The author analyzes a late essay by Carl Schmitt, Hamlet or Hecuba, as Schmitt's attempt at an aesthetic recapitulation of his entire theoretical & political convictions. It is significant that Schmitt does not make any adjustments in his theoretical & political opinions, despite the historical failure of his ideas & despite the accumulated historical experience. The author highlights & interprets those aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy & Scheler's early phenomenology & anthropology that permanently influenced Schmitt &, consequently, his interpretation of Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, ie, Nietzsche's & Scheler's definition of tragic & the fictional in human activity. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author analyzes Schmitt's & Luhmann's theory of democracy & the constitutional state. By comparing them, he concludes that Schmitt's critique of the democratic pluralistic state has ended in the theory of direct or plebiscitary democracy in which the constitution is subject to an unpredictable will of political majority that can change it willfully in line with the power relations. Luhmann, on the other hand, starts from the assumption of the separation between law & politics & builds his concept of the constitutional state on the bipolar differentiation & the mutual checks between law & politics. The author concludes that Luhmann does not give up on Hobbes's pessimistic conviction that human nature is bestial; he only offers a different strategy for the coexistence of cultured savages. Adapted from the source document.
Modern states display a pluralism of ethical, religious, & philosophical convictions that brings into question the possibility of a strong identification of citizens with the political community. Due to these centrifugal tendencies, as well as to the disintegration of the traditional ties, modern political communities need more solidarity to be able to efficiently solve the complex problems of modern society. The burden of political decision making in modern societies is constantly growing, while its space is, at the same time, getting more confined due to the tendency of differentiation & separation of the administrative & economic sphere of power from the disposition of politics. How can modern societies surmount these challenges by linking tolerance & solidarity, democracy & social complexity? What are the cultural prerequisites for this & which institutional rules are necessary to overcome these difficulties? How is it possible in such a situation to achieve political unity & ensure the legitimation of activities necessary for a normal functioning of a political community? Here, the author outlines Rawls's answer regarding the pluralism of modern societies & the solutions he offered. First, he focuses on the changes in Rawls's original position that occurred after his book A Theory of Justice; then he highlights several themes contained in the criticisms that prompted Rawls to change his original position; next he analyzes the concept of justice as fairness from the point of view of pluralism; & finally, he outlines Rawls's concepts that are, according to him, conducive to political unity & legitimacy. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author looks into the design of Rawls's liberal project via his idea of justice as the primary virtue of social institutions. Rawls thinks that what is just must have primacy over what is good, by which he has revitalized the deontological ethics. Rawls's deontological liberalism is based on the conviction that a plural society is possible if we stick to the principle of the primacy of what is just & by this limit the various concepts of the good. In his critique, Sandet highlights the pro & contra arguments of the deontological ethics, but concludes that it is impossible to save Rawls's deontological liberalism since it cannot be consistently derived. John Gray's criticism of Rawls is threefold: first, Gray claims that Rawls's concept of the individual is taken out of its cultural-historical context & thus represents a vestige of the Enlightenment project fallacy; second, Gray argues that Rawls fell for the misconception of the primacy of the law over the good, because law without substance provided by a concept of the good would be hollow; & third, Gray says that Rawls substituted the sphere of the political by law, which makes his political liberalism essentially antipolitical. The author concludes that it is not essential for the idea of justice to occupy a privileged position as the ultimate valorization of a society, & in that sense it cannot be imperative & obligatory. 14 References. Adapted from the source document.
