In a relatively short time the Internet has become one of the main and the most important media of our times. The increasing number of users, as well as the growth of its role and importance in almost every aspect of social and economic life have led in recent years to the intensification of the discussion on the future of the Internet and the way it should be governed. From the very beginning the Internet developed bottom-up without a decision-making center responsible for its development. There are many organizations in the world operating at local, regional and global levels, that focus on different aspects of its operation and development. This process called "Internet governance" is the process within which governments, information and communication technology (ICT) companies and civil society work together to set standards, values, norms and decisions that shape the way we use the World Wide Web. This article attempts to explain this phenomenon, shows the origins of the dispute between the supporters of the multistakeholder model of the Internet governance. It also presents the proposals of some states to strengthen the role of governments in this process and presents the position of the European Union, which in this discussion may play a key role as a mediator in the debate about the future of the Internet governance. ; Internet w stosunkowo krótkim czasie stał się jednym z głównych i najistotniejszych mediów naszych czasów. Wzrastająca liczba jego użytkowników, jak również wzrost jego roli i znaczenia w niemalże każdym aspekcie życia społeczno-gospodarczego spowodowały w ostatnich latach nasilenie się dyskusji na temat przyszłości internetu i sposobu w jaki powinien być zarządzany. Internet od samego początku rozwijał się oddolnie bez centralnego ośrodka decyzyjnego. Na świecie funkcjonuje wiele organizacji działających na poziomie lokalnym, regionalnym i globalnym, które skupiają się na różnych aspektach jego działania i rozwoju. Proces nazywany "zarządzanie Internetem" (Internet Governance), to proces, w którym rządy, przedsiębiorstwa z branży technologii informacyjnych i komunikacyjnych oraz społeczeństwo obywatelskie wspólnie wypracowują standardy, wartości, normy i decyzje, które kształtują sposób, w jaki użytkowana jest sieć. Niniejszy artykuł podejmuje próbę wyjaśnienia tego zjawiska, przedstawia genezę sporu pomiędzy zwolennikami wielostronnego modelu zarządzania internetem oraz państwami postulującymi wzmocnienie roli rządów w tym procesie oraz prezentuje stanowisko Unii Europejskiej, która może w tej dyskusji odegrać kluczową rolę stając się mediatorem w debacie o przyszłym modelu zarządzania internetem.
The article presents the way that governance has formed in Poland after winning the independence in 1918. It also includes the discussion on first legal acts with institutional meaning such as decree law dated on 22nd November 1918 about the supreme representative authority of the Republic of Poland and the act of Parliament's ordinance of 20th February 1919 entrusting Józef Piłsudski with further execution of the office of Chief of state. These documents became the basis for reborn country and enabled to rebuild institutions in historically difficult period. In the opinion of author, the experiences of first years of independence had ultimatelly influenced the solutions that were adapted in so called March Constitution from the year of 1921. ; Artykuł przedstawia kształtowanie się systemu rządów w Polsce po odzyskaniu niepodległości w 1918 r., w tym pierwsze akty prawne o znaczeniu ustrojowym – dekret z 22 listopada 1918 r. o najwyższej władzy reprezentacyjnej Republiki Polskiej oraz uchwałę Sejmu Ustawodawczego z 20 lutego 1919 r. o powierzeniu Józefowi Piłsudskiemu dalszego sprawowania urzędu Naczelnika Państwa. Stały się one podstawą funkcjonowania odrodzonego państwa polskiego, umożliwiając w trudnym okresie historycznym odbudowę państwowości. Zdaniem Autorki doświadczenia pierwszych lat niepodległości wpłynęły ostatecznie na rozwiązania, które przyjęto w tzw. Konstytucji marcowej z 1921.
This paper is a short commentary on Elinor Ostrom's criticism of 'The Tradegy of Commons', which is part of her research on Common Pool Resources (CPR) institutions. She delivered an institutional theory of Common Pool Resources governance and also seriously undermined so called social paradoxes, as Olsons' logic of collective action or prisoners dilemma as a model of social situations. The core of these social paradoxes and Garett Hardin's Tragedy of Commons respectively, is an assumption of rational choice taken by an isolated, selfish and egoistic individual. In Ostroms opinion such theories are not really wrong, but are very special cases in the World of interpersonal communication, customs and institutions. Ostrom has developed an institutional analysis of CPR governance and formulated basic rules of a good and durable CPR Institution. Ostroms' works takes account of both laissez-faire and centralized, government-run allocation as the wrong approach toward management of the Commons. These analyses seem useful in Poland, where nowadays CPR governance is highly centralized.
