Suchergebnisse

Time is of crucial importance in the actions of professionals in the public sector. Policy initiatives, processes or initiatives can be early or late, slow or fast, focused on a short or long time horizon, and stable or dynamic over time. The timing, sequence, speed, duration, and time horizons of governance efforts can play an important role in shaping their success and failure in public governance. Studying the temporal dimensions of governance thus makes sense academically. Likewise, enhancing the temporal awareness and action repertoire of public professionals – their ability to understand and use time – is a relevant endeavour for an applied academic field such as public administration. The aim of this study is to explore and develop a viable conceptual approach to time in public governance. This theoretical development starts with an exploration of the meaning of time in the context of public governance. It follows from this that time should not be treated as an object that is 'out there'. In reality, time is an instrument of sensemaking. People actively impose temporal forms on the outside world, in order to be able to make sense of it and navigate in it. Therefore, time in public governance is studied here as a verb instead of a noun: as temporalising, instead of 'time'. In this study, I explore the various forms in which temporalising public governance might be conceptualised, studied and interpreted. I do so by conducting 10 ten cases of strategic governance challenges and processes in the Netherlands. The cases cover a range of policy domains, questions to be resolved and kinds of actors involved. In each case, the research emphasis is on how the perspective of temporalising can be useful as both an analytical tool for scholars and as a reflective practice for public professionals. In a series of five paired cases, five initial sensitizing concepts are developed through action research. Grounded in the work of Argyris, Schön and Rein, I engage in reflective conversations with professionals to explore ...

La crisi financera i econòmica mundial que viu el món globalitzat des de l'estiu de 2007 planteja la qüestió de si estem davant de la fi d'un cicle o de la fi d'un model, i posa en evidència la necessitat d'un profund debat d'idees. A banda de les causes immediates de la crisi, s'observen causes profundes que són, principalment, resultat d'un període de globalització econòmica neoliberal. Si l'efecte de la crisi als països del Nord és evident i palpable, el seu impacte als països menys desenvolupats és devastador, la revisió del Consens de Monterrey, encaminada a concretar el finançament per a l'assoliment dels Objectius de Desenvolupament del Mil·lenni, va quedar frustrada pel naixement del G20. L'abordatge polític de la crisi posa en qüestió els lideratges mundials. Si bé el G20 va voler monopolitzar el debat, finalment les Nacions Unides, de la mà del president de l'Assemblea General, el pare d'Escoto, va poder convocar la Conferència sobre la Crisi Financera i Econòmica i els seus Efectes Sobre el Desenvolupament (juny de 2009). Malgrat que els seus resultats són molt menors, i no s'hi van acordar moltes de les recomanacions del mateix president i de la Comissió Stiglitz, les conclusions de tot plegat apunten a una imprescindible reforma del sistema i de la governança de l'economia financera mundial. El "G192", es va posar, doncs, sobre la taula un model de governança democràtica mundial per abordar un crisi global d'impacte sobre la ciutadania mundial. The financial and economic crisis that has been rocking the globalised world since the summer of 2007 raises the question of whether we are looking at the end of a cycle or the end of a model and highlights the need for a thorough debate of ideas. In addition to the immediate causes of the crisis (such as the bursting of the housing bubble and the toxicity of the financial markets), several deep-rooted causes can be found, most resulting from a period of neo-liberal economic globalisation. Whilst the crisis has had a clear and tangible impact on the countries of the North, it has been calamitous for less developed countries. The damage is compounded by the fact that the review of the Monterrey Consensus, intended to find the necessary financing to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, was thwarted by the emergence of the G20. The political hijacking of the crisis casts doubt on global leadership. Although the G20 monopolised the debate, in the end, the United Nations (UN), under the leadership of the president of the General Assembly, Father Miguel d'Escoto, managed to convene the Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development (June 2009). Despite the conference's modest results and the fact that no agreement was reached on many of the recommendations made by the president or the 'Stiglitz Commission', the conclusions as a whole point towards a crucial need to reform the system and governance bodies of the global financial economy. To this end, within the context of the UN, or 'G192', a model of global democratic governance was tabled to address a global crisis with an impact on global citizens ; Postprint (published version)

