This book seeks to pose and explore a question that sheds light on the contested but largely cooperative nature of Arctic governance in the post-Cold War period: how does power matter – and how has it mattered – in shaping cross-border cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic? Each chapter functions as a window through which power relations in the Arctic are explored. Issues include how representing the Arctic region matters for securing preferred outcomes, how circumpolar cooperation is marked by regional hierarchies and how Arctic governance has become a global social site in its own right, replete with disciplining norms for steering diplomatic behaviour. This book draws upon Russia's role in the Arctic Council as an extended case study and examines how Arctic cross-border governance can be understood as a site of competition over the exercise of authority.
The following chapter identifies the meaning and main features of corporate governance, underlines the importance of an entity, which regulates and balances the interests of shareholders, stakeholders, and managers in order to realize a corporation's long-run goals. Currently, all models of corporate governance can be divided by their characteristics into three types: Anglo-American, German, and Japanese; each of these models has some unique elements that are required by a particular country. The process of forming and development of corporate governance in transitional economies are described as well. As the accuracy of corporate government influences the wiliness of investors to sink their capital, it is crucial to understand the methods of corporate governance efficiency evaluation by international rating agencies. Moreover, the example of Enron Corporation's failure shows the exceptional role of corporate governance in protecting and ensuring the rights of shareholders and stakeholders, solving the conflict between managers seeking higher bonuses and investors' goals on stable future return and potential growth.
Governance is a highly contested concept that concerns the exercise of collective control towards common goals. In higher education institutes' (HEIs) context, the concept of governance refers to their internal structure, organisation and management. Simply explained, academic governance is the way in which universities are operated; it concerns both the internal (institutional) and external (system) governance of the institution. Internal governance refers to the institutional arrangements within universities (e.g., lines of authority, decision making processes, financing and staffing) whereas external governance refers to the institutional arrangements on the macro- or system-level (e.g., laws and decrees, funding arrangements, evaluations). The principal academic governance model for both public and private universities, until the 1980s, was based on a collegial shared form of governance. The tradition of shared governance rests on the assumption that faculty should hold a substantive role in decision making alongside the institution's key stakeholders; these stakeholders include the university Rector/President/CEO, and representatives from the management, administrative staff, and the students. The most visible vehicle for faculty involvement is typically a faculty senate or a similar body with a different name; such senates currently exist in more than 90 percent of colleges and universities in the U.S.A. and with small variations in Europe and the rest of the world. During the 1980s the idea of the so called corporate or entrepreneurial university emerged; it was based on the notion that, even non-profit public universities should be run as a business in order to address both the society and market needs and be able to control their own budgets. In practical terms this meant that universities should develop relationships with the industry, secure external (other than government) funding, and be able to at least break even in terms of managing their finance. Today, both models co-exist in a delicate balance: the traditional model advocates for free public higher education (HE) for anyone at any cost, whereas the new model argues for a market-driven performance-led university for those who can afford it. This entry is about the existing models of academic governance, their structure, key issues, and the current and future perspectives.
Die Eurokrise hat tiefgreifende Veränderungen im Gefüge von Institutionen und Kompetenzen in der Europäischen Union angestoßen, dafür stehen der 'Fiskalpakt' und die 'excessive imbalance procedure'. Ein effi zientes Governance-System hat sich aber bisher nicht herausgebildet. Die einzelnen Politikbereiche sind zudem innerhalb der EU unterschiedlich stark integrierbar. Zwischen Bereichen, in denen Zentralisierungstendenzen wünschenswert sind und solchen, in denen das Subsidiaritätsprinzip angemessen ist, muss klar unterschieden werden. Bei der Krisenbewältigung müssen demokratische Prinzipien dringend stärker beachtet werden.
Inhalt: - 1. Einleitung - 2. Ein friedensstrategisches Vakuum? - 3. Wandel in den Internationalen Beziehungen - 4. Der Sicherheitsbegriff im Global-Governance-Ansatz - 5. Bestehende Global Governance-Strukturen im Bereich "Frieden und Sicherheit" - 6. Fazit: Gemeinsame Sicherheit als friedensstrategisches Leitbild - Literatur
Current discourses in science, technology and innovation policy describe a shift from formal, governmental, or statutory regulation to non-hierarchical, informal, and cooperative self-regulatory approaches. They narrate a turn from government to governance, described as a "governance turn." Governance as a new and popular mode of regulation, deliberation and shared responsibility is often linked to favored attributes of science and technology development, and policy making such as democracy and responsibility. This article analyzes the connection between governance and ideas of accountable and democratic science and technology development in the case of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. For this purpose, soft law measures, self-regulatory initiatives, and public engagement projects in Europe and the U.S. were analyzed using the concept of social robustness (Nowotny et al. 2001). The study showed that most of the analyzed governance approaches and engagement projects only partially met aspects of social robustness, and that the governance and deliberative turn in science and technology policy has not led, so far, to greater democracy and responsibility in nanoscience and nanotechnology development. As a consequence, the delegation of techno-political decision making to less socially robust governance approaches might lead to a vacuum in science and technology policy and affect not only academic knowledge production but also the innovative force of a society.