Globalization undoubtedly is one of modern processes which lay foundations for most significant changes to contemporary societies. Social, economic and political phenomena, undergoing within nation-states and independently on them, have become a part of the network of global concerns and relations that the states are able to control no more than in a limited sense. In terms of localness the phenomenon is reflected in the processes of metropolization of urban agglomerations which form their own unique systems of governance. In doing so, they become distinctive laboratories of new forms of government and democracy. The increasing inadequacy of the territorial structure of the state and its institutional systems in terms of network systems and multilevel relations that form new and functional living space for contemporary man are responsible for initiating reforms in states. However, the process of those changes does not go automatically, and it most often stands for a confrontation of the global system imperatives with values, norms and institutions deeply rooted in social structure and shaped in the Westphalian era. Therefore, the search for wise answers to global challenges abounds in diverse results, an example of which may be seen in hybrid territorial units in France which are concomitant with the specific forms of governance that are formed within. Despite the fact that the book deals with French status quo in the main, it touches upon universal issues which concern challenges that modern democratic nation-states have to meet. The book addresses all researchers of contemporary times, who make an attempt to come to deeper understanding of the changes that a modern state and democracy have to face in times when the global system is being shaped. Unique is the fact that this book transcends theoretical digressions being at the same time embedded in the context of a particular society. The conclusions are based on an extensive empirical sources that the author of this book collected while conducting his research in France, where he had the honor of running discussions with French eminent scholars, politicians and people engaged in self-government. According to the reviewer of the book, professor Kazimierz Z. Sowa: "The collected research material presents itself as very interesting and valuable one; additionally its research method makes it a sui generis source of information. [.] The results provide us with a solid amount of knowledge about modern France whose problems go beyond the present ones."
A paper describes challenges of globalization, Europeanization and new governance towards institution of public administration body (in the fi elds of law and public management). An author mentions basic assumptions of modern public governance and main, significant elements of processes of globalization and Europeanization. It is necessary to consider the legal institution of public administration body (especially in administrative law and science of administration). The paper describes current problems of mentioned topic (such as varied kinds of development and progress – especially connected with information society). The author suggests to appreciate the complex of global values. Finally he describes the aftermentioned phenomenons not only as threats, but also as opportunities. The author recomended to use their to a better development.
U radu se razmatra odnos javnih politika i modernog koncepta upravljanja (governance). Izraz upravljanje u osnovi označuje nov oblik veze politike, uprave i društva, koji se više ne zasniva na isključivoj dominaciji sfere politike u odnosu prema upravi i horizontalnoj sferi društva. Različiti pristupi javnim politikama na različit način postavljaju problem tih triju sfera, no neovisno o načinima postizanja koherentnosti između njih, sve ih karakterizira nadomješćivanje tradicionalnog pristupa ostvarivanja kolektivnih ciljeva zasnovanog na načelu »zapovijedaj i nadziraj« načelom pregovaranja različitih sektora i razina. ; The author discusses the relations between public policies and the modern concept of governance. It is emphasised that the term governance actually designates a new form of relations between politics, public administration, and society, which are not based on the exclusive dominance of politics over public administration and the horizontal sphere of society any more. Different approaches to public policies put the issue of these three spheres into different perspectives. Notwithstanding the manners of achieving coherence between them, they are all characterised by supplementing the traditional approach of obtaining collective objectives, based on the »order and supervise« principle, with the principle of negotiating between different sectors and levels.
Autor opracowania stawia sobie za cel zbadanie usytuowania OLAF-u w systemie wielopoziomowego zarządzania UE (Multi-level Governance - MLG) wraz z określonymi interinstytucjonalnymi zależnościami i konsekwencjami takiego usytuowania, przy założeniu, że OLAF nie jest klasyczną instytucją ponadnarodową. Skoro OLAF jako agent i supervisor posiada kompetencje kontrolne nad instytucjami ponadnarodowymi, w tym nad swoim mocodawcą, jakim jest ponadnarodowa Komisja Europejska, to mało prawdopodobne jest, aby był także instytucją ponadnarodową.W badaniach wykorzystano dwa narzędzia teoretyczno-metodologiczne: Principal/Agent Theory oraz Principal/Supervisor/Agent Theory. ; The author of the study aims to investigate the location of OLAF in the multi-level governance system (MLG) of the European Union with specific interinstitutional consequences of such location, assuming that OLAF is not a classical supranational institution. If OLAF as an agent and supervisor has control powers over supranational institutions, including its principal, a supranational European Commission, it is unlikely that it would also be a supranational institution.Two theoretical and methodological tools were used in this research: Principal/Agent Theory and Principal/Supervisor/Agent Theory.
