“Adversarial legalism” in the German system of industrial relations?

The US has a distinctive legal style, which Robert Kagan has called “adversarial legalism.” It is marked by a pattern of political decisionmaking and conflict resolution in which the courtrooms and the law are systematically exploited as political arenas for making and implementing political settlements and policy outlines. In this article it is argued that a “German way” of adversarial legalism is about to emerge in the German industrial relations system. Economic liberalization, the fragmentation and decentralization of lawmaking authority in the political sphere, and the common‐law‐like nature of German labor law have contributed to the appearance of a judicialized pattern of governance. Nonetheless, Germany is not converging on the “American way of law” and major differences are expected to persist in the years to come.     

Steering at a Distance: A New Paradigm of Public Governance in Dutch Higher Education

In the 1980s a new concept of government steering was developed at the Dutch ministry of Education and Sciences, called “steering at a distance.” It is a departure from “classical” government steering by means of legislation, prohibitions and regulations and a move towards more autonomy and self-responsibility for institutions of higher education. This new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education represents a drastic change both in a practical sense — the new steering concept has actually been carried out and implemented resulting in major institutional, legal, financial and planning changes — and in the scientific sense. The new concept departs from hierarchical, direct top-down control. Government is only one of the influencing actors in a complex network of many interrelated, more or less autonomous actors. The new concept contributes to the scientific body of knowledge on steering in complex interorganizational networks.     

Is Governance Reform a Catalyst for Development?

International development agencies contend developing countries can boost rates of economic growth by introducing “good governance” measures. However, close analysis of specific governance reforms and economic turning points in the United States (when it was a developing country), Argentina, Mauritius, and Jamaica suggests that the agencies underestimate the time and political effort required to change governance, and overestimate the economic impact. Counter to optimistic claims about how much “institutions matter,” these carefully selected cases imply that greater transparency, accountability, and participation are often a result, rather than a direct cause of faster development. Furthermore, they show that closed institutions may be a satisfactory platform for rapid growth, provided those institutions open over time. Policymakers need to understand these processes better before counting on governance reforms to be the springboard out of poverty for most developing countries today.     

“超行政治理”:党建引领的基层治理逻辑与工作路径

当前,行政化治理导致基层社会陷入“行政有效,治理无效”的治理危机,表现为治理碎片化、治理封闭化和治理等级化。需要打破行政科层组织的结构性壁垒,破解行政化治理造成的基层治理困境。执政党通过发挥政党的组织和政治优势,依托政党的政治整合功能和社会整合功能,促进治理与服务的有效融合,在基层治理场域形成了一种强调政党引领的“超行政治理”模式。与政府主导的行政化治理相比较,政党引领下的“超行政治理”以基础性权力为基础,依托政党权威,实现治理效能提升。具体而言,“超行政治理”通过三种治理机制展开运作。第一,运用党建的空间塑造功能推动组织整合,建构基层共治平台;第二,依靠政治引领功能促进价值整合,实现话语转换;第三,通过社会动员功能助推社会建构,再造社区团结。“超行政治理”以其政治整合和社会建构的工作逻辑,在基层治理场域推动了治理主体的跨组织协同、治理价值的共识维护以及治理权威的社会化建构。     

历史政治学的功能分析

历史政治学的提出引发了中国政治学界的广泛关注。作为一种新型研究路径的历史政治学不但具有客观的分析主义特征,而且和其它政治理论的研究路径一样,还具有鲜明的功能主义特征。历史政治学首先回答了政治理论的知识来源问题,从而为建构中国自主性政治学知识体系提供了可能。基于政治学取向的政治史研究有助于避免因“文化转向”而导致的历史研究的碎片化问题,这意味着历史政治学研究既追求“真相”也关怀“真理”。历史政治学的知识功能自然有其政治实践价值,那就是为治国理政提供历史解释与现实论述,并为认识合法性政治提供一套不同于理性人假设的历时性方案。     

Netzwerkstruktur, Handlungslogik und politische Räume: Institutionenwandel in europäischen und nordamerikanischen Grenzregionen

This paper is a contribution to the debate on political order and governance in a “debordered world” beyond the “Westphalian system”. It is based on empirical information about the development and change of political institutions in cross-border regions in Europe and North America in the 20th century. First, it is shown that the nation state is loosing its gate keeper role at the end of the century and that various sub-national actors institutionalise independent cross-border links or participate on an equal footing. Therefore, the pattern of interaction is changing from formal hierarchies to networks. Nevertheless, if we define hierarchies and networks as modes of governance, we cannot conform such a change since the mode of interaction has not changed over the years. There does not exist and never has existed any other mode of interaction as “negotiated agreement”. What has changed is the institutional logic for finding such a cross-border agreement. Whereas older institutions were designed to find a common solution by using a technocratic-deductive logic, younger institutions use a symbolic-inductive logic (mainly in Europe). In North America they are based either on a rationalistic-evolutionary logic (at the US-Mexican border) or on a discursive-constructivist logic (in the Pacific Northwest). Also in respect to the much proposed tendency towards “deterritorialization” of political orders we find strong differences between the continents: Whereas in Europe even the younger institutions are based on “spaces of place”, in North America the more recent institutions are much more oriented towards “spaces of flows”.     