It has now become quite obvious that the Internet has brought significant changes to our society and a break on how we lived before its emergence. It is still too early to assess the impact on society of the new services at our disposal, such as the capacity to communicate faster and cheaper on a global scale, access information and, perhaps more importantly, to produce and disseminate information in a way that is accessible to all. It is clear that the advent of the Information Society implies changes in our society that constitute a point of no return. However, contrary to what happened when we entered the Industrial Age about three centuries ago, when the changing process was slow and led by older individuals, these days the entrance into the Information Society is taking place rapidly and the decisive players are younger people. The global nature of the Internet, the possibility of producing and distributing any type of content in digital form at almost zero cost, as well as the vast number of people who use the web, have highlighted the need for new forms of intervention in a sector where there are many types of players. It is in this context that the problem of Internet Governance becomes a very current issue, inasmuch as one feels the need to guarantee a diversity of rights and duties, which may appear difficult to reconcile. This paper presents a brief overview of the main players and initiatives which, in the field of Internet Governance, have tried to contribute to turning this network into a factor for social development and democraticity on a global scale.
Das europäische Verwaltungsrecht steht vor Koordinierungsproblemen, die es mit einer eigenen Perspektive auf Governance einzufangen hat. Am Beispiel der europäischen Regulierungsverbünde in den Netzwirtschaften wird deutlich, wie neue Formen exekutiver Zusammenarbeit, die auf die Institutionalisierung horizontalen Vertrauens ausgerichtet sind, entstehen. Das hat Konsequenzen. Stärker als bisher müssen Entkoppelungen von Politik und Recht in den Beobachtungsrahmen eingestellt werden. Recht, so argumentiert der Beitrag, hat horizontalen Freiheitsgefährdungen auch dort zu begegnen, wo der Rückgriff auf den Willen eines kollektiven Makrosubjekts aus-scheidet, universelle Vernunft aber nicht zu haben ist.
Progress in measuring governance is assessed using a simple framework that distinguishes between indicators that measure formal rules and indicators that measure the practical application or outcomes of these rules. The analysis calls attention to the strengths and weaknesses of both types of indicators as well as the complementarities between them. It distinguishes between the views of experts and the results of surveys and assesses the merits of aggregate as opposed to individual governance indicators. Some simple principles are identified to guide the use and refinement of existing governance indicators and the development of future indicators. These include transparently disclosing and accounting for the margins of error in all indicators, drawing from a diversity of indicators and exploiting complementarities among them, submitting all indicators to rigorous public and academic scrutiny, and being realistic in expectations of future indicators.
Das vorliegende Papier definiert und diskutiert das Konzept der Economic Governance. Die Kernfrage des Papiers ist, in welcher Form wirtschaftliche Akteure Governance-Leistungen – wie etwa Vertragssicherheit oder Eigentumsrechte – bereitstellen können. Außerdem werden Beispiele aufgeführt, wie der Marktmechanismus gezielt bei politischer Steuerung eingesetzt wird. Dabei wird die aktuelle ökonomische Literatur zu Governance und Institutionen gezielt für die deutsche Governance-Debatte zusammengefasst. Das Papier zeigt, dass private Akteure gerade in Entwicklungsländern fehlende Staatlichkeit durch eigene Governance-Formen ersetzen. Sie schaffen sich selbst die nötigen Rahmenbedingungen ihrer wirtschaftlichen Transaktionen. Auch in entwickelten Ländern gibt es eine Vielzahl solch privater Steuerungsformen wirtschaftlicher Akteure. Diese können als Economic Governance verstanden werden, allerdings nur, wenn sie intentional auf die Ordnungsbildung der Wirtschaft Einfluss nehmen. Die "spontane" Bereitstellung von Gütern und Dienstleistungen durch Märkte kann nicht zu Governance gezählt werden.