"Academic governance" is a term which is little known and rarely used in Polish literaturę. However, this term is essential to understand the extensive literaturę on higher education reforms and models published in various countries. When discussing academic governance Solutions, Polish literaturę usually uses the term system (system) to refer to the external environment of universities and the term ustrój (internal organisation) to talk about Solutions within universities. In the first part of his paper, the author defines the notions of academic governance, external academic governance and internal academic governance and then discusses academic governance Solutions in the European Union, English-speaking countries (example of the USA) and in Poland. While in 1960s the European reforms of academic governance were inspired by public governance, the governance structures in the private sector have become the model in recent years. Research confirms that the changes in governance are heading, albeit falteringly, towards an increased marketisation of the European higher education. In Poland, the marketisation of the education system has meant, above all, the emergence of the non-public sector alongside a non-market system, the latter persisting in the public higher education sector. ; Ład akademicki (academic governance) to termin mato znany i rzadko używany w polskiej literaturze przedmiotu. Bez jego wprowadzenia trudno jednak czerpać z dorobku bogatej literatury światowej na temat reform i modeli szkolnictwa wyższego. W polskiej literaturze przy omawianiu rozwiązań dotyczących ładu akademickiego w zewnętrznym otoczeniu uczelni używa się zwykle terminu "system", jeśli natomiast omawia się rozwiązania wewnątrz uczelni, stosuje się zazwyczaj termin "ustrój". W pierwszej części artykułu autor definiuje pojęcia "ład akademicki" oraz "zewnętrzny ład akademicki" i "wewnętrzny ład akademicki", w następnych omawia rozwiązania w dziedzinie ładu akademickiego w Unii Europejskiej, w krajach anglosaskich (na przykładzie Stanów Zjednoczonych) oraz w Polsce. Podczas gdy w latach sześćdziesiątych )0( w. europejskie reformy ładu akademickiego czerpały inspirację z ładu publicznego, to obecnie wzorcem są struktury zarządzania w sektorze prywatnym. Wyniki badań potwierdzają, że zmiany sterowania systemu idą, choć niepewnym krokiem, w kierunku większego urynkowienia europejskiego obszaru szkolnictwa wyższego. W Polsce urynkowienie systemu szkolnictwa jak dotąd polegało głównie na stworzeniu sektora szkół niepublicznych, z jednoczesnym zachowaniem systemu nierynkowego w publicznym sektorze szkolnictwa wyższego.
Kozmopolitizam i imperij dijele dugu zajedničku povijest koja seže još u antička vremena. Kozmopolitizam kao ideju sigurno ne bismo poznavali da nije bilo političke organizacije poput imperija, a imperijalni oblik vladavine sigurno ne bio toliko uspješan da se kozmopolitizam nije barem djelomično nalazio u opravdanju i očuvanju niza imperijalnih projekata. Interes za ideju kozmopolitizma obnovljen je u posljednjih dvadeset godina pojavom globalizacijske teorije, a također se čini da je i imperij, bilo da je odobravan ili osporavan, u skorije vrijeme postao popularan organizacijski koncept u akademskim diskusijama o našem trenutnom globalnom političkom stanju. Uspostava mira i njegovo održanje u oba ova koncepta igraju značajnu ulogu, no je li uopće moguće razlučiti kozmopolitsko od imperijalnog shvaćanja mira te kako ove sličnosti (i razlike) utječu na razvitak današnjeg globalnog vladanja? ; Cosmopolitanism and empire share a long history together, dating back to Antiquity. We would certainly not know of cosmopolitan idea if political organization such as Empire did not exist, and the imperial form of government certainly would not be so successful if cosmopolitanism was not at least partially involved in the justification and preservation of the series of imperial projects. Interest in the cosmopolitan idea was renewed in the last twenty years with the appearance of globalization theory, but it also appears that empire, whether it is accepted or disputed, also became a popular organizational concept in academic discussions about our current global political situation. In both of those concepts the establishment of peace and its maintenance plays an important role, but is it even possible to distinguish between cosmopolitan and imperial understanding of peace, and how these similarities (and differences) affect the development of today's global governance?
Cilj je ovoga rada prikazati razvoj lokalne proračunske politike u smjeru veće proračunske transparentnosti. Provedena je studija slučaja Bjelovara u kojoj su korištene dvije kvalitativne metode prikupljanja podataka – intervju i selekcioniranje dokumenata. Prikupljena građa kodirana je prema pravilima kvalitativne analize sadržaja. Četiri su glavna elementa političkog odlučivanja o bjelovarskoj proračunskoj politici: transparentnost kao cilj, aplikacija Transparentno kao osnovni informacijski instrument, gradonačelnik zajedno sa svojim suradnicima kao ključni akter i građani kao glavna ciljana skupina. Analiza pokazuje kako su zajednička temeljna načela i lokalne proračunske politike i koncepta dobrog upravljanja transparentnost i odgovornost. Podaci navode i na zaključak kako su to nužni, ali ne i dovoljni uvjeti za ostvarenje dobrog upravljanja, s obzirom na to da njihovo uvođenje ne osigurava veću participaciju neformalnih aktera, posebice udruga civilnog društva. Ovaj rad predstavlja politološki pogled na ovu prvenstveno ekonomski analiziranu temu, te kroz uvide o empirijskom slučaju pokazuje važnost procesne dimenzije transparentnosti – važno je i koliko se transparentno odlučuje o proračunu, a ne isključivo transparentnost samog proračuna. ; This paper aims to describe the development of local budgetary policy towards increased budget transparency. A case study of Bjelovar was undertaken, for which the two qualitative data collecting methods were used – interviewing and document analysis. The collected data were coded in accordance with the rules of qualitative content analysis. There are four main elements of the decision-making process within Bjelovar's budgetary policy: the transparency as a main goal; the application "Transparent" as instrument of nodality, as central instrument; the mayor, along with his associates, as a leading actor; and the citizens as a principal target group. The analysis shows how common principles of the local budgetary policy and the concept of the good governance are transparency and accountability. Still, those seem to be necessary but not sufficient conditions for realization of good governance, as their introduction does not insure higher participation of unofficial actors, especially not of non-governmental organizations. This research paper offers a political science insight on an economic topic and it underlines the importance of the procedural aspect of the transparency; in other words – transparency of budgetary decision-making is important at least as much as transparency of budget itself.
