Suchergebnisse

"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.

This article seeks to identify and detail the most important determinants that shaped the position of Poland's President in the system of governance during the country's period of transformation extending from 1989 through to 1997. The conditioning presented determined the position of the office of President by reference to four legal instruments, i.e. the new proposal of April 1989, the 1990 Act on universal suffrage in electing the President of the Republic of Poland (Ustawa o powszechnych wyborach prezydenta RP), the so-called "Small Constitution" of 1992, and the (still-binding) 1997 Constitution of the Republic of Poland. It is claimed here that this conditioning underpinning the establishment of the post of President within Poland's system of governance, on the basis of these different instruments of law, remained similar (sometimes in fact identical), with the overriding, repeated determinant being the political situation at the given time.

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie współczesnych dylematów w kwestii zarządzania Internetem jako nowym dobrem wspólnym ludzkości i przykładem tzw. nowych dóbr wspólnych. W ślad za Lawrence'em Lessigiem omówione zostały trzy warstwy Internetu: fizyczna, logiczna i treści. W tym kontekście przedstawiono dokonania Grupy Roboczej ds. Zarządzania Internetem (WGIG) powołanej przez Sekretarza Generalnego ONZ oraz rolę Forum Zarządzania Internetem (IGF). Zaprezentowano rozbieżne preferencje państw w wyborze suwerennego, wielostronnego lub międzyrządowego modelu zarządzania Internetem. W szczególności ukazano przeciwstawne działania USA i Unii Europejskiej oraz Chin i Rosji oraz podkreślanie przez te dwa ostatnie państwa zagadnienia cyberbezpieczeństwa i cybersuwerenności, co prowadzi do ograniczenia wolności słowa w Internecie i treściowej fragmentacji sieci. Autor proponuje wydzielenie kwestii możliwych do regulacji w drodze porozumień międzyrządowych. Zarazem dochodzi do wniosku, iż mechanizmy wielostronnego zarządzania siecią mogą uzyskać legitymację, jeżeli będą bardziej rzetelne i reprezentatywne niż system międzyrządowy. ; The purpose of this article is to present contemporary dilemmas in the management of the Internet as a new common good of mankind and an example of so called "new commons". In the wake of the Lawrence Lessig's writings discussed are the three layers of the Internet: physical, logical and content. In this context, presented are the achievements of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) initiated by the UN Secretary General and the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Presented are divergent preferences of states in choosing a sovereign, multi-stakeholder or multilateral model of Internet governance. In particular, the article demonstrates conflicting actions of the US, European Union and China, Russia and issues of cybersecurity and cyber sovereignty highlighted by the latter two countries, which lead to restrictions on freedom of speech in the Internet and fragmentation of the network in its content layer. The author proposes to separate issues for feasible regulation by multilateral agreements. At the same time he concludes that the mechanisms of multilateral network management can gain legitimacy if they are more reliable and representative than the intergovernmental system.

The author has made an attempt to theoretically – by referring to empirical evidence – formulate the necessary conditions that allow participatory processes to happen. In this perspective, participation is not only an ethical requirement but primarily a mechanism that supports taking up the challenges posed by the increasing complexity of the social world. The examples presented in the article show that participation has a very strong 'competitor': clientelism. In the spaces where the latter forms the base of the relations between the government and society, it is difficult to find a well-rooted and sustainable presence of participatory processes. The author thus presents a hypothesis that the logic of clientelism, together with the lack of the ability to recognise the importance of resource interdependence, has the ability to weaken participation, or in other words, wash it out in a specific way. Clientelism strives to maximise the control over resources. This can, in some cases, support the realisation of development goals or be effective in particular governmental arrangements (e.g. the transformation in Poland in the 90 s of the 20th century), however, it also deepens the passivity and in the long run can lead to a decrease in the value of some resources or even their loss. In this context, participation is thus understood mainly as an expression of caring for the owned and acquired resources and as the recognition of their interdependence. ; Autor podjął próbę sformułowania – na poziomie teoretycznym, odwołując się do przykładów empirycznych – wybranych warunków, umożliwiających zaistnienie procesów partycypacyjnych. Partycypacja w tym ujęciu nie jest tylko postulatem etycznym, ale przede wszystkim mechanizmem sprzyjającym podejmowaniu wyzwań, wiążących się z rosnącą złożonością społecznego świata. Przywołane w artykule przykłady pokazują, że partycypacja ma bardzo silnego "konkurenta" w postaci klientelizmu. Tam, gdzie relacje między władzą a społeczeństwem są na nim oparte, trudno o zakorzenienie się i trwałą obecność mechanizmów partycypacyjnych. Autor stawia hipotezę mówiącą o tym, że w przestrzeni lokalnej partycypację osłabia – czy wypłukuje ją w specyficzny sposób – logika klientelizmu w powiązaniu z niedostrzeganiem znaczenia współzależności zasobów. Klientelizm bowiem oznacza dążenie do maksymalizacji kontroli nad zasobami. Może to sprzyjać realizacji celów rozwojowych, być skuteczne w określonych warunkach systemowych (np. transformacja w Polsce w latach 90. XXw.), jednak pogłębia również pasywność, a w dłuższym okresie oznaczać może zmniejszanie się wartości określonych zasobów czy wręcz ich utratę. Partycypacja w tym kontekście rozumiana jest przede wszystkim jako wyraz dbałości o posiadane i pozyskiwane zasoby oraz dostrzeganie ich współzależności.