When doctors shape policy: The impact of self‐regulation on governing human biotechnology

This paper investigates the development and adoption of governance modes in the field of human biotechnology. As the field of human biotechnology is relatively new, voluntary professional self‐regulation constituted the initial governing mode. In the meantime, with the exception of Ireland, all Western European countries have moved toward greater state intervention. Nevertheless, they have done so in contrasting ways and the resulting governance modes for assisted reproductive technology and embryonic stem‐cell research vary greatly. Instead of imposing their steering capacity in a “top‐down” fashion, governments have taken pre‐existing self‐regulatory arrangements in the field into account and built up governance mechanisms in conjunction with private actors and pre‐existing modes of private governance. Our analysis demonstrates that the form and content of the initial self‐regulation explain why the self‐steering capacity of the medical profession was largely or at least partially preserved through hybrid governance systems in Britain and Germany, while in France the self‐regulation was entirely replaced by governmental intervention.     

A novel understanding of experimentation in governance: co-producing innovations between “lab” and “field”

What do experiments do for governance? Along with pragmatist and performative conceptions, we argue that they do not test already existing conditions of governing, but actively transform such conditions. Experiments help to realize specific models of governance by co-producing collective knowledge and material practices. We analyze a series of experiments with “emissions trading” in the USA between 1968 and 2000. The historical perspective shows how different types of experiments worked together: experiments in the laboratory and in the field supported each other in creating epistemic and political authority. This “ping-pong between lab and field” produced subjects and objects, facts and values, knowledge and power and aligned them in a new socio-material configuration, thus realizing emissions trading as a new form of governance.     

Steuerung jenseits von Hierarchie

The paper sheds new light on recent debates about governance and approaches contemporary problems of governing from the perspective of contemporary theories of power. The concept of “soft governing” is developed in order to capture horizontal mechanisms of power intentionally used to govern beyond formalised hierarchies characteristic of processes of governance. The paper describes in particular the horizontal forms of governing through discursive practices, argumentation and symbols and the ways in which they interact. The example of campaigns against female genital mutilation is introduced in order to illustrate possible forms of governing beyond hierarchy.     

论转型社会廉洁政治文化的构建

政治文化属于社会意识形态的范畴,它决定着人们政治行为的内在动机和价值取向。我国传统政治文化在推动社会进步与发展的同时,也衍生出包括臣民式政治文化、伦常式政治文化和人治式政治文化在内的一些落后的腐败的政治文化,它们对我国当前出现的"家长制"、"一言堂"、"人情网"、"裙带风"、"重人治轻法治"等社会现象产生了重要影响。改革开放三十多年来,我国逐步形成了具有中国特色的廉洁政治文化,对推动中国特色社会主义政治文化建设发挥了重要作用,但由于转型社会的急剧变化以及多元文化的影响,我国当前的廉洁政治文化建设还面临着诸多问题和困难。加强理想信念教育,加快法制化进程,铲除封建社会政治文化糟粕,是构建新型的社会主义廉洁政治文化的重要路径选择。     

The Political Frame for Negotiated Capitalism: Electoral Reform and the Politics of Crisis in Japan and Sweden

This article examines the impact of political institutions on the strength of executive governments as well as the consequences of that strength for policymaking. It argues that both political changes and electoral reforms in Japan and Sweden have weakened the political frame for “negotiated” or “coordinated” decision making in these nations. In Sweden, however, the complete demolition of the old political frame has opened up opportunities and incentives for new modes of governance. In Japan, by contrast, reforms have buttressed rather than dismantled the old frame, impeding the transition to a new approach.     

Globalization and legal change: The “Americanization” of European law?

Intensified global economic competition, economic liberalization, and the rise of EU governance have led some observers to argue that there has been a trend toward the “Americanization” of the European “way of law.” This article addresses that contention, focusing on legal change in European member states. It first describes ways in which the American legal tradition has differed most sharply from the national legal systems of Western Europe (including Great Britain) and the political and economic factors that account for this “American legal distinctiveness.” Similar political and economic factors currently are at work in Europe, the article acknowledges, creating incentives for legal convergence. But it also argues that European legal culture and the political organization of European national states generate path‐dependent forces that impede European movement toward American ways of law, and it discusses six important differences between European and American law that remain entrenched and are unlikely to disappear.     