Opći cilj istraživanja prikazanog u ovom radu jest teorijsko i empirijsko razmatranje različitih modela urbanog upravljanja na primjeru urbano-okolišnog sektora Grada Zagreba, pri čemu se posebna pažnja daje mogućnostima i preprekama za integrirano urbano upravljanje, s fokusom na koordinaciju i participaciju. Tema je razrađivana kroz različite teorijske pristupe s namjerom holističkog obuhvata područja istraživanja. Tipologija urbanog upravljanja koju su razvili DiGaetano i Strom (2003) koristi se za analizu i interpretaciju tipova upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru Grada Zagreba. Vezano specifično uz integrirano upravljanje, istraživanjem je obuhvaćena horizontalna integracija, kao dimenzija integriranog upravljanja, odnosno njezina dva aspekta: a) segment integriranog urbanog upravljanja koji pretpostavlja intenzivniju i kvalitetniju suradnju i koordinaciju formalnih aktera unutar gradske uprave; te, b) participacija neformalnih aktera u procesu donošenja odluka i kreiranja javnih politika. Aspekt koordinacije formalnih aktera interpretiran je u ovom radu temeljem teorije koordinacije javnih politika, pri čemu se preuzimaju sukcesivne razine ostvarivanja koherentnosti u oblikovanju javnih politika koje je razvio Peters (2004). U dijagnostičke svrhe utvrđivanja suradnje različitih gradskih tijela u urbano-okolišnom sektoru u ostvarivanju zajedničkih ciljeva korišten je i Metcalfeov (1994) pristup analizi izmjere kapaciteta koordinacije javnih politika. Što se tiče participacije neformalnih aktera, u interpretaciji se koristi tipologija razine participacije koju je izradila Arnstein (1969) kao i klasifikacija jednosmjernih i dvosmjernih participativnih metoda od Anokye (2013). U kontekstu ovog istraživanja razmatra se i redistribucija moći između formalnih i neformalnih aktera izražena kao odnos snaga u kojem su u poziciji moći formalni akteri, a neformalni akteri svojim djelovanjem dovode u pitanje granice i raspodjelu moći (Arnstein, 1969). Istraživanje je dizajnirano kao studija slučaja urbanog upravljanja u Gradu Zagrebu korištenjem metode polu-strukturiranog intervjua i fokusne grupe uz pregled relevantnog normativnog i strateškog okvira. Istraživanjem je utvrđen hibridni tip upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru, specifičnije, korporativno-klijentelistički tip urbanog upravljanja. Uočene specifičnosti u modelu upravljanja odnose se na nepovjerenje neformalnih aktera u tijela lokalne samouprave što je dodatno naglašeno uvjerenjem kako lokalna samouprava počiva na principima klijentelizma i pomanjkanja odgovornosti te sektorskom i piramidalnom sustavu upravljanja s koncentracijom moći u samome vrhu gradske vlasti. Navedeno je u suprotnosti sa integriranim modelom upravljanja koje pretpostavlja ostvarenje moći kroz pozitivan kontekst "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), odnosno, ostvarenje moći kroz suradnju i konsenzus, partnerstvo i procese kolektivnog djelovanja. Koordinacija odabranih gradskih ureda unutar urbano-okolišnog sektora svrstana je, sukladno Petersu (2004) na najnižu razinu negativne koordinacije, te sukladno Metcalfeu (1994), na četvrtu razinu koja isto spada u negativnu koordinaciju s obzirom na manjkavosti koje se očituju u: preklapanjima u obavljanju poslova, pri čemu se ističe nedostatak adekvatne koordinacije aktivnosti i projekata (izostanak strukturirane koordinacije) odnosno komunikacije (različite informacije, različite vizije, različite i nepovezane aktivnosti, nedostatak adekvatne baze podataka koju bi mogli koristiti svi uredi i sektori), kako unutar ureda i sektora (naglasak na nepostojanje adekvatne horizontalne koordinacije), tako i među sektorima (nepostojanje adekvatne međusektorske koordinacije), ali i spram civilnog sektora (u vezi programa i aktivnosti od zajedničkog interesa). Naposljetku, razina participacije u urbano-okolišnom sektoru prema Arnsteininoj gradaciji participacije spada u kategoriju tokenizma. Općenito, građane se ne potiče na preuzimanje aktivne uloge prilikom donošenja relevantnih odluka u domeni djelokruga lokalne samouprave kao ni na ostvarivanje partnerstva sa formalnim akterima. Sukladno klasifikaciji metoda participacije prema Anokye (2013), utvrđeno je prisustvo dominacije jednosmjernih uz ponešto dvosmjernih metoda participacije u kategoriji tokenizma. Navedeno upućuje na instrumentalni pristup (Hordijk, 2015) u participaciji neformalnih aktera koji, iako su uključeni u procese odlučivanja, nisu ravnopravni političkim akterima. Na tragu Arnsteininog (1969) poimanja moći, rezultati istraživanja s jedne strane ilustriraju moć kao asimetričnu (centraliziranu) odnosno hijerarhijsku (podređenost većine i zapovijedanje manjine) strukturu koju karakterizira koncentracija moći u samome vrhu upravljačke strukture (Ured Gradonačelnika), a što kod nekih formalnih kao i kod neformalnih aktera stvara osjećaj bespomoćnosti. S druge strane, nalazi ilustriraju moć kao procesnu, što je vidljivo kroz primjere suradnje među akterima koji ukazuju kako neformalni akteri višom razinom participacije u nekim slučajevima dovode uvriježene hijerarhije u pitanje. Međutim, pritom je isključivo riječ o partnerstvu, ali ne i o delegiranju moći ili pak građanskom nadzoru koje Arnstein svrstava u najviše razine građanske moći. ; The general purpose of the research presented in this thesis is to theoretically and empirically