[Abstract] This research presents a proposal for a study of governance from the perspective presented in the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) of the European Union, which seeks to provide coherence to the problems in the maritime sector through the coordination of all stakeholders in the maritime sector. The objective of this research is to identify the barriers and the problems that occur when a Member State tries to implement the Integrated Maritime Policy in the governmental organization of marine spaces. The challenge is to achieve 'blue governance' i.e.the activation of a network of cooperation between the different stakeholders of the port sectors so as to be able to integrate the different regional, national, European and international levels with the purpose of establishing a structured, systematic collaboration framework. ; [Resumo] Esta investigación ofrece unha proposta para o estudo da gobernanza desde a perspectiva presentada na Política Marítima Integrada (PMI) da Unión Europea, que busca proporcionarlles coherencia aos problemas do sector marítimo desde a coordinación de todos os interesados. O obxectivo desta investigación é identificar as barreiras e os problemas que ocorren cando un Estado membro intenta implementar a Política Marítima Integrada na organización gobernamental de espazos mariños. O desafío que se tenta conseguir é lograr a gobernanza azul, é dicir, a activación dunha rede de cooperación entre as diferentes partes interesadas do sector portuario para poder integrar os diferentes niveis rexionais, nacionais, europeos e internacionais de cara a unha estrutura colaborativa.
International Conference "Ocean Governance in Archipelagic Regions", 7-10 October 2019, Faial, Azores, Portugal. ; A gestão das pescas na Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA) é feita com base na Política Comum de pescas (PCP, Regulamento UE nº 1380/2013, de 11 de dezembro), que deverá ir ao encontro dos requisitos presentes na Diretiva Quadro Estratégia Marinha (DQEM, Diretiva nº 2008/56/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 17 de junho) e estar alinhada com os objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável das Nações Unidas, nomeadamente o #14. A União Europeia (UE), através destes diplomas, exige aos estados membros que implementem medidas de gestão eficientes que assegurem a sustentabilidade social, económica e ambiental das atividades extrativas, incluindo a monitorização regular dos recursos explorados e seus habitats. Neste sentido a UE instituiu um quadro para a recolha e gestão de dados da pesca (Regulamento (UE) 2017/1004, de 17 maio) cujo principal objetivo é assegurar a recolha de dados, por todos os estados membros, que serão posteriormente disponibilizados e utilizados para efeitos de gestão das pescarias comunitárias. A monitorização da atividade pesqueira vem também expressa no art. 15º da PCP ao proibir as rejeições. Isto representa uma mudança fundamental no sistema de gestão das pescarias europeias face ao anterior regulamento base, que permite monitorizar todas as frações da captura e não apenas os desembarques. Um regime de gestão específico de acesso à pesca de espécies em profundidade foi também implementado pela EU (Regulamento (UE) 2016/2336, de 14 dezembro) e prevê, entre outros constrangimentos, uma cobertura mínima das operações de pesca em profundidade. A sustentabilidade das pescarias regionais e a garantia do bom estado ambiental é uma imposição clara da UE e passa pela tomada de medidas eficientes de gestão pesqueira que tenham por base informação obtida ao abrigo de programas sistemáticos de monitorização de recursos, da pesca e dos habitats marinhos. De facto, as decisões estratégicas a adotar na gestão dos recursos marinhos devem basear-se no conhecimento científico sólido e bem fundamentado sobre o nível de exploração que as unidades populacionais podem suportar, tendo em consideração também os potenciais efeitos que sobre eles podem exercer outras pressões. Consciente das obrigações impostas e das necessidades ao nível da recolha de dados da pesca, a administração regional garante a execução do Programa Nacional de Recolha de Dados da Pesca (PNRD) e financia uma série de outros programas de monitorização em estreita colaboração com o Departamento de Oceanografia e Pescas da Universidade dos Açores. Alguns destes programas com uma série temporal de dados considerável, como são a campanha anual de demersais (ARQDAÇO) para estimação de abundâncias de recursos demersais e o Programa de Observação das Pescas dos Açores (POPA) para a recolha de dados das pescarias da região, com especial atenção à pescaria de atum de salto e vara. Acresce a estes programas de monitorização, o COSTA (COnsolidating Sea Turtle conservation in the Azores) que numa parceria com instituições estrangeiras prevê a recolha de dados na pescaria de palangre derivante de superfície, a de maior impacto na conservação de tartarugas marinhas que ocorrem na RAA. No que respeita aos recursos marinhos costeiros de interesse comercial a informação existente resume-se a estudos pontuais, o que levanta alguma incerteza relativamente à eficácia das medidas de gestão implementadas para algumas pescarias. Esta lacuna no conhecimento levou a administração regional, em 2019, a iniciar o financiamento um