Osvrt na život i djelo hrvatskoga književnika i političara Ante Tresića Pavičića (1867. – 1949.) osvjetljuje složenost hrvatske povijesti i književnosti u kulturno- političkim mijenama. Način na koji je Tresić Pavičić prikazivan u povijesnim i književnopovijesnim istraživanjima ukazuje na nestabilnu recepciju njegove važnosti. Ovaj prilog ocrtava žanrovsku raznovrsnost njegova književnoga doprinosa povijesti hrvatske književnosti, uzimajući u obzir i njegove političke pozicije. Danas je sazrelo vrijeme za objektivnu procjenu njegova opusa, od inovativnih do petrificirajućih estetičkih opredjeljenja. Biografija i bibliografija Ante Tresića Pavičića prepleće se s kanonskim pozicijama Marka Marulića s jedne i Vladimira Nazora s druge strane. Važan za povijest hrvatskoga epa, lirike, drame, te iznimno vrijedan putopisac, on zavrjeđuje kulturološku revalorizaciju. ; The overview of the life and work of the Croatian writer and politician Ante Tresić Pavičić (1867-1949) sheds light on the complexity of Croatian history and literature in the periods of cultural and political changes. His importance was given a mixed reception judging from he way in which Tresic Pavičić was presented in historical and literary and historical studies. This article outlines the genre diversity of his literary contribution to the history of Croatian literature, taking into account his political positions as well. The time has come today for an objective assessment of his opus, from his innovative to the established aesthetic convictions. The biography and bibliography of Ante Tresic Pavicic coincide with the canonical positions of Marko Marulić on the one hand and Vladimir Nazor on the other. Being important for the history of Croatian epic, poetry, drama, and also an extremely valuable travel writer, he deserves cultural re-evaluation.
The study of Hobbes' "theory of politics" begins with contrasting the different views on his theory found in the works of H. Arendt & M. Foucault, as well as in the recent methodically crucial works of J. F. Spitz. Their common denominator is that they all contest Hobbes' theory state & sovereignty, as a fatal epoch-making trap. The essay approaches Hobbes through evaluating contemporary political theory & his most important inquiry into the understanding of state as a legal & political project of Modernity (A. Passerin d'Entreves, B. Kriegel & Q. Skinner). Based on this inquiry, & on the critical reading of Hobbes' Leviathan, the author shows that the understanding of Hobbes' theory of the sovereign state conclusively depends on the epistemological status of the concept of the "state of nature." The main dilemma is if the state of nature should be understood as a logical construct with an ambition for ontological status or a hypothetical state reflecting the historical context of Hobbes' era? The main problem of the state of nature does not rest in a struggle for power between power-seeking individuals, but in the fact that people are fatally divided & conflicted in their religious & political convictions. To leave such state of religious civil wars permanently, is possible only, if the tasks of a representative sovereign are understood as society-building in diachronic dimension. However, even if a sovereign successfully fulfills his fundamental task of society-building, the developed civil society will not correlate with this basic type of sovereign absolute state, but with a new type -- liberal & democratic state. References. Adapted from the source document.
The idea underlying the politics of the Independent People's Party (Samostalna narodna stranka), emphasized already in the program of 1863, was the principle that Croatia had rights as an independent entity and consonant with this the duty to determine the status of its rights in the Monarchy independently, and not in conjunction with Hungary. In accordance with this principle the Party took as a point of departure its political conceptions of 1848 from which arose the separation of Croatia from Hungary. Although of all parties, the Independent People's Party built least on historical rights, it was prepared to turn to them in order to strengthen the position of Croatia as a state. It differed from the other parties in that the viewpoints of the aristocrats received least expression in its publications, and it favored the democratization of politics, with the involvement of the widest range of social strata in political life. Regarding the central government, the Independent press emphasized that the Croatian Office and the Viennese government did not have the same goals; to verify this assertion they indicated that the programmatic document "Conditionally or Unconditionally?" originated with the sanction of the Office. The demands expressed in this document were certainly not in accord with the centralistic tendencies in the Viennese government. Conditions for entrance into the Emperor's Council were, namely, an independent and autonomous budget, unification with Dalmatia and with a part of Krajina. Besides this it was emphasized that the Croatian Constitution and autonomy could not come into question, nor could the government ministers interfere in the issue of Croatia's autonomy. It was further emphasized that Inasmuch as Hungary obtained a different status as a state, those same rights must also be granted to Croatia. In their writings the Independent politicians sharply differentiated between two freedoms: the political freedom of citizens and the freedom to develop national identity, and they consistently supported the latter. They were convinced that within the Hungarian community of nations, Croatians would not be able to attain conditions conductive to free national development, and hence supported an agreement with Vienna. Aside from this, they hinted that in the event an agreement with Vienna could not be reached, the Croatians still had the opportunity to negotiate with Budapest. On the other hand, inasmuch as the Croatians would first negotiate with Budapest, or rather send their representatives to the Hungarian Assembly, the significance of the Croatian Assembly would be greatly reduced and would become completely dependent on the Hungarian Assembly. In this event there would be no further possibility for Croatia to enter into any other combination of states' rights. They further stressed, quite correctly, that the Hungarians themselves were making agreements with Vienna and that in some transactions they treated the Monarchy as an equal unity. Insofar as negotiations were already under way, the Independents were convinced that it was more advantageous for Croatians to take part in them immediately rather than directly with Hungary. In spite of the fact that the program demanded a lot, the majority of the populists did not support it from distrust that the program was merely a decoy to draw the Croatians into the Emperor's Council. The Independents were convinced that the main reason for this distrust was the widespread conviction that the goals of the Viennese government and the Croatian Office were identical, so they attacked such assertions in their publications. However, despite this, the majority of the populists continued to reject Independent policies and in their resistence joined the Unionists; in this way they strengthened the dualistic trend, which even without this support, became stronger in the political life of the Monarchy.
