Suchergebnisse

Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness. ; Public services can develop two contrasting practices of accountability: the conventional model emphasises that to be accountable is to be 'held to account', to be expected to answer questions about performance and that the answers are then evaluated by superiors measured against some standard or expectation following which praise or blame is meted out and sanctions applied. This mode of accountability is expresses hierarchy of authority. A very different process encourages dialogues of accountability between practitioners and publics, who 'give an account' offering a story that interprets and explains what has happened and why it has taken place. This paper observes these contrasting practices in the development of school governance in England and argues for the importance of dialogue to enhance learning and democratic responsiveness.

El artículo analiza las dificultades de la gobernabilidad y su carácter esquivo. Se trata de un estudio sobre cómo mejorar la gobernabilidad, partiendo de la base de que en muchas ocasiones lo que existe en la práctica, son condiciones de ingobernabilidad. El razonamiento central parte de que la ingobernabilidad puede en ocasiones imperar, sin que ello implique necesariamente una fractura en la democracia en su conjunto. Se continúa con un examen de la cohesión y la perdurabilidad de las sociedades, como ejes de la gobernabilidad. Luego se prosigue con con­sideraciones acerca de las redes de gobernabilidad a nivel local y regio­nal, y con el tratamiento de la crisis de información en las sociedades fragmentadas, así como con las condiciones de inestabilidad crónica y los gobiernos locales. Se finaliza con algunas consideraciones sobre el vínculo existente entre lo local y lo global, y el posible rol de ese proceso en el manejo de crisis y la educación para la paz. ; The article analyzes the difficulties of governance and the elusive nature of governability. lts main purpose is to make suggestions as to how to increase governability. Central to the argument is the suggestion that, despite the occasional reign of ingovernability, this does not imply the fracture of democracy altogether. Cohesion and perdurability are the keys to governability. The article analyzes local and regional governa­bility networks and the management of the information crisis in frag­mented societies, as well as the conditions of chronic instability and local co-governments. The article ends with several considerations on the local-to-global links, and the potential role of this process in the mana­gement of crisis and education for peace.

Governance is presented by undefined and confused areas that tend to expand in a more or less arbitrary way in the absence of stable and reliable normative standards. All this calls into question concepts and recompositive monolithic categories of modern political-legal rationality and in the first place sovereignty. At the same time the current neo-governmental structure does not stand as a technology of power, exclusionary or alternative to other rationalities, but rather it tends to bring out all the contradictions and ambiguities of the present time. ; La gobernanza es presentada por áreas confusas e indefinidas que tienden a expandirse de una manera más o menos arbitraria en ausencia de estándares normativos estables y confiables. Todo esto pone en cuestión conceptos y categorías monolíticas recompositivas de moderna racionalidad política-legal y en primer lugar de la soberanía. Al mismo tiempo, la estructura neogubernamental actual no se sostiene como una tecnología de poder excluyente o alternativa a otras racionalidades, sino que tiende a llevar a cabo todas las contradicciones y ambigüedades del tiempo presente.