Suchergebnisse

Why are carefully designed, sensible policies too often not adopted or implemented? When they are, why do they often fail to generate development outcomes such as security, growth, and equity? And why do some bad policies endure? This World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law addresses these fundamental questions, which are at the heart of development. Policy making and policy implementation do not occur in a vacuum. Rather, they take place in complex political and social settings, in which individuals and groups with unequal power interact within changing rules as they pursue conflicting interests. The process of these interactions is what this Report calls governance, and the space in which these interactions take place, the policy arena. The capacity of actors to commit and their willingness to cooperate and coordinate to achieve socially desirable goals are what matter for effectiveness. However, who bargains, who is excluded, and what barriers block entry to the policy arena determine the selection and implementation of policies and, consequently, their impact on development outcomes. Exclusion, capture, and clientelism are manifestations of power asymmetries that lead to failures to achieve security, growth, and equity. The distribution of power in society is partly determined by history. Yet, there is room for positive change. This Report reveals that governance can mitigate, even overcome, power asymmetries to bring about more effective policy interventions that achieve sustainable improvements in security, growth, and equity. This happens by shifting the incentives of those with power, reshaping their preferences in favor of good outcomes, and taking into account the interests of previously excluded participants. These changes can come about through bargains among elites and greater citizen engagement, as well as by international actors supporting rules that strengthen coalitions for reform.

Projects are often praised for their efficiency, responsiveness to local context, and capacity to spur innovation, especially in comparison to more permanent organizations. Projects – crosscutting organizational forms chartered to advance well-defined objectives during a specified period of time – have been a staple organizational form in the private sector, but only recently have scholars started to evaluate their relevance to governance within developed economies. In this paper, we explore projectification – i.e. expanded reliance on temporally bounded organizations – as a conceptual frame to advance understanding of environmental governance and as an empirical vehicle to incorporate temporal scales into a literature that has largely been focused on questions of spatial scale and levels of social organization. Through a case study of the United States Department of Agriculture's recently created Regional Conservation Partnership Program, we critically assess the concept of projectification. Based on interviews with key policy analysts and administrators and a review of policy documents, we critically evaluate prospects for project forms to empower local actors, produce new knowledge, and disrupt the policy field. ; Peer reviewed

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18–36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, non-state and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Non-state actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD+ outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD+ governance in Indonesia.

The Asia Foundation has been implementing programs aimed at strengthening local governance in Timor-Leste since 2009. These programs endeavor to increase the capacity of local leaders and help build ties between community members, local leadership, and municipal and national level government. The Foundation's local governance programs recognize the importance of community knowledge and expertise in addressing local needs, including peace and security, and adopt a "bottom-up" approach to foster participation and empower communities in the process of their own development.

International audience ; The development of this new international science-policy interface has not been trouble free. Even though the IPCC precedent provides a very useful source of experience on this subject, establishing the Platform has been a far more complex process than that which lead to the creation of the Panel. IPBES—as an intergovernemental body devoted to the science-policy interface—shares a lot of features with his often acclaimed model, i.e. IPCC. IPBES has innovative specific aspects regarding rules and procedure, e.g. those on stakeholder engagement and participation. However, this inclusive policy is under control of governmental delegations and the dominant functioning spirit remains conventionally intergovernemental, resembling the UNEP procedure.

International audience ; The development of this new international science-policy interface has not been trouble free. Even though the IPCC precedent provides a very useful source of experience on this subject, establishing the Platform has been a far more complex process than that which lead to the creation of the Panel. IPBES—as an intergovernemental body devoted to the science-policy interface—shares a lot of features with his often acclaimed model, i.e. IPCC. IPBES has innovative specific aspects regarding rules and procedure, e.g. those on stakeholder engagement and participation. However, this inclusive policy is under control of governmental delegations and the dominant functioning spirit remains conventionally intergovernemental, resembling the UNEP procedure.

Ohne gute Reputation und das daraus resultierende Vertrauen können private Banken nicht funktionieren. Dies war historisch schon immer so und ist insbesondere bei einlagensammelnden Banken geschäftsmodellimmanent. Heute gilt zudem, dass der Ausfall eines größeren Systemmitglieds geeignet ist, eine Krise des gesamten Finanzsystems auszulösen. Der Artikel zeigt, dass Good Corporate Governance eine der entscheidendsten Stellhebel für gute Reputation ist. Dabei sind einerseits Institutionen und Regeln relevant. Andererseits - und mindestens ebenso wichtig – geht es um Werte und um Haltung. Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich nach einem kurzen historischen Abriss mit der Frage, welche Rolle eine Governanceethik in und für Banken spielt und welchen Beitrag sie für die Wiedergewinnung von Akzeptanz in der Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Politik leisten kann. Der Stellenwert dieses Themas für die Zukunftsfähigkeit des Bankensystems kann nicht hoch genug eingeschätzt werden.

Issue of The Governance, the newsletter of the University of Scranton's student government, clubs, and organizations.