Pranje novca, kao jedan od najsofisticiranijih i najtežih oblika organizovanog kriminaliteta, je i međunarodni fenomen jer se odvija i prisutan je, kako u nacionalnim tako i međunarodnim razmjerama. Međunarodni karakter odvijanja pranja novca je jedan od efikasnijih metoda da se prikrije nezakonito porijeklo novca ili bilo kojeg oblika imovine koja je proistekla izvršenjem, uglavnom, teških krivičnih djela.Problematika pranja novca je prisutna u nacionalnim i međunarodnim razmjerama i značajno je izražena u onim društvima gdje perači novca nastoje da legaliziraju kriminalom zarađenu dobit i da tu dobit infiltriraju u privredu i finansijske tokove, s ciljem da kontrolišu određene ekonomske i političke procese. Pranje novca predstavlja međunarodni zločin, zbog čega je međunarodna zajednica odlučila uspostaviti međunarodne standarde, sa zahtjevom da te standarde prihvati što veći broj zemalja svijeta. S obzirom na velike probleme i razne poteškoće na koje nailazi u borbi protiv svih oblika organizovanog kriminaliteta, kroz akcije usmjerene na same izvršioce ovih krivičnih djela, međunarodna zajednica je odlučila da svoju pažnju usmjeri na drugi moment ove borbe: novac, tj. prihod koji nastaje izvršenjem krivičnih djela organizovanog kriminaliteta. Shodno tome, međunarodna zajednica je odlučila da pokuša da udari tamo gdje će kriminalcima nanijeti najveće posljedice, tako što je preduzela velike akcije protiv pranja novca.U borbi protiv pranja novca stvoreni su čitavi institucionalni aparati; zbog njega se pišu nove i nove konvencije, direktive, preporuke; zbog njega se mora često mijenjati krivično zakonodavstvo; zbog pranja novca prestala je postojati tajnost računa I podataka banaka. Ponekad se, u toj borbi žrtvuju i osnovna ljudska prava, jer se praktično vodi rat protiv pranja novca. Obim intervencija, strategija i međunarodnih sporazuma, razrađenih da bi se prekinuli lanci pranja novca, širokog su raspona i veoma usavršeni. Pranje novca je veoma veliki biznis, koji nije lako kontrolisati putem međunarodnih sporazuma. Naravno, sve je to potrebno i neophodno, a drugo je pitanje da li sve te mjere daju uvijek očekivane rezultate tj. da li to ima za rezultat adekvatan broj pravosnažno osuđujućih presuda i adekvatan iznos oduzete imovinske koristi.U tom smislu, u radu sam istražio i dao pregled samo najvažnijih i najrelevantnijih međunarodnih organizacija i institucija u borbi protiv pranja novca kao što su: Organizacija ujedinjenih nacija, Vijeće Evrope, Financial Action Task Force – FATF, Grupa Egmont, Evropska unija, Bazelski komitet za bankarske propise i kontrolu, Međunarodni monetarni fond i Svjetska banka, s napomenom da ću šire obraditi samo neke od njih koje smatram bitnim. --- Money laundering, as one of the most sophisticated and severe forms of organized crime, has a strong international component because it occurs not only within national borders, but goes far beyond. The transnational aspect of money laundering makes it easier to prevent the true source of funds and other property derived from serious criminal activity.Therefore, the problem of money laundering is both, a national as well as an international problem. It is very common in the countries where money launderers attempt to legalize the illegal proceeds and then transfer it into the stream of commerce and finance in order to control certain economic and political processes. Money laundering is an international crime leading the international community to establish common standards that countries around the world should adopt. Having in mind the great difficulties in fighting against organized crime using the traditional methods focused upon the perpetrators, the international community decided to shift its focus towards the other important component of money laundering – the proceeds derived from criminal activity. In that sense, the international community decided to strike where the consequences for money launderers are the most prominent – the money.The prevention of money laundering lead to creation of the