Suchergebnisse

We may dare to ask about rationale behind the recent devotion caused by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Whether it could be produced by the fear or, by contrast, it stems from the inner ignorance and uncertainty that blind us by attempting to give a quick explanation to a massive technological disruption directly caused by COVID19. AI is not a new phenomenon as such, despite the fact that what it could be new is the way AI is already interfering in citizens' daily life functions and services shaping them with a deep intensity as a result of the processing capacity of AI. Nonetheless, (i) little is known so far about the relationship between AI and governance, or what is worst, (ii) AI is being deployed without considering democratic accountability and far from our public eye and scrutiny. Acknowledging the complexity of such topic, this article constructively aims to analyse the ongoing technopolitical transformations occurring in the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis for the governance model of the Basque Country. This article is targeted to the political left (either Basque or Spanish nationalist) in pursuit of avoid delaying the work that should be implemented in response to questions, challenges, and policies for XXI. century algorithmic governance. The article concludes through three-intertwined-layer approach: (i) the first approach lists AI functional uses; (ii) the second approach presents brefly several AI projects being currently developed in different European countries; (iii) ultimately, a strategic roadmap lead to stakeholders in the Basque Country is outlined.

In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails. ; In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails.

Summary: The governance at the national level has commonly been measured as poor or good governance by researchers in the area of public sector reforms. They have rarely attempted the numeric estimation of the concept but used different socioeconomic indicators as proxies. Governance is a multidimensional concept that cannot be accurately elaborated by a single indicator. In the literature there exists a gap for gauging the governance in the form of an index. The current study has attempted to ameliorate different dimensions of governance by including forty two social, political, economic, demographic and environmental indicators. These indicators are firstly merged into thirteen sub-dimensions and then into five dimensions. The dimensions have been transformed in to governance index. The trend of the index shows that governance has not only progressed very slowly but it remained desperate in the study period. The contribution of this study is to provide governance index named KU index for Pakistan in annual time series for the years 1980-81 to 2010-2011. The index explained the level of governance in different eras and is ultimately connected with public sector reforms. It can be used by researchers as an explanatory factor for various political, socioeconomic and regional strategic phenomenon. Furthermore, the criterion of estimation of governance may be adopted for other economies and comparative analysis may be done.Рeзимe: Упрaвљaњe нa нaциoнaлнoм нивoу je oбичнo oцjeњивaнo oд стрaнe истрaживaчa у oблaсти рeфoрми jaвнoг сeктoрa кao дoбрo или лoшe. Oни су риjeткo пoкушaвaли нумeричку прoцjeну кoнцeптa, вeћ су кoристили рaзличитe сoциo-eкoнoмскe пoкaзaтeљe кao приближнe вриjeднoсти. Упрaвљaњe je мултидимeнзиoнaлни кoнцeпт кojи сe нe мoжe прeцизнo oбjaснити сaмo jeдним индикaтoрoм. У литeрaтури пoстojи jaз у мjeрeњу упрaвљaњa у oблику индeксa. Tрeнутнa студиja je пoкушaлa ублaжити рaзличитe димeнзиje упрaвљaњa укључуjући чeтрдeсeт двa друштвeнa, пoлитичкa, eкoнoмскa, дeмoгрaфскa и eкoлoшкa пoкaзaтeљa. Oви пoкaзaтeљи су првo спojeни у тринaeст пoддимeнзиja и oндa у пeт димeнзиja. Димeнзиje су прeтвoрeнe у индeкс упрaвљaњa. Tрeнд индeксa пoкaзуje дa je упрaвљaњe нe сaмo нaпрeдoвaлo врлo спoрo, вeћ je билo лoшe у пoсмaтрaнoм пeриoду. Дoпринoс oвe студиje je oмoгућити индeкс упрaвљaњa пoд нaзивoм KU индeкс Пaкистaнa зa гoдишњe пeриoдe: 1980-1981. и 2010-2011. Индeкс je oбjaсниo нивoe упрaвљaњa у рaзличитим пeриoдимa, тe je пoвeзaн с рeфoрмaмa jaвнoг сeктoрa. Moжe сe кoристити oд стрaнe истрaживaчa кao oбjaшњaвajући фaктoр зa рaзнe пoлитичкe, друштвeнo-eкoнoмскe и рeгиoнaлнe стрaтeшкe фeнoмeнe. Нaдaљe, критeриjум прoцjeнe упрaвљaњa мoжe бити усвojeн зa другe eкoнoмиje и мoгу сe урaдити кoмпaрaтивнe aнaлизe.