Suchergebnisse

The Encyclopedia of Governance provides a one-stop point of reference for the diverse and complex topics surrounding governance for the period between the collapse of the post-war consensus and the rise of neoliberal regimes in the 1970s. This comprehensive resource concentrates primarily on topics related to the changing nature and role of the state in recent times and the ways in which these roles have been conceptualized in the areas of Political Science, Public Administration, Political Economy, and Sociology

Annotation New Labour is the most innovative and powerful political movement in Britain today. However, New Labour: A Critique argues that its apparent pragmatism disguises an ideological commitment to particular forms of social science, deploying new institutionalism and communitarianism to respond to the New Right. Bevir traces the impact of these forms of social science on the ideas and policies of New Labour, paying particular attention to the welfare state and the economy. New Labour, the new institutionalism and communitarianism typically objectify aspects of the social world to sustain claims to expert knowledge. Bevir defends and enacts an alternative, interpretive approach to social science. This interpretive approach inspires a critique of New Labour as a contingent reworking of a particular socialist tradition rather than the necessary or pragmatic response that it portrays itself as.

(…)La mayoría de las universidades ofrecen cursos sobre los textos clásicos de teoría política al menos desde Platón a Marx. Los teóricos políticos por lo general justifican esos cursos sobre la base de que estos textos abordan problemas perennes; problemas tales como "¿Por qué debemos obedecer al gobierno?", "¿qué es un Estado justo?", y "¿cuáles son los fundamentos de la moral política?". Recientemente, sin embargo, contextualistas lingüísticos, con Quentin Skinner y J. G. A. Pocock a la cabeza, se han manifestado en contra de la existencia misma de los problemas perennes. Ellos sostienen que textos escritos en diferentes lugares y en diferentes momentos abordan pro¬blemas inconmensurables porque, por ejemplo, los significados lingüísticos, las intenciones de los autores, o la condición humana, dependen por completo de contextos históricos específicos (…)

Today we are often skeptical of the role played by representations of the nation state in constructing and legitimating ways of life and public policies. We portray what once appeared to be neutral, scientific representations of our practices and our heritages as contingent historical objects. How did we become so skeptical? The answer has several parts: developmental historicism dominated the human sciences in the latter half of the nineteenth century; the turn of the century witnessed an epistemic rupture and the rise of a modernist empiricism that came to dominate the social sciences; modernist empiricists reformulated their approach during the latter half of the twentieth century in response to alternative visions of social science; and, finally, the close of the twentieth century also saw the rise of a radical historicism that spread from philosophy and literature to history and even social science. In short, we have become skeptical as we have moved toward a radical historicism that challenges scientism and decenters the grand narratives of yore.

How might we think about democratic governance? This paper distinguishes between system governance and radical democracy. Systems governance borrows the language of radical democracy while missing its spirit. It advocates increased participation through networks because new institutionalists suggest networks are an efficient means of service delivery. It advocates increased consultation to build consensus because communitarians suggest consensus is needed for effective political institutions. System governance is, then, a top-down discourse based on the alleged expertise of social scientists. Radical democrats concentrate instead upon the self-government of citizens. Instead of the incorporation of established groups in networks, they promote a pluralism within which aspects of governance are handed over to associations in civil society. And instead of consultation prior to decision-making, they promote a dialogue in which citizens play an active role in making and implementing public policy.

This paper has two aims. First, in contrast to the modernist empiricism of mainstream political science, we provide brief introductions to several interpretive approaches to the study of political science and British government and politics: idealism, social humanism, post-structuralism, and ideational institutionalism. Second, we identify the distinctive research agendas that arise from this family of approaches: namely, critique, decentring governance, ethnographic studies of British politics, and policy analysis as storytelling.

Today we are often skeptical of the role played by representations of the nation state in constructing and legitimating ways of life and public policies. We portray what once appeared to be neutral, scientific representations of our practices and our heritages as contingent historical objects. How did we become so skeptical? The answer has several parts: developmental historicism dominated the human sciences in the latter half of the nineteenth century; the turn of the century witnessed an epistemic rupture and the rise of a modernist empiricism that came to dominate the social sciences; modernist empiricists reformulated their approach during the latter half of the twentieth century in response to alternative visions of social science; and, finally, the close of the twentieth century also saw the rise of a radical historicism that spread from philosophy and literature to history and even social science. In short, we have become skeptical as we have moved towards a radical historicism that challenges scientism and decenters the grand narratives of yore.

How might we think about democratic governance? This paper distinguishes between system governance and radical democracy. System governance borrows the language of radical democracy while missing its spirit. It advocates increased participation through networks because new institutionalists suggest networks are an efficient means of service delivery. It advocates increased consultation to build consensus because communitarians suggest consensus is needed for effective political institutions. System governance is, then, a top‐down discourse based on the alleged expertise of social scientists. Radical democrats concentrate instead on the self‐government of citizens. Instead of the incorporation of established groups in networks, they promote a pluralism within which aspects of governance are handed over to associations in civil society. And instead of consultation prior to decision making, they promote a dialogue in which citizens play an active role in making and implementing public policy.

This paper asks 'how do practitioners understand the relationship between the prime minister, ministers and the rest of Westminster and Whitehall?' We focus on three topics. First, we review tales of a Blair Presidency. Second, we explore the governance paradox in which people tell tales of a Blair presidency as they recount stories of British governance that portray it as fragmented with several decision makers. Finally, we argue this paradox reveals the distorting influence the Westminster Model still exerts on many accounts of British politics. It acts as a smokescreen for the changes in executive politics.