whole new set of institutional apparatus; many conventions have been organized, and many articles, directives, recommendations, guidelines were created. The prevention of money laundering has lead to changes in criminal code legislation and dissolution of bank information secrecy. Sometimes, however, this war on money laundering sacrifices some basic human rights. The range of strategies, interventions and international agreements developed to prevent money laundering is broad and very sophisticated. Money laundering is a large business which is not easy to regulate by way of international agreements. Of course, while these agreements and strategies are necessary, the question about their effectiveness, however, still lingers in the background, especially considering the number of final criminal convictions and the amount of illegal proceeds forfeited.In that sense, I provided an overview of the most relevant and the most important international institutions whose job is the prevention of money laundering, namely the UN, Council of Europe, Financial Action Task Force –FATF, Egmont Group, European Union, The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, The International Monetary Fund and World Bank. I would like to mention that I will cover in more detail only those organizations I find the most relevant.
Opći cilj istraživanja prikazanog u ovom radu jest teorijsko i empirijsko razmatranje različitih modela urbanog upravljanja na primjeru urbano-okolišnog sektora Grada Zagreba, pri čemu se posebna pažnja daje mogućnostima i preprekama za integrirano urbano upravljanje, s fokusom na koordinaciju i participaciju. Tema je razrađivana kroz različite teorijske pristupe s namjerom holističkog obuhvata područja istraživanja. Tipologija urbanog upravljanja koju su razvili DiGaetano i Strom (2003) koristi se za analizu i interpretaciju tipova upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru Grada Zagreba. Vezano specifično uz integrirano upravljanje, istraživanjem je obuhvaćena horizontalna integracija, kao dimenzija integriranog upravljanja, odnosno njezina dva aspekta: a) segment integriranog urbanog upravljanja koji pretpostavlja intenzivniju i kvalitetniju suradnju i koordinaciju formalnih aktera unutar gradske uprave; te, b) participacija neformalnih aktera u procesu donošenja odluka i kreiranja javnih politika. Aspekt koordinacije formalnih aktera interpretiran je u ovom radu temeljem teorije koordinacije javnih politika, pri čemu se preuzimaju sukcesivne razine ostvarivanja koherentnosti u oblikovanju javnih politika koje je razvio Peters (2004). U dijagnostičke svrhe utvrđivanja suradnje različitih gradskih tijela u urbano-okolišnom sektoru u ostvarivanju zajedničkih ciljeva korišten je i Metcalfeov (1994) pristup analizi izmjere kapaciteta koordinacije javnih politika. Što se tiče participacije neformalnih aktera, u interpretaciji se koristi tipologija razine participacije koju je izradila Arnstein (1969) kao i klasifikacija jednosmjernih i dvosmjernih participativnih metoda od Anokye (2013). U kontekstu ovog istraživanja razmatra se i redistribucija moći između formalnih i neformalnih aktera izražena kao odnos snaga u kojem su u poziciji moći formalni akteri, a neformalni akteri svojim djelovanjem dovode u pitanje granice i raspodjelu moći (Arnstein, 1969). Istraživanje je dizajnirano kao studija slučaja urbanog upravljanja u Gradu Zagrebu korištenjem metode polu-strukturiranog intervjua i fokusne grupe uz pregled relevantnog normativnog i strateškog okvira. Istraživanjem je utvrđen hibridni tip upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru, specifičnije, korporativno-klijentelistički tip urbanog upravljanja. Uočene specifičnosti u modelu upravljanja odnose se na nepovjerenje neformalnih aktera u tijela lokalne samouprave što je dodatno naglašeno uvjerenjem kako lokalna samouprava počiva na principima klijentelizma i pomanjkanja odgovornosti te sektorskom i piramidalnom sustavu upravljanja s koncentracijom moći u samome vrhu gradske vlasti. Navedeno je