consider different models of urban governance based on the example of the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Particular attention is given to the opportunities and barriers to integrated urban governance with a focus on participation. The research engages with different theoretical approaches with the intention to have a holistic approach to the subject of research. The typology of urban governance developed by DiGaetano and Strom (2003) is utilized for the analysis and interpretation of types of governance present in the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Specifically with regard to integrated governance, the research encompasses horizontal integration – as a dimension of integrated governance – and particularly its two aspects: a) the dimension of integrated urban governance which implies more intensive and enhanced cooperation and coordination between formal actors within the city administration; and b) informal actors' participation in the decision making process and the process of creating public policies. The coordination of formal actors' is interpreted through public policies coordination theory by way of adopting successive levels of coherence implementation when shaping public policies as developed by Peters (2004). Metcalfe's (1994) approach to the analysis of public policies capacity coordination is also utilized as a diagnostic tool with the aim of determining the level of cooperation among the different city offices within the environment sector. With regard to capturing the participation of informal actors, the study utilizes Arnstein's (1969) typology of the level of participation, as well as the one-way and two-way classification of participation methods developed by Anokye (2013). In the context of this study, the redistribution of power between formal and informal actors is conveyed as a struggle between formal actors being in the position of power, and informal actors who through their activities question the boundaries and distribution of power. The research was designed as a case study of urban governance in the City of Zagreb. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted, and relevant legal and strategic documents were analyzed. The research has identified a hybrid governance model, more precisely, a corporate-clientelist model of urban governance. The governance model's specificities are reflected in the informal actors' distrust of local level administration, further emphasized through the conviction that the local administration relies on a clientelist agenda, lack of responsibility, and sectorial and pyramidical system of governance whereby the power resides in the highest echelons of city government. The highlighted findings are contrary to the model of integrated governance that presupposes empowerment through a positive context of "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), through cooperation and consensus, partnership and collective actions. The coordination of examined city offices within the sector of environment is categorized, according to Peters (2004), as the lowest level of negative coordination, and, according to Metcalfe (1994), on the fourth level, which also represents negative coordination, given the noted shortcomings: overlaps in activities conducted and specifically lack of adequate levels of coordinating activities and projects (lack of structured coordination), lack of communication (different information, different visions, different and disconnected activities, lack of an adequate database to be used by all offices and sectors), both within offices and sectors (lack of adequate horizontal coordination) as well as between sectors (lack of adequate inter-sectorial coordination), but in relation to the civil sector (with regard to programs and activities of common interest). Finally, the level of participation in the environment sector, in accordance with Arnstein's participation gradation, falls into the category of tokenism. Overall, citizens are not encouraged to assume active roles in the local administration's decision-making process or realize partnerships with formal actors. Based on Anokye's (2013) classification of participation methods, the study identifies the dominance of one-way participation methods and a handful of two-way participation methods in the tokenism category. This points to an instrumental approach (Hordijk, 2015) to the participation of informal actors', who, although involved in the decision-making process, are not equal to political actors. Drawing on Arnstein's (1969) understanding of power, the study illustrates, on one hand, power as asymmetrical (centralized) and hierarchical (subordination of majority, command of minority), characterized by the concentration of power at the top of the local government structure (Mayor's office), which, in turn, creates a feeling of helplessness both among certain formal as well as informal actors. On the other hand, the study results illustrate that power can also be understood as a process which is exemplified with instances of cooperation between actors showing that informal actors when achieving a higher level of participation bring established hierarchies into question. However, this is strictly reserved for partnership, and not for the delegated power or citizen control which are ranked by Arnstein as the highest levels of citizens' power.
