Suchergebnisse

Abstract:  The objective of this article is to examine the extent to which a democratic conception of legitimate political authority can be applied to global regulatory regimes. The analysis is both a response to the concerns around the putative 'democratic deficit' at the domestic level that results from the globalization of governance functions and the need for global regulators to demonstrate a 'right to rule' in conditions in which it is no longer meaningful to speak about 'sovereignty' as legitimating the exercise of political power in world society. The essay draws on the work of Joseph Raz and Jürgen Habermas to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the idea of legitimate political authority – as it applies to democratic societies – before going on to consider the complexities that emerge from the recognition of multiple overlapping regimes, all of which can make a plausible claim to democratic legitimacy and a right to rule on the issue under consideration.

Given its change-resistant nature, how does federalism evolve to reflect the changing social and political context? This article compares the trajectories of Canadian and American federalism in response to the self-determination claims of indigenous peoples. Building on the literature on institutional change, I first suggest that both federations have followed similar patterns of institutional adaptation to indigenous claims through the development of multilevel governance (MLG) regimes that are layered over the existing federal structure without altering its foundations. I then underline the variations in the two MLG regimes and suggest these differences are the product of specific policy legacies as well as strategic choices made by the indigenous leadership, notably around venue selection. Adapted from the source document.

The relationship between state and non-state actors has been the subject of extensive debate within the governance literature. During this time two influential but very different accounts of governance have emerged: a society-centred account which talks of governance without government and a state-centric perspective which maintains that governance largely occurs by and through governments. There are of course alternative and more nuanced positions on offer. These two have nevertheless served to frame the debate around governance by engendering a zero-sum understanding of the relationship between state and non-state actors which obscures the way in which the presence of non-state actors can enhance the policy capacities of state actors and vice versa. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has been lauded as an exemplar of governance without government and has indeed, on occasions, had to overcome the indifference or even outright hostility of governments. But the society-centred account does not do justice to the range of very different and sometimes mutually beneficial relationships between the FSC and state actors. Adapted from the source document.

This symposium article examines how the threefold governance framework of the symposium actually works across multiple policy sectors and multiple politically systems. It undertakes a comparative survey of governance‐related developments across three policy sectors: environment, education/higher education and forests. To control for differentiation in political structures, the article studies the policy sectors with respect to three political systems Canada, England and Germany, taking into account the role of the European Union, the federal systems and international actors. This broad macro comparative focus enables the authors to make one of the first empirical efforts to assess the presence and sweep of governance arrangements across both policy sectors and states; and to assess the degree of convergence around particular governance practices.