u suprotnosti sa integriranim modelom upravljanja koje pretpostavlja ostvarenje moći kroz pozitivan kontekst "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), odnosno, ostvarenje moći kroz suradnju i konsenzus, partnerstvo i procese kolektivnog djelovanja. Koordinacija odabranih gradskih ureda unutar urbano-okolišnog sektora svrstana je, sukladno Petersu (2004) na najnižu razinu negativne koordinacije, te sukladno Metcalfeu (1994), na četvrtu razinu koja isto spada u negativnu koordinaciju s obzirom na manjkavosti koje se očituju u: preklapanjima u obavljanju poslova, pri čemu se ističe nedostatak adekvatne koordinacije aktivnosti i projekata (izostanak strukturirane koordinacije) odnosno komunikacije (različite informacije, različite vizije, različite i nepovezane aktivnosti, nedostatak adekvatne baze podataka koju bi mogli koristiti svi uredi i sektori), kako unutar ureda i sektora (naglasak na nepostojanje adekvatne horizontalne koordinacije), tako i među sektorima (nepostojanje adekvatne međusektorske koordinacije), ali i spram civilnog sektora (u vezi programa i aktivnosti od zajedničkog interesa). Naposljetku, razina participacije u urbano-okolišnom sektoru prema Arnsteininoj gradaciji participacije spada u kategoriju tokenizma. Općenito, građane se ne potiče na preuzimanje aktivne uloge prilikom donošenja relevantnih odluka u domeni djelokruga lokalne samouprave kao ni na ostvarivanje partnerstva sa formalnim akterima. Sukladno klasifikaciji metoda participacije prema Anokye (2013), utvrđeno je prisustvo dominacije jednosmjernih uz ponešto dvosmjernih metoda participacije u kategoriji tokenizma. Navedeno upućuje na instrumentalni pristup (Hordijk, 2015) u participaciji neformalnih aktera koji, iako su uključeni u procese odlučivanja, nisu ravnopravni političkim akterima. Na tragu Arnsteininog (1969) poimanja moći, rezultati istraživanja s jedne strane ilustriraju moć kao asimetričnu (centraliziranu) odnosno hijerarhijsku (podređenost većine i zapovijedanje manjine) strukturu koju karakterizira koncentracija moći u samome vrhu upravljačke strukture (Ured Gradonačelnika), a što kod nekih formalnih kao i kod neformalnih aktera stvara osjećaj bespomoćnosti. S druge strane, nalazi ilustriraju moć kao procesnu, što je vidljivo kroz primjere suradnje među akterima koji ukazuju kako neformalni akteri višom razinom participacije u nekim slučajevima dovode uvriježene hijerarhije u pitanje. Međutim, pritom je isključivo riječ o partnerstvu, ali ne i o delegiranju moći ili pak građanskom nadzoru koje Arnstein svrstava u najviše razine građanske moći. ; The general purpose of the research presented in this thesis is to theoretically and empirically consider different models of urban governance based on the example of the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Particular attention is given to the opportunities and barriers to integrated urban governance with a focus on participation. The research engages with different theoretical approaches with the intention to have a holistic approach to the subject of research. The typology of urban governance developed by DiGaetano and Strom (2003) is utilized for the analysis and interpretation of types of governance present in the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Specifically with regard to integrated governance, the research encompasses horizontal integration – as a dimension of integrated governance – and particularly its two aspects: a) the dimension of integrated urban governance which implies more intensive and enhanced cooperation and coordination between formal actors within the city administration; and b) informal actors' participation in the decision making process and the process of creating public policies. The coordination of formal actors' is interpreted through public policies coordination theory by way of adopting successive levels of coherence implementation when shaping public policies as developed by Peters (2004). Metcalfe's (1994) approach to the analysis of public policies capacity coordination