Suchergebnisse

In der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung wurden Unternehmen über lange Zeit hinweg als Akteure betrachtet, die Gewaltkonflikte eher verschärfen oder verlängern. Dies wurde insbesondere durch die Forschung zu Kriegsökonomien und zur Rolle natürlicher Ressourcen in Konflikten bekräftigt. In der Global Governance-Forschung wurde in den letzten Jahren jedoch auch diskutiert, inwieweit privatwirtschaftliche Akteure bzw. Unternehmen Steuerungsleistungen erbringen können und welche spezifische Rolle sie in Konfliktregionen haben. Das Forschungsprojekt zu 'Unternehmen in Konfliktzonen' an der Hessischen Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung greift diese Debatte über die potenziell positive Rolle von Unternehmen auf und geht der Frage nach, wie und unter welchen Bedingungen Unternehmen in Konfliktzonen zu Sicherheit und Frieden beitragen. Es wird dabei angenommen, dass Unternehmen dies auf zwei unterschiedlichen Wegen tun können: erstens unintentional durch ihre Geschäftstätigkeit und zweitens durch intentionale Aktivitäten im Rahmen von Corporate Governance. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden hierzu vier Fallstudien vorgestellt: (1) die Nahrungs- und Getränkeindustrie in Ruanda, (2) das Logistikunternehmen 'Kühne+Nagel' in Nordirland, (3) der Reiseveranstalter 'Studiosus' in Israel und (4) der Mineralölkonzern 'Shell' in Nigeria. (ICG)

The voice‐exit paradigm continues to serve as the framework for debating key issues in UK corporate governance. That paradigm, however, has become an anachronism with the recent changes in the scale and organisational structure of the UK asset management industry. As a result of these changes the "holding" and the "selling" of shares tend to be mutually inclusive rather than exclusive acts, and the capital market's corporate governance role is now exercised more through the gravitational pull of equity trading than through the medium of hostile takeovers. If the new realities are to be correctly appraised and factored into the corporate governance codes of conduct, the voice‐exit paradigm has to be abandoned in favour of an alternative framework that is attuned to these realities. The aim of this paper is to help develop such a framework.

Administrative leadership in UK central government has been reformed through the creation of boards in all departments and agencies. This `boardization' is modelled on principles of private sector corporate governance and is a civil service designed response to the administrative implications of depoliticization. It raises issues of political accountability and adaptation of private sector models to the public sector and therefore poses a challenge to the UK Whitehall model. Boardization has been variously implemented across accounting units of central government involving the negotiation of a variety of public sector bargains. It highlights a de-synchronization of administrative and political reforms but provides a potential for boards to become alternative locations for governance and accountability. The article registers concerns about the suitability of reform based on private sector corporate governance and identifies new research agendas.

Multi-level governance is seen by different commentators as addressing a varied array of concerns. Some see it as a means of fulfilling the norms of the new public management, and thereby of freeing the administration of government programs from the constraints imposed by centralized bureaucracy. Some assess it in terms of dealing with policy problems so complex that they can only be addressed by concerted and co-ordinated efforts of more than one level of government and, often, a variety of agencies. At the same time, multi-level governance is also associated with the attempt to introduce a greater degree of flexibility into federal policy-making, in order to ensure that federal policies respect the unique characteristics of different communities. In this study, we bring all of these concerns to bear on three case studies of the multi-level governance of federal properties in Winnipeg, the James A. Richardson International Airport, the Kapyong Barracks and The Forks. The three properties are all administered by agencies at least one step removed from direct government supervision. We posed two research questions: 1) Are the operations of these agencies, and the character of their relations with federal and municipal governments, appropriate to the ends they are meant to serve? 2) Do they respect community difference? In all three cases, we find that the objective of effective management is reasonably or very well served, but respect for community difference is much less evident.

This article focuses on a single case of a 'new governance' response to healthcare migration in the European Union: the EU Guidelines on block purchasing of cross-border healthcare 2005. Using this focus, the article highlights the differences between legal doctrinal analysis and other analytical or critical frameworks as applied to this new phenomenon of 'governance' in the European Union. It notes the predominant concerns of a 'legal' and a 'governance' framework for analysis. It then considers the basis of the Guidelines, the bodies concerned with their enforcement, the effects of the Guidelines, the relationship between law and implementation and the desirability of litigation, through each of the two analytical frameworks employed. Given the synergy between legal and new governance approaches to solving problems relating to healthcare migration in the EU, the article concludes that a synergistic framework for analysis, bringing together both 'legal' and 'governance' concerns, offers the most appropriate holistic approach for EU law and policy studies of this nature.

PurposeTo explore and explain differences in reform of activation policies, comparing the shifts in governance in France and The Netherlands from the 1990s onwards.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on in‐depth case studies of the reform process in activation policies, using documentary sources and interviews with several stake‐holders. The theoretical scope is the debate on institutional change, path‐dependency and convergence.FindingsAlthough both countries demonstrate converging tendencies in the transformation of their activation policies, there are remarkable differences in the new modes of governance. Moving away from a traditionally hierarchical organisation, France is gradually developing a network model with more emphasis on decentralisation. Alternatively, The Netherlands privatised their public employment services and explore principal – agent realtions in activation. The institutional context of both nation, in particular the concept of path‐dependency, seems crucial in the explanation of these differences. However, some new elements are path‐breaking in a national context but do not illustrate converging trends.Research limitations/implicationsThis comparative study is aimed at the fields of employment services, social benefits and social assistance in two countries. For a more complete approach of the changes is activation policies, further research is needed to include other fields of social policy and other nations whithin Europe.Originality/valueThe paper develops both empirical and theoretical conclusions on the path‐dependent and convergin elements in transforming labour market coordination throughout Europe.

We examine hypothesised links between the board of directors and firm performance as predicted by the three predominant theories in corporate governance research, namely agency theory, stewardship theory and resource dependence theory. By employing a pattern matching analysis of seven cases, we are able to examine the hypothesised link between board demography and firm performance expected under each theory. We find that while each theory can explain a particular case, no single theory explains the general pattern of results. We conclude by endorsing recent calls for a more process‐orientated approach to both theory and empirical analysis if we are to understand how boards add value.