International audience ; I n a world increasingly thought of as over-populated, sparsely populated spaces remain a dominant feature: ~57% of Asia, ~81% of North America, and ~94% of Australia have population densities below 1 person per square kilometer, equivalent to the population density of most of the Sahara desert (1). These vast, sparsely populated landscapes include rural settlements, towns, agricultural spaces, extractive economies , indigenous lands, and conservation areas. They are crucial for climate change adaptation and mitigation, from carbon se-questration to provisioning of water, food, and energy to cities. Yet governmental and nongovernmental initiatives tend to mostly pay lip service to the diverse views and needs of their populations. Without more inclusive governance, attempts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and conserve ecosystems will be compromised. To be politically legitimate and long-lasting, incentives and regulations for better conservation and climate change mitigation must engage with the claims, rights, and knowledge of local and indigenous populations (2), which may be spread over immense and distant territories. The importance of local and indigenous populations in governing ecosystems and biodiversity and in meeting global climate change mitigation goals has been firmly asserted in international conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD article 8(j)], the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (3), and in agreements and commitments made at the COP21 climate meeting in Paris in 2015. How

International audience ; The development of this new international science-policy interface has not been trouble free. Even though the IPCC precedent provides a very useful source of experience on this subject, establishing the Platform has been a far more complex process than that which lead to the creation of the Panel. IPBES—as an intergovernemental body devoted to the science-policy interface—shares a lot of features with his often acclaimed model, i.e. IPCC. IPBES has innovative specific aspects regarding rules and procedure, e.g. those on stakeholder engagement and participation. However, this inclusive policy is under control of governmental delegations and the dominant functioning spirit remains conventionally intergovernemental, resembling the UNEP procedure.

The latest European Union's (EU) guiding policies are encouraging big businesses and state-owned organisations to provide a fair and truthful view of their respective entities' environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. At present, European member states are transposing directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial reporting. The EU's "comply or explain" approach has presented a significant step forward toward the corporations' active engagement on corporate governance disclosure and transparency. Hence, this chapter makes specific reference to some of the corporations' best practices as it identifies areas for improvement in corporate governance issues. It explains how three major European banks have reviewed the roles and responsibilities of corporate boards and management. In many cases, they have anticipated any regulatory, legal, contractual, social and market-driven obligations as they helped stakeholders to exercise their rights. This contribution contends that there are significant implications for financial services corporations who intend following the right path toward responsible corporate governance and ethical behaviours. ; peer-reviewed

International audience ; The development of this new international science-policy interface has not been trouble free. Even though the IPCC precedent provides a very useful source of experience on this subject, establishing the Platform has been a far more complex process than that which lead to the creation of the Panel. IPBES—as an intergovernemental body devoted to the science-policy interface—shares a lot of features with his often acclaimed model, i.e. IPCC. IPBES has innovative specific aspects regarding rules and procedure, e.g. those on stakeholder engagement and participation. However, this inclusive policy is under control of governmental delegations and the dominant functioning spirit remains conventionally intergovernemental, resembling the UNEP procedure.

International audience ; I n a world increasingly thought of as over-populated, sparsely populated spaces remain a dominant feature: ~57% of Asia, ~81% of North America, and ~94% of Australia have population densities below 1 person per square kilometer, equivalent to the population density of most of the Sahara desert (1). These vast, sparsely populated landscapes include rural settlements, towns, agricultural spaces, extractive economies , indigenous lands, and conservation areas. They are crucial for climate change adaptation and mitigation, from carbon se-questration to provisioning of water, food, and energy to cities. Yet governmental and nongovernmental initiatives tend to mostly pay lip service to the diverse views and needs of their populations. Without more inclusive governance, attempts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and conserve ecosystems will be compromised. To be politically legitimate and long-lasting, incentives and regulations for better conservation and climate change mitigation must engage with the claims, rights, and knowledge of local and indigenous populations (2), which may be spread over immense and distant territories. The importance of local and indigenous populations in governing ecosystems and biodiversity and in meeting global climate change mitigation goals has been firmly asserted in international conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD article 8(j)], the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (3), and in agreements and commitments made at the COP21 climate meeting in Paris in 2015. How

While some are of the opinion that good governance thrives best in an atmosphere of peace, others overwhelmingly emphasise the natural peace-inducing potentials of good governance. From the latter brand of scholarship, good governance is a necessary requirement for sustainable peace. Unfortunately, the problems confronting Africa in this century are predominantly governance-related. African countries are poorly ranked on the global scale of governance indicators. The consequences of this include recurrent civil wars, genocides, and the proliferation of organised rebellions against the state. These have largely turned the continent into a region characterised by political instability. Thus, this paper examines the nexus between good governance and peace, focusing on Africa. In view of the enormous challenges that insecurity and crises have created in Africa, the paper recommends that African leaders must deepen democracy on a continental scale, demonstrate the willingness to combat and reduce corruption, build a strong civil society and consciously promote human rights and justice.

International audience ; The development of this new international science-policy interface has not been trouble free. Even though the IPCC precedent provides a very useful source of experience on this subject, establishing the Platform has been a far more complex process than that which lead to the creation of the Panel. IPBES—as an intergovernemental body devoted to the science-policy interface—shares a lot of features with his often acclaimed model, i.e. IPCC. IPBES has innovative specific aspects regarding rules and procedure, e.g. those on stakeholder engagement and participation. However, this inclusive policy is under control of governmental delegations and the dominant functioning spirit remains conventionally intergovernemental, resembling the UNEP procedure.