Suchergebnisse

El concepto de gobernanza adquiere cada vez más trascendencia en los debates teóricos europeos y en la práctica política, en tanto nuevo modo de gestionar las políticas públicas, a partir de las reformas del sector público en los años ochenta. Sin embargo, el debate en América Latina ha tenido características diferentes que el europeo, por lo que es necesario aportar una revisión crítica de la agenda propuesta para la transformación del Estado en la región y la transferencia de la noción degovernance por los organismos multilaterales. Para comprender estas transformaciones, aquí se analizan tres áreas centrales de las reformas estatales emprendidas en América Latina: la privatización de servicios públicos, las nuevas ofertas de políticas sociales y los procesos de descentralización. Ello nos permitirá entender la tensión entre los modelos normativos y los particulares patrones de gobernanza que predominan en América Latina.AbstractGovernance is becoming an increasingly important concept in European theoretical debates and in political practice as a new way to manage public policies, since the public sector reforms in the 80s. However, the debate in Latin America has different characteristics than in Europe, so it is necessary to provide a critical review of the proposed agenda for the transformation of the state in the region, and of the transfer of the concept of governance by multilateral agencies. To understand these changes the paper examines three key areas of reforms in Latin America and the privatization of public services, new social policies proposals and the decentralization process. This will help us understand the tension between normative models and specific patterns of governance that prevail in Latin America.

The new institutionalism agrees that the institutions are important to explain the development of the political game. But when they try to explain how the institutions emerge & which the relationship with the agents is, the theories offer a diversified panorama difficult to embrace. The central argument in this article is that although ontological & epistemological differences between the different institutionalism variants, while the rationalist approaches are centered in the agent & the culturalists in the structure, is possible to surpass these differences & to use complementary approaches. Thus in this paper will be deepened in the actor-centered institutionalism, relational approach between the agent & the structure for the analysis of the public policies. Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.

The exchange policy was one of the privileged instruments to carry out the industrialization model of imports' substitution in Uruguay. For that reason, a central chapter of the Uruguayan history is the study of the construction of complex institutional structures, that regulated how the exchange policy was handled: the Control of Exports and Imports (1931-1961). This article analyszes how public and private actors have created a set of informal rules regarding the fixing of the rate of change and the foreign exchange distribution, which parted from the existing formal norm and stimulated the bureaucrats' will and the industrialists' search fo rent activities, affecting our country's economic performance in the long term. (Cuad CLAEH/GIGA)

La naturaleza interrelacionada de las múltiples crisis socioambientales que acechan a América Latina exige una acción colectiva audaz, urgente y creativa. Los problemas perversos que se pueden encontrar interconectando estas crisis caracterizan una necesidad de integración genuina del conocimiento (transdisciplina) que pueda articular y trascender el conocimiento académico por sí solo.

La primera década del siglo xxi constituyó una coyuntura de transformaciones en el mapa político de América Latina. Después de una larga hegemonía de las fuerzas políticas de derecha y centro-derecha, las de izquierda y centro-izquierda —un conjunto muy heterogéneo— conquistaron los gobiernos de la región con un discurso crítico del modelo neoliberal, que subrayaba el papel del Estado como actor clave del proceso de desarrollo. En este escenario, la crisis de 2008 profundizó este debate, enfocando la relación del Estado con las élites y el capital extranjero, así como en su capacidad de articular una estrategia de desarrollo para construir sociedades más prósperas y justas. Este artículo revisita los dos paradigmas del papel del Estado en los procesos de desarrollo: el modelo neoliberal y el desarrollista, a la luz de enfoques teóricos de disciplinas como la ciencia política, la historia económica y la economía del desarrollo. Se concluye que el gran desafío de una nueva teoría y práctica del Estado en América Latina se encuentra en construir coaliciones desarrollistas amplias que permitan contrapesar los intereses centrífugos de las élites locales y las corporaciones trasnacionales.

In many parts of the world, governments are building new platforms, methods, and innovative experimental spaces to better respond to current complex problems. Laboratories in the public sector have emerged as experimental spaces that incorporate co-creation approaches to promote public innovation and social transformation. Although there is abundant literature about public innovation and reports on innovative practices, little progress has been made on how to evaluate these. In this paper, we describe the process that led to the development of an experimental evaluation tool for public innovation as part of an action-research process in a laboratory within the Uruguayan Government. The pilot prototype, the 'Roadmap' as we named it, seeks to provide a timely and purposeful means to learn from the co-creation processes and be accountable to public authorities and society. Aiming to build a learning system within the organisation to communicate results, we designed the Roadmap based on the confluence of various approaches, namely, development evaluation, organisational learning and reflexive monitoring. Other relevant approaches to public innovation and evaluation were also considered, such as public design evaluative thinking, social innovation evaluation, and systemic evaluation of learning.

Resumen: El presente artículo tiene por objetivo analizar los Laboratorios de transformación social con el fin de abordar problemas sociales complejos. Estos laboratorios se han convertido en espacios abiertos de diseño experimental que vincula diferentes actores (co-creación) y saberes (transdisciplinario y transectorial) a través de un proceso iterativo en la forma de abordar problemas complejos hacia un desarrollo sostenible. Por consiguiente, el presente paper busca reflexionar sobre los desafíos de cómo la actitud de diseño social y el proceso de diseño tiene que estar basada en clave de futuro y experimental así como la relevancia de desarrollar una cultura de la innovación y pensamiento resiliente (habilidades, competencia, actitudes y valores).

The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics' (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.