novo programa de monitorização de recursos costeiros e avaliação do seu estado de conservação (MoniCo), para assim, de forma consciente, impor medidas que permitam a sustentabilidade destas pescarias. A estes programas de monitorização acrescem-se os trabalhos que têm sido desenvolvidos ao nível da caracterização socioeconómica do ativo da pesca bem como do bem-estar financeiro dos mesmos. ; ABSTRACT: Fisheries management in the Autonomous Region of the Azores (RAA) is based on the Common Fisheries Policy (PCP, Regulation (EU) 1380/2013, 11 December), which should meet the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (DQEM, Directive No. 2008/56 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 17 June) and be aligned with the United Nations' sustainable development objectives, namely # 14. The European Union (EU), through these diplomas, requires member states to implement efficient management measures that ensure the social, economic and environmental sustainability of extractive activities, including the regular monitoring of exploited resources and their habitats. Accordingly, the EU has introduced a framework for fisheries data collection and management (Regulation (EU) 2017/1004, 17 May) whose main objective is to ensure the data collection, by all member states, which will later be made available and used for fisheries management purposes. Monitoring of fishing activity also expressed in art. 15 of the PCP, which ban the discards. This represents a fundamental shift in the European fisheries management system when compared with the previous regulation, which allows monitoring of all catch components and not only the landings. A specific management regime for access to deep-sea fishing also been implemented by the EU (Regulation (EU) 2016/2336, 14 December) and provides, among other constraints, minimum coverage for deep-sea fishing operations. The sustainability of regional fisheries and the guarantee of a good environmental status is a clear requirement of the EU, which involves efficient fisheries management measures based on information obtained under systematic fisheries resource and marine habitats monitoring programs. In fact, the strategic decisions to be taken in the management of marine resources must be based on solid and well-founded scientific knowledge concerning the level of exploitation that stocks can support, and also taking into account the potential effects that other pressures may have on them. Aware of the obligations imposed and the needs for fisheries data collection, the regional administration guarantees the execution of the Azores Data Collection Framework (DCF) and support several monitoring programs in close collaboration with the Department of Oceanography and Fisheries at the University of the Azores. Some of these programs have a considerable time series of data, such as the annual demersal campaign (ARQDAÇO) for estimating abundance of demersal resources and the Azores Fisheries Observer Program (POPA) for data collection from the regional fisheries, with special attention to pole-and-line tuna fishery. In addition to these monitoring programs, COSTA (COnsolidating Sea Turtle conservation in the Azores) in partnership with international institutions, foresees the data collection in the surface longline fishery, which has the greatest impact on the conservation of sea turtles that occur in the RAA. With regard to coastal marine resources of commercial interest, the existing information is limited to specific studies, which raises some uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of the management measures implemented for some fisheries. This knowledge gap led the regional administration, in 2019, to support a new monitoring program for coastal resources (MoniCo) that will help to assess their conservation status and thus impose more consciously measures that allow the sustainability of these fisheries. In addition to these monitoring programs, work has been carried out on the socioeconomic characterization of the fishing asset as well as their financial well-being. ; Azores Regional Government - Regional Directorate for Fisheries. Regional Directorate for Fisheries supports for better management, among other programs and projects: POPA, COSTA, CONDOR, ARQDAÇO, PNRD and the, recently created, MONICO - Monitoring Program for Coastal Resources. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Corporate governance (CG) needs to acknowledge the intentional part of governance, where an actor of governance uses the set of corporate governance mechanisms in order to influence the agent to create a performance that will satisfy the interest of the principal. This paper offers a conception of this activity through the concept of governance strategy. The concept is derived within the context of agency theory and applied to two empirical organisations seldom investigated in CG research: the organisation of a riding school in a democratic not-for-profit association and the organisation of multinational corporations in a business group. ; The project is financed by The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. An earlier version was presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta. Georgia, August 11-16, 2006. The paper has benefited from comments by Elin Smith, Kristianstad University.
