Transparency is a widely used concept in debates on international politics, from transnational anti-corruption campaigns to renewed requests for greater disclosure on health, finance, or even security issues. Calls for transparency date back at least to the League of Nations, when internationalists demanded open diplomacy. Yet, it is in the subfield of GEG, and its developments on nonstate actors as a key research topic (see introduction), where the practice and theory of transparency has made the most profound inroads (Gupta 2010a). GEG has been a particularly fertile ground for the development of informational governance (Mol 2008) and the rise of numerous transparency initiatives which have been analyzed in a rapidly developing literature. Importantly, current GEG research is also highly relevant for other IR subfields. For one, recent GEG research can help IR scholars to further refine the concept of transparency and to increase conceptual clarity and sophistication. Second, research on GEG has improved our understanding of the factors that determine the effectiveness of transparency as a governance tool in international politics.
Includes bibliographical references. ; Presented at the Building resilience of Mongolian rangelands: a trans-disciplinary research conference held on June 9-10, 2015 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. ; Mongolia's socio-ecological rangeland systems face a number of critical, contemporary challenges. Climatic change, persistent poverty and growing land use conflicts, especially around mining, pose complex problems both for herders and policy-makers. Furthermore, there is renewed emphasis on meeting Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Aichi targets, following the publication of Mongolia's 5th National CBD report in March 2014, and the development of a new National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan. (E)valuation of the contributions of rangeland ecosystem services (ES) to biodiversity and livelihoods/wellbeing are highlighted as priorities for future planning therein. ES thinking, valuation and commodification are becoming increasingly influential in other contemporary policy initiatives, not least through the development of the national REDD+ roadmap, Business and Biodiversity offset programmes and Government commitments to the 'Green Economy'. Nonetheless critical questions remain about the ES paradigm itself, values/ valuation of ES and how these may be enacted and supported through policy. Here we report on a three year Darwin-Initiative funded project, which aimed to 'generate policy and practice relevant knowledge of values of ecosystem services (ES) in Mongolia, and test the efficacy of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, in order to enhance biodiversity and livelihoods'. Aims were realised through i) participatory mapping and analysis of ES, including cultural ES, with 300 herder households across four case study sites, and the development of innovative methods for non-economic valuation; ii) co-development and implementation of a novel rangeland payment for ES (PES) scheme at the four sites, through the Plan Vivo standard; iii) analysis of the impacts ES and of the PES scheme on biodiversity and livelihoods. Methods used included deliberative valuation approaches, mapping, ranking and choice modelling to examine group and individual values and trade-offs between ES across ecologically contrasting areas. We also applied the SOLVES (Social Values of ES) GIS model to highlight spatial, place-specific dimensions of ES values, as part of a series of wider biodiversity, livelihoods and ES assessments. Results highlight spatial and temporal diversities in ES values, importance of cultural ES for wellbeing, and the potential of carefully designed PES schemes to contribute to more resilient socio-ecological rangeland systems in the future.
In contemporary world, with the change of economic, social, political and cultural conditions, the expectations to the support or creation of welfare states are also changing. For the preservation or reinforcement of welfare states, elimination of the arising contradictions is necessary as well as positive, effective answers to the challenges raised to welfare states both in theoretic, ideological-value and practical sense. The aim of this article is to reveal and group the essential contradictions and challenges to welfare states and their public governance. This article is of a phenomenological, analytical-overview type. In chapter 1, the authors provide the notions of contradiction, challenge, welfare state, governance and public governance; chapter 2 analyses contradictions and challenges to public governance of welfare states in international, state and local levels; in chapter 3, the authors analyse the challenges to welfare states in the context of the changes of the 21st century.
In contemporary world, with the change of economic, social, political and cultural conditions, the expectations to the support or creation of welfare states are also changing. For the preservation or reinforcement of welfare states, elimination of the arising contradictions is necessary as well as positive, effective answers to the challenges raised to welfare states both in theoretic, ideological-value and practical sense. The aim of this article is to reveal and group the essential contradictions and challenges to welfare states and their public governance. This article is of a phenomenological, analytical-overview type. In chapter 1, the authors provide the notions of contradiction, challenge, welfare state, governance and public governance; chapter 2 analyses contradictions and challenges to public governance of welfare states in international, state and local levels; in chapter 3, the authors analyse the challenges to welfare states in the context of the changes of the 21st century.