Opći cilj istraživanja prikazanog u ovom radu jest teorijsko i empirijsko razmatranje različitih modela urbanog upravljanja na primjeru urbano-okolišnog sektora Grada Zagreba, pri čemu se posebna pažnja daje mogućnostima i preprekama za integrirano urbano upravljanje, s fokusom na koordinaciju i participaciju. Tema je razrađivana kroz različite teorijske pristupe s namjerom holističkog obuhvata područja istraživanja. Tipologija urbanog upravljanja koju su razvili DiGaetano i Strom (2003) koristi se za analizu i interpretaciju tipova upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru Grada Zagreba. Vezano specifično uz integrirano upravljanje, istraživanjem je obuhvaćena horizontalna integracija, kao dimenzija integriranog upravljanja, odnosno njezina dva aspekta: a) segment integriranog urbanog upravljanja koji pretpostavlja intenzivniju i kvalitetniju suradnju i koordinaciju formalnih aktera unutar gradske uprave; te, b) participacija neformalnih aktera u procesu donošenja odluka i kreiranja javnih politika. Aspekt koordinacije formalnih aktera interpretiran je u ovom radu temeljem teorije koordinacije javnih politika, pri čemu se preuzimaju sukcesivne razine ostvarivanja koherentnosti u oblikovanju javnih politika koje je razvio Peters (2004). U dijagnostičke svrhe utvrđivanja suradnje različitih gradskih tijela u urbano-okolišnom sektoru u ostvarivanju zajedničkih ciljeva korišten je i Metcalfeov (1994) pristup analizi izmjere kapaciteta koordinacije javnih politika. Što se tiče participacije neformalnih aktera, u interpretaciji se koristi tipologija razine participacije koju je izradila Arnstein (1969) kao i klasifikacija jednosmjernih i dvosmjernih participativnih metoda od Anokye (2013). U kontekstu ovog istraživanja razmatra se i redistribucija moći između formalnih i neformalnih aktera izražena kao odnos snaga u kojem su u poziciji moći formalni akteri, a neformalni akteri svojim djelovanjem dovode u pitanje granice i raspodjelu moći (Arnstein, 1969). Istraživanje je dizajnirano kao studija slučaja urbanog upravljanja u Gradu Zagrebu korištenjem metode polu-strukturiranog intervjua i fokusne grupe uz pregled relevantnog normativnog i strateškog okvira. Istraživanjem je utvrđen hibridni tip upravljanja u urbano-okolišnom sektoru, specifičnije, korporativno-klijentelistički tip urbanog upravljanja. Uočene specifičnosti u modelu upravljanja odnose se na nepovjerenje neformalnih aktera u tijela lokalne samouprave što je dodatno naglašeno uvjerenjem kako lokalna samouprava počiva na principima klijentelizma i pomanjkanja odgovornosti te sektorskom i piramidalnom sustavu upravljanja s koncentracijom moći u samome vrhu gradske vlasti. Navedeno je u suprotnosti sa integriranim modelom upravljanja koje pretpostavlja ostvarenje moći kroz pozitivan kontekst "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), odnosno, ostvarenje moći kroz suradnju i konsenzus, partnerstvo i procese kolektivnog djelovanja. Koordinacija odabranih gradskih ureda unutar urbano-okolišnog sektora svrstana je, sukladno Petersu (2004) na najnižu razinu negativne koordinacije, te sukladno Metcalfeu (1994), na četvrtu razinu koja isto spada u negativnu koordinaciju s obzirom na manjkavosti koje se očituju u: preklapanjima u obavljanju poslova, pri čemu se ističe nedostatak adekvatne koordinacije aktivnosti i projekata (izostanak strukturirane koordinacije) odnosno komunikacije (različite informacije, različite vizije, različite i nepovezane aktivnosti, nedostatak adekvatne baze podataka koju bi mogli koristiti svi uredi i sektori), kako unutar ureda i sektora (naglasak na nepostojanje adekvatne horizontalne koordinacije), tako i među sektorima (nepostojanje adekvatne međusektorske koordinacije), ali i spram civilnog sektora (u vezi programa i aktivnosti od zajedničkog interesa). Naposljetku, razina participacije u urbano-okolišnom sektoru prema Arnsteininoj gradaciji participacije spada u kategoriju tokenizma. Općenito, građane se ne potiče na preuzimanje aktivne uloge prilikom donošenja relevantnih odluka u domeni djelokruga lokalne samouprave kao ni na ostvarivanje partnerstva sa formalnim akterima. Sukladno klasifikaciji metoda participacije prema Anokye (2013), utvrđeno je prisustvo dominacije jednosmjernih uz ponešto dvosmjernih metoda participacije u kategoriji tokenizma. Navedeno upućuje na instrumentalni pristup (Hordijk, 2015) u participaciji neformalnih aktera koji, iako su uključeni u procese odlučivanja, nisu ravnopravni političkim akterima. Na tragu Arnsteininog (1969) poimanja moći, rezultati istraživanja s jedne strane ilustriraju moć kao asimetričnu (centraliziranu) odnosno hijerarhijsku (podređenost većine i zapovijedanje manjine) strukturu koju karakterizira koncentracija moći u samome vrhu upravljačke strukture (Ured Gradonačelnika), a što kod nekih formalnih kao i kod neformalnih aktera stvara osjećaj bespomoćnosti. S druge strane, nalazi ilustriraju moć kao procesnu, što je vidljivo kroz primjere suradnje među akterima koji ukazuju kako neformalni akteri višom razinom participacije u nekim slučajevima dovode uvriježene hijerarhije u pitanje. Međutim, pritom je isključivo riječ o partnerstvu, ali ne i o delegiranju moći ili pak građanskom nadzoru koje Arnstein svrstava u najviše razine građanske moći. ; The general purpose of the research presented in this thesis is to theoretically and empirically consider different models of urban governance based on the example of the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Particular attention is given to the opportunities and barriers to integrated urban governance with a focus on participation. The research engages with different theoretical approaches with the intention to have a holistic approach to the subject of research. The typology of urban governance developed by DiGaetano and Strom (2003) is utilized for the analysis and interpretation of types of governance present in the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Specifically with regard to integrated governance, the research encompasses horizontal integration – as a dimension of integrated governance – and particularly its two aspects: a) the dimension of integrated urban governance which implies more intensive and enhanced cooperation and coordination between formal actors within the city administration; and b) informal actors' participation in the decision making process and the process of creating public policies. The coordination of formal actors' is interpreted through public policies coordination theory by way of adopting successive levels of coherence implementation when shaping public policies as developed by Peters (2004). Metcalfe's (1994) approach to the analysis of public policies capacity coordination is also utilized as a diagnostic tool with the aim of determining the level of cooperation among the different city offices within the environment sector. With regard to capturing the participation of informal actors, the study utilizes Arnstein's (1969) typology of the level of participation, as well as the one-way and two-way classification of participation methods developed by Anokye (2013). In the context of this study, the redistribution of power between formal and informal actors is conveyed as a struggle between formal actors being in the position of power, and informal actors who through their activities question the boundaries and distribution of power. The research was designed as a case study of urban governance in the City of Zagreb. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted, and relevant legal and strategic documents were analyzed. The research has identified a hybrid governance model, more precisely, a corporate-clientelist model of urban governance. The governance model's specificities are reflected in the informal actors' distrust of local level administration, further emphasized through the conviction that the local administration relies on a clientelist agenda, lack of responsibility, and sectorial and pyramidical system of governance whereby the power resides in the highest echelons of city government. The highlighted findings are contrary to the model of integrated governance that presupposes empowerment through a positive context of "power with" (Gaventa, 2009), through cooperation and consensus, partnership and collective actions. The coordination of examined city offices within the sector of environment is categorized, according to Peters (2004), as the lowest level of negative coordination, and, according to Metcalfe (1994), on the fourth level, which also represents negative coordination, given the noted shortcomings: overlaps in activities conducted and specifically lack of adequate levels of coordinating activities and projects (lack of structured coordination), lack of communication (different information, different visions, different and disconnected activities, lack of an adequate database to be used by all offices and sectors), both within offices and sectors (lack of adequate horizontal coordination) as well as between sectors (lack of adequate inter-sectorial coordination), but in relation to the civil sector (with regard to programs and activities of common interest). Finally, the level of participation in the environment sector, in accordance with Arnstein's participation gradation, falls into the category of tokenism. Overall, citizens are not encouraged to assume active roles in the local administration's decision-making process or realize partnerships with formal actors. Based on Anokye's (2013) classification of participation methods, the study identifies the dominance of one-way participation methods and a handful of two-way participation methods in the tokenism category. This points to an instrumental approach (Hordijk, 2015) to the participation of informal actors', who, although involved in the decision-making process, are not equal to political actors. Drawing on Arnstein's (1969) understanding of power, the study illustrates, on one hand, power as asymmetrical (centralized) and hierarchical (subordination of majority, command of minority), characterized by the concentration of power at the top of the local government structure (Mayor's office), which, in turn, creates a feeling of helplessness both among certain formal as well as informal actors. On the other hand, the study results illustrate that power can also be understood as a process which is exemplified with instances of cooperation between actors showing that informal actors when achieving a higher level of participation bring established hierarchies into question. However, this is strictly reserved for partnership, and not for the delegated power or citizen control which are ranked by Arnstein as the highest levels of citizens' power.
This paper aims to describe the development of local budgetary policy towards increased budget transparency. A case study of Bjelovar was undertaken, for which the two qualitative data collecting methods were used – interviewingand document analysis. The collected data were coded in accordance with the rules of qualitative content analysis. There are four main elements of the decision-making process within Bjelovar's budgetary policy: the transparency as a main goal; the application "Transparent" as instrument of nodality, as central instrument; the mayor, along with his associates, as a leading actor; and the citizensas a principal target group. The analysis shows how common principles of the local budgetary policy and the concept of the good governance are transparency and accountability. Still, those seem to be necessary but not sufficientconditions for realization of good governance, as their introduction does not insure higher participation of unofficial actors, especially not of nongovernmental organizations. This research paper offers a political science insight on an economic topic and it underlines the importance of the procedural aspect of the transparency; in other words – transparency of budgetary decision-makingis important at least as much as transparency of budget itself. ; Cilj je ovoga rada prikazati razvoj lokalne proračunske politike u smjeru veće proračunske transparentnosti. Provedena je studija slučaja Bjelovara u kojoj su korištene dvije kvalitativne metode prikupljanja podataka – intervju i selekcioniranje dokumenata. Prikupljena građa kodirana je prema pravilima kvalitativneanalize sadržaja. Četiri su glavna elementa političkog odlučivanja o bjelovarskoj proračunskoj politici: transparentnost kao cilj, aplikacija Transparentnokao osnovni informacijski instrument, gradonačelnik zajedno sa svojim suradnicima kao ključni akter i građani kao glavna ciljana skupina. Analiza pokazujekako su zajednička temeljna načela i lokalne proračunske politike i koncepta dobrog upravljanja transparentnost i odgovornost. Podaci navode i na zaključak kako su to nužni, ali ne i dovoljni uvjeti za ostvarenje dobrog upravljanja, s obzirom na to da njihovo uvođenje ne osigurava veću participaciju neformalnih aktera, posebice udruga civilnog društva. Ovaj rad predstavlja politološki pogled na ovu prvenstveno ekonomski analiziranu temu, te kroz uvide o empirijskom slučaju pokazuje važnost procesne dimenzije transparentnosti – važno je i koliko se transparentno odlučuje o proračunu, a ne isključivo transparentnost samog proračuna.