is also utilized as a diagnostic tool with the aim of determining the level of cooperation among the different city offices within the environment sector. With regard to capturing the participation of informal actors, the study utilizes Arnstein's (1969) typology of the level of participation, as well as the one-way and two-way classification of participation methods developed by Anokye (2013). In the context of this study, the redistribution of power between formal and informal actors is conveyed as a struggle between formal actors being in the position of power, and informal actors who through their activities question the boundaries and distribution of power. The research was designed as a case study of urban governance in the City of Zagreb. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted, and relevant legal and strategic documents were analyzed. The research has identified a hybrid governance model, more precisely, a corporate-clientelist model of urban governance. The governance model's specificities are reflected in the informal actors' distrust of local level administration, further emphasized through the conviction that the local administration relies on a clientelist agenda, lack of responsibility, and sectorial and pyramidical system of governance whereby the power resides in the highest echelons of city government. The highlighted findings are contrary to the model of integrated governance that presupposes empowerment through a positive context of "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), through cooperation and consensus, partnership and collective actions. The coordination of examined city offices within the sector of environment is categorized, according to Peters (2004), as the lowest level of negative coordination, and, according to Metcalfe (1994), on the fourth level, which also represents negative coordination, given the noted shortcomings: overlaps in activities conducted and specifically lack of adequate levels of coordinating activities and projects (lack of structured coordination), lack of communication (different information, different visions, different and disconnected activities, lack of an adequate database to be used by all offices and sectors), both within offices and sectors (lack of adequate horizontal coordination) as well as between sectors (lack of adequate inter-sectorial coordination), but in relation to the civil sector (with regard to programs and activities of common interest). Finally, the level of participation in the environment sector, in accordance with Arnstein's participation gradation, falls into the category of tokenism. Overall, citizens are not encouraged to assume active roles in the local administration's decision-making process or realize partnerships with formal actors. Based on Anokye's (2013) classification of participation methods, the study identifies the dominance of one-way participation methods and a handful of two-way participation methods in the tokenism category. This points to an instrumental approach (Hordijk, 2015) to the participation of informal actors', who, although involved in the decision-making process, are not equal to political actors. Drawing on Arnstein's (1969) understanding of power, the study illustrates, on one hand, power as asymmetrical (centralized) and hierarchical (subordination of majority, command of minority), characterized by the concentration of power at the top of the local government structure (Mayor's office), which, in turn, creates a feeling of helplessness both among certain formal as well as informal actors. On the other hand, the study results illustrate that power can also be understood as a process which is exemplified with instances of cooperation between actors showing that informal actors when achieving a higher level of participation bring established hierarchies into question. However, this is strictly reserved for partnership, and not for the delegated power or citizen control which are ranked by Arnstein as the highest levels of citizens' power.
