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 ...

Naast wetgeving maakt de Europese Unie ook gebruik van een hybride beleidsmethode, genaamd ?economic governance?, om o.a. jaarlijks aanbevelingen te geven aan de lidstaten, waarvan de EU de opvolging monitort via het Europees semester. Deze aanbevelingen hebben betrekking op de begroting en de economie, maar ook op het sociaal en werkgelegenheidsbeleid van de lidstaten. Terwijl de EU geen sterke wetgevingsbevoegdheden heeft inzake de sociale dimensie, maakte het ? zeker tijdens de crisis ? uitvoerig gebruik van EU ?economic governance? om ?soft law?-richtsnoeren uit te delen inzake werkgelegenheid, arbeidsrecht en sociale zekerheid. Een groot aantal aanbevelingen hadden betrekking op de loonvorming of rechtstreeks op een hervorming van het collectieve onderhandelingssysteem.00Een aanvaring met het fundamentele recht op collectief onderhandelen (en sociale dialoog) van de sociale partners was dan ook onvermijdelijk. Dit recht, dat een zekere autonomie aan de sociale partners geeft om met elkaar over sociale aangelegenheden te onderhandelen, is niet alleen beschermd door de EU-rechtsorde zelf, maar ook door de Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie en de Raad van Europa (EVRM en ESH). Het onderzoek heeft nagegaan in welke mate EU ?economic governance? problematisch is in het licht van het recht op collectief onderhandelen, wat tot schendingen van dit recht in de verschillende rechtsorden kan leiden. Uit de evaluatie van de aanbevelingen en de maatregelen trekt het onderzoek lessen voor de EU (en de lidstaten) om EU ?economic governance? beter met het recht op collectief onderhandelen te verzoenen, rekening houdend met het postcrisisklimaat en de hernieuwde aandacht voor de sociale dimensie van de EU

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 ...