U naslovu rada je upitnik: to upućuje na pravnu problematiku koja još nije definitivno razriješena. Temeljno pravno pitanje na koje ovaj članak odgovara moglo bi se ovako formulirati: imaju li vjernici laici crkvenu vlast upravljanja ili u njoj mogu samo surađivati? Povod raspravi dale su dvije kanonske odredbe sadašnjeg Zakonika kanonskog prava: prva se odnosi na mogućnost suradnje vjernika laika u vlasti upravljanja (kan. 129, § 2), a druga na mogućnost da vjernici laici budu imenovani crkvenim sudcima (kan. 1421, § 2), što je služba povezana s obavljanjem odgovarajuće vlasti. Je li posrijedi nedosljednost u samom Zakoniku ili je moguće doći do sinteze? U pokušaju odgovora na to pitanje autori induktivnom metodom najprije govore općenito o vlasti upravljanja u Crkvi, a zatim o vjernicima laicima te općenito o njihovim pravima i obvezama u Crkvi. Zatim pristupaju analizi kan. 129, § 2 i kan. 1421, § 2, s posebnim osvrtom na izvore koji su utjecali na formulaciju tih kanona. Konačno, predstavljaju dvije škole, rimsku i münchensku, te dvije teorije, sakramentalnu i nesakramentalnu o izvorima i prenošenju svete vlasti (sacra potestas) u Crkvi. Moguće rješenje postavljenog pitanja i svojevrsnu sintezu u zaključku pronalaze u dvostrukoj izvornosti i dvostrukom prenošenju jedne i jedine Kristove vlasti u Crkvi: po sakramentu sv. reda i po kanonskom poslanju (missio canonica) u ime Crkve. ; Summary In this unsolved issue of the Canon law, the basic juridical question could be expressed in this way: do the lay faithful possess the ecclesiastical power of governance, or they can only participate in it? The discussion is motivated by two paragraphs of the current Canon Law. The first one deals with the possibility of collaboration of the lay faithful in the exercise of the power of governance (can. 129, § 2). The other one refers to the possibility for lay faithful to be appointed for ecclesiastical judges (can. 1421, § 2), which is linked to exercise of the power of governance. Is the Cannon law incoherent, or a synthesis is possible? The authors following the inductive method firstly explain the power of governance in the Church, then the status of the lay faithful, and their general rights and duties in the Church. Then the authors analyze the cannons 129, § 2 and 1421, § 2, giving particular attention to the sources that influenced the formulation of these canons. Finally, they present the theories of the Roman and the Munich school, the sacramental and the non sacramental theory, regarding the sources and transmission of the sacred power (sacra potestas) in the Church. The possible solution and synthesis are found in the double source and the double tradition of the one and only Christ's power in the Church, by the sacrament of Holy Orders, and the canonic mission (missio canonica) in the name of the Church.
Autor analizira simptome krize demokracije u Europi koncentrirajući se na tri skupine simptoma: u prvom redu na simptome krize u tranzicijskim zemljama koje su ušle u članstvo Europske unije u okviru petog proširenja; jedan je od glavnih indikatora te krize slab odaziv glasača iz tranzicijskih zemalja na izbore za Europski parlament godinu dana nakon ulaska u članstvo EU-a. Razlog tog podbačaja autor vidi u razočaranosti demokracijom i tranzicijom te u formalnom udovoljenju kopenhaškim kriterijima, uslijed čega su odmah nakon ulaska u EU nove zemlje članice svoju zadaću demokratizacije smatrale dovršenom.Drugi je simptom krize negativan ishod referenduma za ratifi kaciju ugovora kojim se uspostavlja Ustav za Europu u Francuskoj i Nizozemskoj, što je pokrenulo lančanu reakciju odbacivanja osnovnih instrumenata demokratizacije EU-a koje su zemlje članice prethodno prihvatile i s kojima su se u potpunosti suglasile. Treći element krize demokracije jest demokratski defi cit u EU-u i različito viđenje načina kako da se on prevlada, jačanjem federalističkih elemenata EU-a ili interguvernmentalnih procedura. Na kraju se konstatira da u suvremenoj Europi postoje tri modela demokracije, po uzoru na Siedentopovu klasifi kaciju modela privlačnosti demokracije, i da je kriza demokracije u Europi potencijalno opasna za daljnji razvoj europskih društava jer se pobjedom nad komunizmom nije ostvario očekivani trijumf demokracije, nego je demokracija u Europi izložena nasrtajima raznih oblika političke patologije, uz deziluziju i neispunjena očekivanja. ; In this article the symptoms of the crises of democracy are analyzed. The author concentrates on three sets of symptoms: fi rst, on the symptoms emerged in transition, post-communist countries that joined the EU within the Fifth enlargement. One of the main indicators of such crises is the low turnout in the European Parliament elections in 2004, only one month after their joining the EU. The reasons for such a bad turnout are the disappointment in democracy and in transition, ...
