Suchergebnisse

Much of the policy analysis of spatial planning today focuses on governance or multi-level governance in the sense of tracing vertical and horizontal linkages and integration of relevant stakeholders (particularly from the bottom-up). Thus far, little attention has been paid to the more specific territorial dimensions of governance or how knowledge of territorial specificities and the territorial impacts of various courses of action are used in policy- and decision-making. This paper presents the conceptual and practical implications of the 'ESPON TANGO' – project (Territorial Approaches for New Governance). To that end a framework of analysis was developed to systematically conceptualise, operationalise and explore territorial governance processes. Some of the main empirical findings from twelve case studies across Europe are synthesised along 20 components of territorial governance. These components are representative of the structural and process-oriented facets of territorial governance. It will be argued that our analytical framework offers various entry points to understand the main elements and characteristics of territorial governance and thus adds clarity to the debate on what territorial governance is. It also offers a more practical access to doing territorial governance to support practitioners and policy makers at any level to promote territorial governance.

Systemische Risiken sind das Produkt tiefgreifender und rasanter technologischer, ökonomischer und sozialer Veränderungen, welche die moderne Welt jeden Tag erlebt. Sie sind durch hohe Komplexität, Ungewissheit, Ambiguität und sich allmählich ausbreitende Wirkungen charakterisiert. Aufgrund dieser Eigenschaften überfordern systemische Risiken das etablierte Risikomanagement and erzeugen neue ungelőste Herausforderungen für die Politikgestaltung in der Risikosteuerung. Ihre negativen Auswirkungen sind häufig durchdringend und beeinträchtigen Bereiche jenseits der direkt ersichtlichen Schadensbereiche. Der Artikel bezieht sich auf ein integratives Risikokonzept zur Bewältigung systemischer Risiken, das Bewertungskriterien, unterschiedliche Risikoklassen und entsprechende Managementstrategien berücksichtigt. Wir argumentieren, dass es eines deliberativen Ansatzes im Risikomanagement und in der Politikgestaltung in der Risikosteuerung bedarf, um systemische Risiken vermeiden, mildern oder kontrollieren zu können.

Not since the passage of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act of 1934 have matters of corporate governance received such concentrated attention. According to the Encyclopaedia of Corporate Governance, the subject has ''succeeded in attracting a good deal of public interest because of its apparent importance for the economic health of corporations and society in general

A review essay on books by (1) David Armstrong, Theo Farrell, & Bice Maiguashca (Eds), Governance and Resistance in World Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 2003); (2) Lisa D. Brush, Gender and Governance (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2003); (3) Ann Florini, The Coming Democracy: New Rules for Running a New World (Washington: Island, 2003); & (4) Mike Moore, A World without Walls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 2003). 3 References.

Algorithmic governance as a key concept in controversies around the emerging digital society highlights the idea that digital technologies produce social ordering in a specific way. Starting with the origins of the concept, this paper portrays different perspectives and objects of inquiry where algorithmic governance has gained prominence ranging from the public sector to labour management and ordering digital communication. Recurrent controversies across all sectors such as datafication and surveillance, bias, agency and transparency indicate that the concept of algorithmic governance allows to bring objects of inquiry and research fields that had not been related before into a joint conversation. Short case studies on predictive policy and automated content moderation show that algorithmic governance is multiple, contingent and contested. It takes different forms in different contexts and jurisdictions, and it is shaped by interests, power, and resistance.