Unexpected epidemics, abrupt catastrophic shifts in biophysical systems, and economic crises that cascade across national borders and regions are events that challenge the steering capacity of governance at all political levels. This article seeks to extend the applicability of governance theory by developing hypotheses about how different governance types can be expected to handle processes of change characterized by nonlinear dynam-ics, threshold effects, cascades, and limited predictability. The first part of the article argues the relevance of a complex adaptive system approach and goes on to review how well governance theory acknowledges the intriguing behavior of complex adaptive systems. In the second part, we develop a typology of governance systems based on their adaptive capacities. Finally, we investigate how combinations of governance systems on different levels buffer or weaken the capacity to govern complex adaptive systems. 1.
Who governs when nobody governs ?» This question is addressed by looking at phenomena that have become characteristic of cities today: violence, crime, immigration, mobility. Answering this question also requires paying more attention to different forms of regulation : state, market, along with cooperative/reciprocal modes of regulation. Risk embodies these different forms : it has become a common way of framing and addressing a wide variety of urban problems, suggesting that to govern is to identify and to manage vulnerabilities through different modes of regulation. Lastly, the question points to the uncertainty that characterizes city borders : these are constantly being redefined both by demographics, urbanization and political reforms. ; «Qui gouverne quand personne ne gouverne?» Pour répondre à cette question, plusieurs traits caractéristiques des villes contemporaines sont examinés : violence, criminalité, immigration, mobilité. Il convient aussi de s’intéresser de plus près à différentes formes de régulation : l’État, le marché et des formes qui font appel à la coopération ou la réciprocité. Le risque incarne ces différentes formes : il constitue une modalité de cadrage et de gestion de tout un ensemble de problèmes urbains, suggérant que gouverner revient d’abord et avant tout à identifier et gérer des vulnérabilités par le biais de différents modes de régulation. Enfin, la question renvoie aux incertitudes qui entourent les frontières de la ville : celles-ci sont en évolution permanente, sous l’effet de la démographie, de l’urbanisation et des réformes politiques.
For at least the last 15 years governance has been a prominent subject in public administration. Governance, defined by Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill as the “regimes, laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goals and services, ” holds strong interest for public administration scholars (2001, p.7). This chapter reviews and evaluates the evolution and development of the concept of governance in public administration; then, using regime theory from the study of international relations, the concept of governance as applied in public administration is analyzed, parsed, and framed. The present scholarly and conceptual use of the concept of governance in the field tends to take one or more of the following forms: (1) It is substantively the same as already established perspectives in public administration, although in a different language, (2) It is essentially the study of the contextual influences that shape the practices of public administration, rather than the study of public administration, (3) It is the study of interjurisdictional relations and third party policy implementation in public administration, (4) It is the study of the influence or power of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives. Of these approaches to public administration as governance, it is the third and fourth--governance as the public administration of interjurisdiction relations and third party policy implementation, and the governance
Članek podaja izhodišče za terminologizacijo pojma governance v slovenski politološki in komunikološki vedi. Ponuja družbeno-politično kontekstualizacijo izoblikovanja pojma governance, njegovo pojmovno razčlembo v razmerju do pojmov vladanje, upravljanje in vladavina, ki jo podpira z analizo korpusnih podatkov, in jezikoslovni poimenovalnoteoretski premislek o (ne)ustreznosti poimenovalnih različic, ki za ta pojem trenutno soobstajajo v slovenskih družboslovnih vedah. Avtorice ugotavljajo, da tako na pojmovni kot na izrazni ravni obstaja - trenutno neizpolnjena - potreba po doslednem razločevanju med pojmom governance kot vodenjem in koordinacijo vseh akterjev v javno-političnem procesu, vladanjem kot vodenjem in implementacijo javne politike, ki ju izvaja institucionalno definiran subjekt, ter upravljanjem, ki se nanaša zgolj na implementacijo določene politike. V prispevku je kot potencialno primerna poimenovalna rešitev za pojem governance predlagan izraz vladovanje, pri čemer avtorice kot ključni argument za terminologizacijo navajajo dosedanjo pomensko neobremenjenost izraza, obenem pa opozarjajo tudi na njegove poimenovalne pomanjkljivosti. ; This article provides a short contextualisation of use of the term governance at the international level and its uptake in Slovenian political and communication sciences. The authors then focus upon the lack of a clear consensus regarding the translation and definition of the term in Slovenian literature. They provide an analysis of Gigafida, the main corpus of the Slovenian language, concerning how the term governance is translated and used in the Slovenian language. The authors critically juxtapose the concepts of governance with the main current translations: government, governing and public administration and management. Finally, the authors propose that governance should be conceptualised as part of a newly coined term 'vladovanje' (Splichal 2008) since the absence of such a completely new term reduces the accuracy of Slovenian terminology.
Despite continuing disagreement about the meaning of ‘sustainable development’, the so-called triple-bottom-line trajectory- which would see economic advancement being achieved alongside social equity and environmental security- is viewed as one of the promises for future progress regionally, nationally and globally. At the regional level we are witnessing various experiments in governance that cut across, challenge and undermine existing decision-making structures. They are being developed and implemented because of the perceived failure of older forms of governance to deliver sustainable development. Do these experiments represent a re-vitalisation of participatory democracy – with the inclusion of environmental and social calculations ensuring that local communities and local ecologies have stronger ‘voices ’ in positive change? Do they represent a real devolution of power? Do they foster social inclusion? Importantly, do they challenge currently unsustainable patterns of development (those based, largely, on the continuation of productivist agriculture)? This address will examine the ‘regional experiment ’ that is occurring within the advanced societies, identifying the general features of the schemes, policies and programs that are being promoted to bring about sustainable development. It will examine the potential of participative processes to transform rural landscapes and will explore the contradictory nature of devolved governance in the context of centralised administrative arrangements. Finally, from a policy perspective, the talk will seek to identify the elements, and forms, of regional governance that appear to provide the best options for sustainable development.