Opći cilj istraživanja prikazanog u ovom radu jest teorijsko i empirijsko razmatranje različitih modela urbanog upravljanja na primjeru urbano-okolišnog sektora Grada Zagreba, pri čemu se posebna pažnja daje mogućnostima i preprekama za integrirano urbano upravljanje, s fokusom na koordinaciju i participaciju. Tema je razrađivana kroz različite teorijske pristupe s namjerom holističkog obuhvata područja istraživanja. Tipologija urbanog upravljanja koju su razvili DiGaetano i Strom (2003) koristi se za analizu i interpretaciju tipova upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru Grada Zagreba. Vezano specifično uz integrirano upravljanje, istraživanjem je obuhvaćena horizontalna integracija, kao dimenzija integriranog upravljanja, odnosno njezina dva aspekta: a) segment integriranog urbanog upravljanja koji pretpostavlja intenzivniju i kvalitetniju suradnju i koordinaciju formalnih aktera unutar gradske uprave; te, b) participacija neformalnih aktera u procesu donošenja odluka i kreiranja javnih politika. Aspekt koordinacije formalnih aktera interpretiran je u ovom radu temeljem teorije koordinacije javnih politika, pri čemu se preuzimaju sukcesivne razine ostvarivanja koherentnosti u oblikovanju javnih politika koje je razvio Peters (2004). U dijagnostičke svrhe utvrđivanja suradnje različitih gradskih tijela u urbano-okolišnom sektoru u ostvarivanju zajedničkih ciljeva korišten je i Metcalfeov (1994) pristup analizi izmjere kapaciteta koordinacije javnih politika. Što se tiče participacije neformalnih aktera, u interpretaciji se koristi tipologija razine participacije koju je izradila Arnstein (1969) kao i klasifikacija jednosmjernih i dvosmjernih participativnih metoda od Anokye (2013). U kontekstu ovog istraživanja razmatra se i redistribucija moći između formalnih i neformalnih aktera izražena kao odnos snaga u kojem su u poziciji moći formalni akteri, a neformalni akteri svojim djelovanjem dovode u pitanje granice i raspodjelu moći (Arnstein, 1969). Istraživanje je dizajnirano kao studija slučaja urbanog upravljanja u Gradu Zagrebu korištenjem metode polu-strukturiranog intervjua i fokusne grupe uz pregled relevantnog normativnog i strateškog okvira. Istraživanjem je utvrđen hibridni tip upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru, specifičnije, korporativno-klijentelistički tip urbanog upravljanja. Uočene specifičnosti u modelu upravljanja odnose se na nepovjerenje neformalnih aktera u tijela lokalne samouprave što je dodatno naglašeno uvjerenjem kako lokalna samouprava počiva na principima klijentelizma i pomanjkanja odgovornosti te sektorskom i piramidalnom sustavu upravljanja s koncentracijom moći u samome vrhu gradske vlasti. Navedeno je u suprotnosti sa integriranim modelom upravljanja koje pretpostavlja ostvarenje moći kroz pozitivan kontekst "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), odnosno, ostvarenje moći kroz suradnju i konsenzus, partnerstvo i procese kolektivnog djelovanja. Koordinacija odabranih gradskih ureda unutar urbano-okolišnog sektora svrstana je, sukladno Petersu (2004) na najnižu razinu negativne koordinacije, te sukladno Metcalfeu (1994), na četvrtu razinu koja isto spada u negativnu koordinaciju s obzirom na manjkavosti koje se očituju u: preklapanjima u obavljanju poslova, pri čemu se ističe nedostatak adekvatne koordinacije aktivnosti i projekata (izostanak strukturirane koordinacije) odnosno komunikacije (različite informacije, različite vizije, različite i nepovezane aktivnosti, nedostatak adekvatne baze podataka koju bi mogli koristiti svi uredi i sektori), kako unutar ureda i sektora (naglasak na nepostojanje adekvatne horizontalne koordinacije), tako i među sektorima (nepostojanje adekvatne međusektorske koordinacije), ali i spram civilnog sektora (u vezi programa i aktivnosti od zajedničkog interesa). Naposljetku, razina participacije u urbano-okolišnom sektoru prema Arnsteininoj gradaciji participacije spada u kategoriju tokenizma. Općenito, građane se ne potiče na preuzimanje aktivne uloge prilikom donošenja relevantnih odluka u domeni djelokruga lokalne samouprave kao ni na ostvarivanje partnerstva sa formalnim akterima. Sukladno klasifikaciji metoda participacije prema Anokye (2013), utvrđeno je prisustvo dominacije jednosmjernih uz ponešto dvosmjernih metoda participacije u kategoriji tokenizma. Navedeno upućuje na instrumentalni pristup (Hordijk, 2015) u participaciji neformalnih aktera koji, iako su uključeni u procese odlučivanja, nisu ravnopravni političkim akterima. Na tragu Arnsteininog (1969) poimanja moći, rezultati istraživanja s jedne strane ilustriraju moć kao asimetričnu (centraliziranu) odnosno hijerarhijsku (podređenost većine i zapovijedanje manjine) strukturu koju karakterizira koncentracija moći u samome vrhu upravljačke strukture (Ured Gradonačelnika), a što kod nekih formalnih kao i kod neformalnih aktera stvara osjećaj bespomoćnosti. S druge strane, nalazi ilustriraju moć kao procesnu, što je vidljivo kroz primjere suradnje među akterima koji ukazuju kako neformalni akteri višom razinom participacije u nekim slučajevima dovode uvriježene hijerarhije u pitanje. Međutim, pritom je isključivo riječ o partnerstvu, ali ne i o delegiranju moći ili pak građanskom nadzoru koje Arnstein svrstava u najviše razine građanske moći. ; The general purpose of the research presented in this thesis is to theoretically and empirically