surveys. The challenge is to move from case-based, mid-range theory building to more largeN-driven systematic theory-testing, while also retaining the rich contextual and process insights that only small-N studies tend to yield. This article, and the articles in the accompanying special issue, introduces an attempt to provide this middle ground– the Collaborative Governance Case Database. The database has been developed to serve as a free common pool resource for researchers to systematically collect and compare high-quality collaborative governance case studies. This article is an introduction to the database, exploring its design, opportunities and limitations. This article is also an invitation; inviting all researchers to freely use the cases in the database for their own research interest and to help strengthening the database by adding new cases they are eager to share with colleagues.

This concluding chapter reflects on how the LCI has performed and how it can be developed. Application of the LCI is analyzed across different leadership puzzles and contexts and for what this tells us about the authority of political leaders. Some interpretations of capital fluctuation across the chapters are presented. The LCI allows exploration of how skills, relations, and reputations create, build, or erode authority. Questions remain over the weighting of indicators, the balance between hard and soft measurements, and broader questions about how capital is acquired, preserved, and, in rare cases, regained. Leaders in weakly democratic systems may be less prone to "normal" patterns of capital fluctuation. Overall, the LCI does allow students of political leadership to think about the difference between political office-holding and exercising political leadership, and about why and when some leaders are able to make the political weather rather than being swept along by it.

WADA is a hybrid public–private agency that leads the global fight against doping. This chapter explores why and how this agency developed into an institution that receives support from sports organizations and governments worldwide. Despite initial scepticism about its ability to overcome the ineffectiveness of anti-doping policies prior to its foundation in 1999, WADA quickly grew into a broadly trusted and well-respected organization. It successfully developed a globally harmonized anti-doping system that reinforced the credibility of international sports competitions and the legitimacy of elite sport policies. From its inception, it had a distinct identity as a neutral, impartial and objective standard setter and referee agent in a morally challenging organizational field. Nonetheless, being relatively young, WADA remains a vulnerable institution. It must continuously take an independent position with regard to partial interests of sporting and public authorities that are responsible for WADA's funding and governance. This requires institutional leadership that the organization cannot always offer, as recent doping affairs show.

WADA is a hybrid public–private agency that leads the global fight against doping. This chapter explores why and how this agency developed into an institution that receives support from sports organizations and governments worldwide. Despite initial scepticism about its ability to overcome the ineffectiveness of anti-doping policies prior to its foundation in 1999, WADA quickly grew into a broadly trusted and well-respected organization. It successfully developed a globally harmonized anti-doping system that reinforced the credibility of international sports competitions and the legitimacy of elite sport policies. From its inception, it had a distinct identity as a neutral, impartial and objective standard setter and referee agent in a morally challenging organizational field. Nonetheless, being relatively young, WADA remains a vulnerable institution. It must continuously take an independent position with regard to partial interests of sporting and public authorities that are responsible for WADA's funding and governance. This requires institutional leadership that the organization cannot always offer, as recent doping affairs show.

This book presents 23 in-depth case studies of successful public policies and programmes in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland. Each chapter tells the story of the policy's origins, aims, design, decision-making and implementation processes, and assesses in which respects—programmatically, process-wise, politically and over time—and to what extent it can be considered a policy success. It also points towards the driving forces of success, and the challenges that have had to be overcome to achieve it. Combined, the chapters provide a resource for policy evaluation researchers, educators and students of public policy and public administration, both within and beyond the Nordic region.

Summarizes the findings of 24 empirical studies of state performance of six West European countries across four policy sectors -- the steel industry, health care, finance, & HIV & blood supply -- to determine why some public management policies succeed & others fail. Governance challenges of managing decline, reform, innovation, & crisis in the policy sectors were faced by different institutional configurations of state, private, & international actors, rules, & practices, & in differing environmental circumstances, including consensual & imposed policy styles. The programmatic & political dimensions of state performance were viewed separately to capture discrepancies in perceived performance. The comparative assessment reveals some patterns of governance success & failure, & attempts are made to tie results to idiosyncratic national policy styles & to cross-national institutional patterns. Certain hypotheses concerning the influence of political structure, political culture, policy frame, governance task, & symbolic potential are tested. 5 Tables, 8 Figures. L. A. Hoffman