Our nation has the longest written constitution but the implementation of the Local Governance has been transferred and their efficiency has properly monitored or rectified by the state and central government. This is conceptual research has been done in the implementation process. This research mainly focused on quality of life. The Lack of Implementation process is connected with resource exploitation. Resource exploitation has two type's human resource exploitation and natural resource exploitation. The directly three systems are connected with sustainable development but overall development left without because of bureaucratic, social leaders, and Knowledgeable people this research is not critical research but this research has a starting point for many reformations. This concept has defined implementation process is not based on rule of law it should be considered by social issues and clearly instructing for the proper implementation process and reduce the level exploitation and monitoring the unethical professionals and their rectification processing time will be less. This concept has separated no proper implementation process and improper implementation and analyzing the important factors for the proper implementation process. The factors like misuse of power and inefficiency should not affect the proper implementation process. The result of the lack of implementation process is organized resource exploitation. This plan will reduce the worst handling of decentralization process may be a strong reason for the lack of implementation process will directly connect with the organized resource exploitation. This research focusing on the efficiency and equity of the governance strongly insisted people should train by the local governance free from favoritism, partial's and nepotism, thisplanhas look into transforming the local governance. It will solve prolonging and procrastination in their issues It will reduce the organized crime result of lack of implementation process. Identify the exploiter or victim. ...
This article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design-based governance, with power exercised ex ante via choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self-governance, and co-governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design-based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re-conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.
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.
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.
Public sector innovation labs are becoming an increasingly visible instrument in public sector innovation and experimentation. Proponents of these labs claim they can play an important role in addressing pressing social challenges, changing government structures and thereby shaping ideas and practices of future governance. Whilst some research has been carried out on public innovation labs, the focus of inquiry has been primarily on the emergence, models and activities of labs in Europe and North America. This paper attempts to contribute to this growing body of research by bringing forth some of the particularities of this phenomenon as it emerges in Latin America. Using as starting point three experimental interests identified in the available literature, namely increasing flexibilization of public procedures, developing methods for citizen engagement and experimental development of public policies, the paper presents insights and observations from a study of ten public sector innovation labs in Latin America. In particular, our focus is on how these interests are confronted with different realities and therefore what kind of challenges the labs face. Experimentation in Latin America seems to concern not only flexibilization, engagement and public policies; it also includes juggling with the tensions arising from budgetary constraints, the need to weave networks of regional labs to collaborate and finally the need to align their agendas to those of other institutions, while being accountable to different levels of society. This places Latin American labs in a different light than their European and North American counterparts. ; Peer reviewed
Algorithmic governance as a key concept in controversies around the emerging digital society highlights the idea that digital technologies produce social ordering in a specific way. Starting with the origins of the concept, this paper portrays different perspectives and objects of inquiry where algorithmic governance has gained prominence ranging from the public sector to labour management and ordering digital communication. Recurrent controversies across all sectors such as datafication and surveillance, bias, agency and transparency indicate that the concept of algorithmic governance allows to bring objects of inquiry and research fields that had not been related before into a joint conversation. Short case studies on predictive policy and automated content moderation show that algorithmic governance is multiple, contingent and contested. It takes different forms in different contexts and jurisdictions, and it is shaped by interests, power, and resistance.
Corporate governance is a recent concept that encompasses the costs caused by managerial misbehavior. Corporate governance is concerned with how organizations in general, and corporations in particular, produce value and how that value is distributed among the members of the corporation, its stakeholders. The interrelation of value production and value distribution links the ubiquitous technological aspect (the production of value) with the moral and ethical dimension (the distribution of value). Corporate governance is concerned with this link in general, but more specifically with the moral and ethical dimensions of distributing the generated value among the stakeholders. Value in firms is created by firm-specific investments, and the motivation and coordination of value enhancing activities and investment is protected by the power concentrated at the pyramidal top of the organization. In modern companies, it is the CEO and the top management deciding how to create value and how to distribute it among the relevant stakeholders. Due to asymmetric information and the imperfect nature of markets and contracts, adverse selection and moral hazard problems occur, where delegated (selected) managers could act in their own interest at the costs of other relevant stakeholders. Corporate governance is a two-tailed concept. The first aspect is about identifying the (most) relevant stakeholder(s), separating theory and practice into two different and conflicting streams: the stakeholder value approach and the shareholder value approach. The second aspect of the concept is about providing and analyzing different mechanisms, reducing the costs induced by moral hazard and adverse selection effects, and to balance out the motivation and coordination problems of the relevant stakeholders. Corporate governance is an interdisciplinary concept encompassing academic fields like finance, economics, accounting, law, taxation and psychology, among others. Like countries differ according to their institutions (i.e. legal and political systems, norms, and rules), firms differ according to their size, age, dominant shareholders or industries. Thus concepts in corporate governance differ along these dimensions as well. And while the underlying characteristics vary in time, continuously or as an exogenous shock, concepts in corporate governance are dynamic and static, offering a challenging field of interest for academics, policy makers and firm managers.
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.
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.