consider different models of urban governance based on the example of the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Particular attention is given to the opportunities and barriers to integrated urban governance with a focus on participation. The research engages with different theoretical approaches with the intention to have a holistic approach to the subject of research. The typology of urban governance developed by DiGaetano and Strom (2003) is utilized for the analysis and interpretation of types of governance present in the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Specifically with regard to integrated governance, the research encompasses horizontal integration – as a dimension of integrated governance – and particularly its two aspects: a) the dimension of integrated urban governance which implies more intensive and enhanced cooperation and coordination between formal actors within the city administration; and b) informal actors' participation in the decision making process and the process of creating public policies. The coordination of formal actors' is interpreted through public policies coordination theory by way of adopting successive levels of coherence implementation when shaping public policies as developed by Peters (2004). Metcalfe's (1994) approach to the analysis of public policies capacity coordination is also utilized as a diagnostic tool with the aim of determining the level of cooperation among the different city offices within the environment sector. With regard to capturing the participation of informal actors, the study utilizes Arnstein's (1969) typology of the level of participation, as well as the one-way and two-way classification of participation methods developed by Anokye (2013). In the context of this study, the redistribution of power between formal and informal actors is conveyed as a struggle between formal actors being in the position of power, and informal actors who through their activities question the boundaries and distribution of power. The research was designed as a case study of urban governance in the City of Zagreb. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted, and relevant legal and strategic documents were analyzed. The research has identified a hybrid governance model, more precisely, a corporate-clientelist model of urban governance. The governance model's specificities are reflected in the informal actors' distrust of local level administration, further emphasized through the conviction that the local administration relies on a clientelist agenda, lack of responsibility, and sectorial and pyramidical system of governance whereby the power resides in the highest echelons of city government. The highlighted findings are contrary to the model of integrated governance that presupposes empowerment through a positive context of "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), through cooperation and consensus, partnership and collective actions. The coordination of examined city offices within the sector of environment is categorized, according to Peters (2004), as the lowest level of negative coordination, and, according to Metcalfe (1994), on the fourth level, which also represents negative coordination, given the noted shortcomings: overlaps in activities conducted and specifically lack of adequate levels of coordinating activities and projects (lack of structured coordination), lack of communication (different information, different visions, different and disconnected activities, lack of an adequate database to be used by all offices and sectors), both within offices and sectors (lack of adequate horizontal coordination) as well as between sectors (lack of adequate inter-sectorial coordination), but in relation to the civil sector (with regard to programs and activities of common interest). Finally, the level of participation in the environment sector, in accordance with Arnstein's participation gradation, falls into the category of tokenism. Overall, citizens are not encouraged to assume active roles in the local administration's decision-making process or realize partnerships with formal actors. Based on Anokye's (2013) classification of participation methods, the study identifies the dominance of one-way participation methods and a handful of two-way participation methods in the tokenism category. This points to an instrumental approach (Hordijk, 2015) to the participation of informal actors', who, although involved in the decision-making process, are not equal to political actors. Drawing on Arnstein's (1969) understanding of power, the study illustrates, on one hand, power as asymmetrical (centralized) and hierarchical (subordination of majority, command of minority), characterized by the concentration of power at the top of the local government structure (Mayor's office), which, in turn, creates a feeling of helplessness both among certain formal as well as informal actors. On the other hand, the study results illustrate that power can also be understood as a process which is exemplified with instances of cooperation between actors showing that informal actors when achieving a higher level of participation bring established hierarchies into question. However, this is strictly reserved for partnership, and not for the delegated power or citizen control which are ranked by Arnstein as the highest levels of citizens' power.