The author – using empirical data – claims that a meritocratic approach to public governance in Poland does not seem deeply rooted. The research indicates that since mid-November 2015 until the beginning of November 2017 meritocratic rules have been totally ignored in governmental institutions including state-owned companies.Many legal regulations were enacted inorder tointroduce changes inmanaging bodies responsible for key public institutions as well as companies. The drive toimprove their effectiveness were notof prime importance. The key criterion for promoting was based on the decision-maker's personal trust. There are many implications of the above-mentioned development, including aloss of trust tothe state resulting inamoral degeneration from the perspective of political class as well society as awhole. ; Autorka na podstawie danych empirycznych uzasadnia tezę, że merytokratyczne podejście do metod rządzenia w państwie jest w Polsce słabo zakorzenione. Wskazuje, że w instytucjach zależnych od rządu oraz spółkach skarbu państwa w okresie od połowy listopada 2015 r. do początku listopada 2017 r. doszło do całkowitego zarzucenia tych metod. Większość niezwykle licznie uchwalanych ustaw skupiała się na szybkości i szerokiej wymianie ciał zarządzających kluczowymi instytucjami i spółkami. Na dalszym planie pozostawała zwykle poprawa efektywności działania tych podmiotów. W wielu przypadkach głównym kryterium awansu było zaufanie decydenta. Najważniejszym skutkiem społecznym prowadzenia nieprzejrzystej, nieopartej na merytorycznych zasadach polityki personalnej jest podważanie zaufania do państwa, co jest degradujące zarówno dla klasy politycznej, jak i dla ogółu obywateli.

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991. ; The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

The fundamental problem faced by the states that have emerged in the area of the former USSR involved the definition of the desired form of their own political regime. The choices made in this respect in the first stage of political transformation were frequently limited only to the formal stipulation of model legal and constitutional solutions. The post-communist elite wielding power in the new states was characterized by a desire to form a one-man organ of state in the form of a strong president. The absence of democratic traditions and the negative legacy of the USSR have profoundly influenced the processes of shaping the political regimes in the post-Soviet area, and have actually become the predominant reason to legitimize authoritarianism. Only a few states of the former USSR have decided to adopt a model of governance other than a strong presidential system. Latvia deserves attention in this respect, as it has decided to reinstate the tested political principles of the interwar period. In the process of political transformation, the Latvian political elite has opted for the parliamentary system of governance and chose a weak presidency and the primacy of parliament. The transformation process was quickly completed allowing Latvia to be classified today as a non-consolidated democracy. Moldova's adopting the system of parliamentary governance in 2000 was, in turn, an unintentional result of a political conflict caused by the President's endeavors to form a strong presidential system. Moldovan parliamentarianism is a product of a protracted shaping of the institutional foundations of the political system and a byproduct of political competition between the legislative and executive powers. The domination of Communists on the Moldovan political stage, however, resulted in the state's appropriation by one group and President Vladimir Voronin, who enjoyed a great influence exerted both on the parliamentary majority (as the leader of the ruling party) and the government, despite the formal system providing for a parliamentary republic. There emerged a dangerous precedent of the President exceeding his rights and thus becoming the actual leader of a formally parliamentary republic. In the period from 2001–2009, Moldova was a system of controlled democracy where apparently democratic institutions were in fact a cover for undivided, informal power wielded by a small circle. This triggered a social revolution in 2009 and early parliamentary elections, which resulted in a transfer of power and the establishment of a coalition of liberal and democratic parties clearly expressing their intention to implement market reforms and European integration. Despite political obstruction in Moldova's shaping of its political system, the country stands out among the former post-Soviet republics. It is the only state in the Commonwealth of Independent States where a continuous and uninterrupted cycle of the transfer of power by means of elections can be observed to conform to the law and constitution since the country declared independence in 1991.

The study was prepared on the basis of the Principal-Agent Theory (PAT) and a method that is associated with it. This choice resulted from the major trajectories in the delegation processes, established on the one hand by states playing the role of principals, and on the other – by supranational institutions in their role as agents.The delegation theory explains the relationship between an entity that delegates power and that which is delegated (the receiving power) and helps analyze the phenomenon of the transfer of power between those entities, its reasons, circumstances, stages of the process, the outcomes and proper terminology and typology. This approach is, therefore, based and focused on the theoretical achievements in the area of research into the process of delegating. The delegation theory is actually the focal plane of theoretical approaches concerning delegating with the elements of the selection of the methods and logic of explanation, and so on. In addition to the clarification of the term of delegation of power and its stages, two basic types of delegation are examined, namely: primary and secondary delegation, and their derivatives, including the relationships between them in the multi-level governance of the European Union. ; The study was prepared on the basis of the Principal-Agent Theory (PAT) and a method that is associated with it. This choice resulted from the major trajectories in the delegation processes, established on the one hand by states playing the role of principals, and on the other – by supranational institutions in their role as agents.The delegation theory explains the relationship between an entity that delegates power and that which is delegated (the receiving power) and helps analyze the phenomenon of the transfer of power between those entities, its reasons, circumstances, stages of the process, the outcomes and proper terminology and typology. This approach is, therefore, based and focused on the theoretical achievements in the area of research into the process of delegating. The delegation theory is actually the focal plane of theoretical approaches concerning delegating with the elements of the selection of the methods and logic of explanation, and so on. In addition to the clarification of the term of delegation of power and its stages, two basic types of delegation are examined, namely: primary and secondary delegation, and their derivatives, including the relationships between them in the multi-level governance of the European Union.

