Suchergebnisse

In seiner "Theory of Global Governance" argumentiert Michael Zürn, Staaten seien gegenwärtig in ein globales politisches System eingebettet, das eine Vielzahl internationaler Institutionen umfasst. Dieser Forumsbeitrag unternimmt den Versuch einer Annäherung an die Gestalt des von Zürn identifizierten globalen politischen Systems. Er schlägt vor, global governance als ein polyzentrisch strukturiertes System zu konzeptualisieren, das aus vielen Entscheidungszentren besteht, die formal voneinander unabhängig sind, sich aber faktisch wechselseitig beeinflussen. Der Beitrag verdeutlicht zunächst, worin die zentralen Merkmale der polyzentrischen Struktur des von Zürn identifizierten globalen politischen Systems bestehen. Anschließend skizziert er, wie die polyzentrische Struktur staatliches Verhalten beeinflusst und das Problem politischer Ordnungsbildung jenseits des Nationalstaates akzentuiert. Abschließend wird vor dem Hintergrund gegenwärtiger Herausforderungen für zwischenstaatliche Kooperation angedeutet, worin die institutionellen Stärken einer polyzentrischen Regelungsstruktur liegen.

It is proposed that government, being the tangible expression of the legitimate authority within an organised society, has undegone a long transformational journey since its very emergence. The various evolutionary forms and features of the government have been the product of its meaningful and viable responses to the changing expectations of the people as well as to the challenges they faced in an ever-changing environment. The exclusive domain of the state over the period became a shared space with inclusion of other actors and stakeholders, and an era of governance was ushered in since the 1980s. The much celebrated success of the liberal democracy and its market-led open economy heralded as an era of good governance. However, the universal model of good governance fails to take into account the local constraints of a society. Thus, the idea of good governance has to face various types of challenges in the developing as well as underdeveloped societies.

AbstractThis article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design‐based governance, with power exercised ex ante via choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self‐governance, and co‐governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design‐based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re‐conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.

Good Governance has been in argument from three decades in context of theoretical approach. It is specified and encompassed in Political Science of development in reverence of administrative component to achieve Social goals of society. The wide range of Good Governance topic has been understood to create an atmosphere of Accountability, Transparency, Rule of Law, Consensus orientation, Effectiveness and Efficiency so as to develop the region with international and national standards of the State. Good Governors relates to the institutional reformation Process and Political Will regarding Peace and sustainable development of the region.This research paper defines Good Governance with its all essential elements to achieve the development programs with the long range values, whereas, Political participation with the democratic ideas for achieving the goal of maintainable development of the region. The vision of good governance is discussed on boarder vision from institution to the state and Socio-economic factor is emphasized through the good governance reformative period.

ABSTRACTThe state often struggles to meet citizens' demands but confronts strong public pressure to do so. What does the state do when public expectations exceed its actual governing capacity? This article shows that the state can respond by engaging in performative governance—the theatrical deployment of language, symbols, and gestures to foster an impression of good governance among citizens. Performative governance should be distinguished from other types of state behavior, such as inertia, paternalism, and the substantive satisfaction of citizens' demands. The author illustrates this concept in the realm of environmental governance in China. Given the severity of China's environmental pollution, the resulting public outcry, and the logistical and political challenges involved in solving the problem, how can the state redeem itself? Ethnographic evidence from participant observation at a municipal environmental protection bureau reveals that when bureaucrats are confronted with the dual burdens of low state capacity and high public scrutiny, they engage in performative governance to assuage citizens' complaints. This study draws attention to the double meaning of "performance" in political contexts, and the essential distinction between the substantive and the theatrical.

Abstract
Since the 1990s, western, developed countries have moved away from rule-making and standard-setting in multilateral intergovernmental organizations and have increasingly collaborated on those matters in clubs of developed countries, such as trans-governmental regulatory networks. Although clubs often generate rules or standards that affect developing countries, the latter have not had a voice in rule-making, resulting in a 'participation gap', for which clubs are being criticized. Against this background, I analyse a recent development that has largely gone unnoticed: Clubs have been integrating previously excluded developing countries. From small and exclusive clubs, they are growing into larger and more inclusive clubs. I call this trajectory of the past seventy years – the establishment of intergovernmental organizations, their increasing displacement in favour of clubs, and the recent reversion towards larger clubs – accordion governance. Like an accordion that expands or contracts as needed, so too have governance models and rule-making adjusted to changing conditions and preferences by becoming more or less inclusive. Focusing on club expansion, I address three questions: (1) How has participation – and the rules governing it – evolved over time? (2) Why are governments voluntarily sharing rule-making authority with new participants? (3) Can these reforms close the participation gap in international rule-making?

Executive SummaryGovernment post-Brexit will face sustained and difficult challenges as the UK adjusts to its new situation. Yet these challenges risk being exacerbated by fundamental changes in UK political debate that are affecting the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of the system and structures of government. These include erosion of the clear distinction entrenched for the last 150 years between political choices by elected representatives and impartial administration by the civil service; the disruption of traditional deliberative processes by digital and social media; and increased centralisation of decision-making in No. 10 Downing Street combined with inadequate scrutiny of that decision-making either by the Cabinet or by Parliament.The centralisation of executive power reduces its perceived legitimacy across the UK, with devolved government in Scotland and Wales seen as contingent on the Westminster Parliament and Northern Ireland under control by central government. Fiscally, the UK has become the most centralised democratic country in the world. As government faces up to the challenge of unwinding membership of the legal and regulatory framework developed during 45 years of EU membership, it is vital that the UK's political structures restore their legitimacy and efficiency.Necessary reforms start with greater transparency about how government really works today. A PM's Department should be created, separate from the Cabinet Office; senior appointments including the Chief of Staff and 'Advisors', as well as instructions from No. 10 to departments, should be subject to effective Parliamentary scrutiny. Legally entrenched structures are required to confirm that devolved powers cannot simply be overridden by the Westminster Parliament. Greater fiscal autonomy should be guaranteed to local government.Finally, politicians should choose either to recommit explicitly to the original system whereby the civil service remains separate from politics and take steps to make it effective; or acknowledge the drift towards greater political control of the civil service and introduce safeguards to minimise political abuse, for example by taking steps to increase scrutiny of appointments and expenditure.