I. Einführung …1 II. Kommunikationspolitik und Governance in der Kommunikationswissenschaft …7 1\. Begriffsklärung: Medienpolitik – Kommunikationspolitik …8 2\. Perspektiven auf Kommunikationspolitik …14 3\. Pluralisierung: Von der Kommunikationspolitik zur Media Governance? …18 4\. Media Governance: Governance-Rezeption in der Kommunikationspolitik …22 5\. Zwischenfazit: Wege zu einem Governance-Konzept für die Kommunikationswissenschaft …34 III. Entwicklung eines kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Governance-Begriffs …40 1\. Einführung in die Governance-Forschung und ihre Genese …42 2\. Governance als analytische Perspektive …47 3\. Definitionen eines anerkannt uneindeutigen Begriffs …51 4\. Zwischenfazit: Ein kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Governance-Begriff …70 IV. Institutionentheoretische Fundierung von Governance …73 1\. Einführung: Institutionentheoretische Ansätze …74 2\. Institutionen als Regelungs- und Erwartungsstrukturen …81 3\. Dimensionen von Institutionen …85 4\. Governance und Institutionen: Eine Prozess-Perspektive …96 5\. Zusammenführung: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Governance-Perspektive …108 V. Governance und Technik …124 1\. Technik aus einer Governance-Perspektive …125 2\. Technik und Gesellschaft: Von Technizismen und Konstruktivismen …128 3\. Technik in Kommunikationswissenschaft und Kommunikationspolitik …149 4\. Perspektiven der Wiederentdeckung von Technik …189 5\. Zusammenführung: Technik in gesellschaftlichen Ordnungs- und Regelungsprozessen …217 VI. Perspektiven einer kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Governance-Forschung …235 1\. Von Dimensionen zu Forschungsperspektiven …235 2\. Eine Governance-Perspektive auf das Regelungsfeld Urheberrecht …242 3\. Governance als Kommunikationspolitik und Regulierung …252 4\. Governance als Aushandlung normativer Erwartungen …260 5\. Governance als Diskurs und Deutungsmuster …272 6\. Governance als technische Regelung …283 VII. Fazit und Ausblick …298 VIII. Literaturverzeichnis …310 ; Diese Arbeit entwickelt Perspektiven einer ...
The widespread use of Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) is beginning to create problems derived from the governance of said structures. To date there is not a single effective solution to solve all existing challenges to govern this type of infrastructure. This paper describes the problems encountered when designing a SOA governance solution in a real e-Government scenario. More specifically, we focus on problems related to specification and automated analysis of government policies. We propose a novel SOA governance specification model as a solution to these problems. We have named this model WS-Governance. in order to ease its adoption by SOA practitioners it: i) shares WS-Policy guidelines and is compatible with it, ii) has XML serialization as well as a plain-text one and iii) has a CSP based semantics that provides a precise description as well as facilitating the automation of some editing and WS-Governance related activities such as consistency checking.
L'Unione Europea vive oggi una situazione di difficoltà che è frutto dell' impasse subìto negli anni post Maastricht 1992. Gli anni dei Trattati hanno permesso all'Unione di poter accrescere e consolidare il proprio ruolo, in quanto organizzazione sovranazionale di Stati, sia in termini economici che politici e sociali. Tuttavia, la battuta di arresto ha comportato una serie di conseguenze tuttora in atto: l'incapacità di mettere in pratica il progetto della buona governance per sanare i deficit democratico e comunicativo; la difficoltà di riavvicinare alle proprie istituzioni i cittadini europei che, mai prima di adesso, si erano sentiti così distanti dall'Unione Europea; l'inerzia che vivono le istituzioni di fronte alla carenza di rappresentatività democratica del Parlamento Europeo. L'Unione ha dovuto impegnarsi per riformulare se stessa: ha così predisposto numerosi piani e strumenti per dare un nuova impostazione all'Europa, per rispondere alla crisi di immagine e aprirsi alla società civile. Nonostante gli sforzi, l'Unione fatica oggi a riconfermarsi quale progetto iniziale recepito in una prospettiva ottimistica. L'euroscetticismo e le circostanze esogene come la crisi finanziaria del 2008 hanno intaccato il sistema di governance, rendendo quasi impossibile per l'Unione attuare i principi espressi all'interno del Libro sulla governance, orientati alla realizzazione di democrazia partecipativa enunciata dal Trattato di Lisbona del 2009. La governance è quindi oggi un progetto ancora in fieri: è necessario che l'Unione riveda i propri meccanismi, affinché realizzi un nuovo progetto di unione politica nel rispetto dei principi di dialogo, apertura e partecipazione e smentisca il sentimento di disaffezione ed estraneità avvertito dai cittadini europei.
È da almeno un ventennio che si assiste all'uso crescente del termine governance nei più diversi ambiti istituzionali, politici e di ricerca e con significati e implicazioni differenti nei diversi contesti d'utilizzo. In particolare, nella comunità scientifica essa attraversa le contemporanee dottrine dell'amministrazione e dello stato (New Public Management, dottrine o teorie della regolazione), le teorie dell'organizzazione delle corporazioni economiche (corporate governance), i dibattiti sul governo locale e urbano, alcuni sviluppi della politica internazionale (global governance). Il contributo si propone di ricostruire queste diverse accezione segnalandone i termini di rilievo per la contemporanea riflessione politica e politologica.