Społeczność międzynarodowa stoi w obliczu rozproszonego i ponadnarodowego zagrożenia epidemiologicznego, którego powaga i rozmiar wymagają obecnie niespotykanego poziomu interwencji. Na przestrzeni wieków ludzkość zmagała się z różnymi epidemia, co zawsze wiązało się z koniecznością kompleksowego działania na płaszczyźnie międzynarodowej. Zdaniem Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ epidemia spowodowana wirusem ebola, która wybuchła pod koniec 2013 r., stanowi szczególne zagrożenie dla pokoju i bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego, ponieważ zdobycze w obszarze budowania pokoju i rozwoju krajów najbardziej dotkniętych epidemią mogą zostać zaprzepaszczone. To z kolei podważa stabilność krajów najbardziej nią dotkniętych. Jeśli nie zostanie opanowana, to sytuacja taka może doprowadzić do wybuchu nowych niepokojów i napięć społecznych, pogorszenia klimatu politycznego, stygmatyzacji i wzmocnienia poczucia niepewności. Podjęta w tej sprawie przez Radę Bezpieczeństwa ONZ rezolucja ma wymiar historyczny, gdyż po raz pierwszy problem zdrowia publicznego został zaklasyfikowany jako zagrożenie dla pokoju i bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego. Stało się tak, mimo że mobilizacja międzynarodowa była spóźniona o kilka miesięcy, chociaż konieczność podjęcia działań była wówczas oczywista. ; The international community faces a fragmented and transnational epidemiological threat, the severity and extent of which currently require an unprecedented level of intervention. Over the centuries, mankind has been confronted with a variety of epidemics that have always required a comprehensive action at the international level. According to the UN Security Council, the outbreak of the Ebola virus at the end of 2013 poses a particular threat to international peace and security, as the peace-building and development achievements of the countries most affected by the epidemic are jeopardised and may end in vain or be lost altogether. This in turn undermines the stability of the countries most affected. If the disease is not brought under control, this situation might lead to a new unrest and social tensions, and worsening of the political climate, or stigmatisation and a higher sense of uncertainty in the region. The resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on this matter has a historic dimension, as it has for the first time classified a public health problem as a threat to international peace and security. This happened despite the fact that international mobilisation had been delayed by several months, despite the obvious urgent need for action.

Multi-level governance is now an established field of public policy research. In this context there is a need to introduce two new concepts: substantiation of public policy goals and multi- level coordination of public policy goals. In the study based on this assumption a qualitative approach is used. Usefulness of these two concepts was proved by participatory action policy research on one specific goal substantiated and coordinated within Europe 2020 Strategy in the policy area of poverty. In the course of the research (2012-2015) the author was a representative of the network of social NGOs in the governmental body responsible for implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in Poland. The main action research tool was an attempt to modify the goal of poverty reduction decided by the government in 2011. In that process rich data was generated, analyzed, interpreted and used for subsequent actions. The effect of the research is a deep insight and understanding of multi-level governance process in a specific policy area and a proposal for two new concepts. Emerging new research areas were proposed and discussed. ; Obszar teorii i badań, którego dotyczy artykuł, to wielopoziomowe rządzenie (multi-evel governance). Celem artykułu jest wprowadzenie do nauki o polityce publicznej dwóch nowych pojęć: konkretyzacja celu oraz wielopoziomowa koordynacja celu. W badaniach ugruntowujących tę propozycję zastosowano podejście jakościowe. Miały one charakter uczestniczący poprzez działanie (participative action research) w ramach praktyki polityki (policy work, policy practice). Autor jako przedstawiciel jednej z sieci organizacji pozarządowych brał aktywny udział w procesie realizacji Strategii Europa 2020 w Polsce w latach 2012-2015. Zasadniczym instrumentem badania uczestniczącego były działania na rzecz modyfikacji celu dotyczącego ubóstwa, który został ustalony przez polski rząd w roku 2011. Pozostałe dane pochodzą z analizy dokumentów i obserwacji uczestniczącej. W ich wyniku możliwe było uzyskanie głębszego zrozumienia procesu wielopoziomowego rządzenia w jednym z obszarów i propozycja nowych kategorii analitycznych. W rezultacie badań wyróżniono kilka faz krajowej konkretyzacji celu oraz dwa okresy wielopoziomowej koordynacji. Zaproponowano nowe kierunki rozwoju badań.