La crisi financera i econòmica mundial que viu el món globalitzat des de l'estiu de 2007 planteja la qüestió de si estem davant de la fi d'un cicle o de la fi d'un model, i posa en evidència la necessitat d'un profund debat d'idees. A banda de les causes immediates de la crisi, s'observen causes profundes que són, principalment, resultat d'un període de globalització econòmica neoliberal. Si l'efecte de la crisi als països del Nord és evident i palpable, el seu impacte als països menys desenvolupats és devastador, la revisió del Consens de Monterrey, encaminada a concretar el finançament per a l'assoliment dels Objectius de Desenvolupament del Mil·lenni, va quedar frustrada pel naixement del G20. L'abordatge polític de la crisi posa en qüestió els lideratges mundials. Si bé el G20 va voler monopolitzar el debat, finalment les Nacions Unides, de la mà del president de l'Assemblea General, el pare d'Escoto, va poder convocar la Conferència sobre la Crisi Financera i Econòmica i els seus Efectes Sobre el Desenvolupament (juny de 2009). Malgrat que els seus resultats són molt menors, i no s'hi van acordar moltes de les recomanacions del mateix president i de la Comissió Stiglitz, les conclusions de tot plegat apunten a una imprescindible reforma del sistema i de la governança de l'economia financera mundial. El "G192", es va posar, doncs, sobre la taula un model de governança democràtica mundial per abordar un crisi global d'impacte sobre la ciutadania mundial. The financial and economic crisis that has been rocking the globalised world since the summer of 2007 raises the question of whether we are looking at the end of a cycle or the end of a model and highlights the need for a thorough debate of ideas. In addition to the immediate causes of the crisis (such as the bursting of the housing bubble and the toxicity of the financial markets), several deep-rooted causes can be found, most resulting from a period of neo-liberal economic globalisation. Whilst the crisis has had a clear and tangible impact on the countries of the North, it has been calamitous for less developed countries. The damage is compounded by the fact that the review of the Monterrey Consensus, intended to find the necessary financing to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, was thwarted by the emergence of the G20. The political hijacking of the crisis casts doubt on global leadership. Although the G20 monopolised the debate, in the end, the United Nations (UN), under the leadership of the president of the General Assembly, Father Miguel d'Escoto, managed to convene the Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development (June 2009). Despite the conference's modest results and the fact that no agreement was reached on many of the recommendations made by the president or the 'Stiglitz Commission', the conclusions as a whole point towards a crucial need to reform the system and governance bodies of the global financial economy. To this end, within the context of the UN, or 'G192', a model of global democratic governance was tabled to address a global crisis with an impact on global citizens ; Postprint (published version)

The standard picture of public governance in the Dutch Republic (1579-1795) is one of consultation with multiple stakeholders, peaceful negotiations with representatives from a range of governmental institutions, and agreements and compromise. This picture has been the subject of much debate among historians and other scholars. One question concerns the extent to which this kind of governance evolved from the traditional practices of water authorities, as these institutions emerged very early, at the end of the thirteenth century. A further question is whether it is correct to assume that these peaceful negotiations did in fact involve participation by a wide range of societal stakeholders. This book contributes to this debate by presenting the results of new research into the development of governance by water authorities prior to 1800. In the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period, these institutions changed as a result of ecological, socio-economic and political developments. The central question is how these developments affected the evolution of and governance within the water authorities. The research focuses on two inter-local water authorities: first, the water authority of the Bunschoten Veen and Velden dikes in the Province of Utrecht; and second, the water authority of Mastenbroek polder in the Province of Overijssel. How were landholders represented in such authorities, and what was the relationship between developments in representation and participation in decision-making? The positions and backgrounds of the board members of these two water authorities were investigated, as well as the process of decision-making. The theoretical framework was provided by theories of consociationalism (Lijphart 1968 and Putnam 1993), in which peaceful governance is defined in terms of consensus politics or politics of accommodation. A set of criteria was formulated to assess the occurrence of participative decision-making by stakeholders. These criteria were tested against the discussions and decisions found in ...