Can non‐state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework

In the absence of effective national and intergovernmental regulation to ameliorate global environmental and social problems, “private” alternatives have proliferated, including self‐regulation, corporate social responsibility, and public–private partnerships. Of the alternatives, “non‐state market driven” (NSMD) governance systems deserve greater attention because they offer the strongest regulation and potential to socially embed global markets. NSMD systems encourage compliance by recognizing and tracking, along the market’s supply chain, responsibly produced goods and services. They aim to establish “political legitimacy” whereby firms, social actors, and stakeholders are united into a community that accepts “shared rule as appropriate and justified.” Drawing inductively on evidence from a range of NSMD systems, and deductively on theories of institutions and learning, we develop an analytical framework and a preliminary set of causal propositions to explicate whether and how political legitimacy might be achieved. The framework corrects the existing literature’s inattention to the conditioning effects of global social structure, and its tendency to treat actor evaluations of NSMD systems as static and strategic. It identifies a three‐phase process through which NSMD systems might gain political legitimacy. It posits that a “logic of consequences” alone cannot explain actor evaluations: the explanation requires greater reference to a “logic of appropriateness” as systems progress through the phases. The framework aims to guide future empirical work to assess the potential of NSMD systems to socially embed global markets.     

Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society

Governance became a catch-all concept for various forms of steering by state and non-state actors. While it pays tribute to the complexities of steering in poly-centred, globalised societies, its fuzziness makes it difficult to oversee who actually steers whom and with what means. By focussing mainly on actor constellations, the article disentangles governance into seven basic types of regulation, four of them representing public policies with varying degrees of government involvement and three depending solely on civil society (civil regulation), on businesses (industry or business self-regulation) or on both (civil co-regulation). Although each of the seven types is well known and extensively researched, they are rarely joined in a synoptic view, making it difficult to grasp the totality of contemporary governance. After introducing the seven basic types of regulation and co-regulation, the article addresses the interactions between them and it adds the widely used concepts of hybrid regulation and meta-governance in distinct ways. The synoptic view provided here helps to comprehend how governmental deregulation has been accompanied by soft governmental regulation as well as “societal re-regulation”. The concluding discussion emphasises that this “regulatory reconfiguration” is the cumulative product of countless, more or less spontaneous initiatives that coincide with forceful global trends. It also stresses that the various forms of regulation by civil society and business actors are not simply alternatives or complements to but often key prerequisites for effective public policies. Although the essentials of the typology developed here can be applied universally to a variety of policy issues, I focus it on how businesses are steered towards sustainable development and Corporate Social Responsibility.     

THE MARKET PROVISION OF MANDATORY SOCIAL SECURITY: Protecting the Public Interest in Perpetuity

Pressures to introduce market reforms to public social security system emerged as a reaction to state welfare paternalism, drawing strength from the spirit of liberalism and emphasizing the virtues of the marketplace. Market reform advocates seek to shift the prevailing social security paradigm away from community solidarity to individual responsibility, with a view to divesting government of some of its statutory social security responsibilities. Market reform of public social security provision redefines the public‐private boundary, making socio‐political governance more a process of co‐ordination, steering, influencing, and balancing pluralist interactions, with the civil service increasingly expected to act as trustee of the public interest. What, however, the public interest is and how it differs from private interest is problematic and it should reflect the shared values that create social bonds and identity within a society. The daunting twin challenges facing governments are to design a set of regulatory arrangements that can protect the public interest in perpetuity, and to resist calls for government subsidies to support the economic rent expectations of privatized providers. To meet these challenges the “hollowed‐out” state must become a “smart” state.     

When Politics Fails: Hyper-Democracy and Hyper-Depoliticization

Although declining political engagement has been identified as a key problem for advanced liberal democracies, this article suggests that a more profound tension needs to be addressed. Specifically, it identifies interdependences between growing political pressures on national governments, and the tendency to delegate decisions away from control by elected politicians. These processes of “hyper-democracy” and “hyper-depoliticization” arguably create and re-enforce political tensions, magnifying a risk of central government “overload.” Through analyzing the arguments of prominent scholars of democracy, the article picks apart these interdependencies and argues for a more balanced approach to democratic governance.     

我国社区治理研究中“脱节”现象的反思

我国社区治理的理论和实践研究层出不穷,但在社区治理研究和实践发展中存在着“脱节”现象,如何认识和解释此种现象成为社区治理研究中不可避免的问题。通过转型社会中我国社区治理研究现状分析,发现产生“脱节”问题的主要原因是:在社区治理理论和模式研究中存在“形式主义”风险;在社区治理实践中存在“合理无知”的公众参与现象;社区治理研究的时空适合性对实践存在着制约作用;社区治理研究的替代价值和存在价值的取向变化,以及社区治理研究的“理论实践”也影响“脱节”现象的产生。在此基础上进一步讨论了构建具有中国特色社区治理模式研究的可能,并对当前社区治理研究进行了反思与推进。     

Mystifying but not misleading: when does political ambiguity not confuse voters?

The purpose of political campaigns in democracies is to provide voters with information that allows them to make “correct” choices, that is, vote for the party/candidate whose proposed policy or “position” is closest to their ideal position. In a world where political talk is often ambiguous and imprecise, it then becomes important to understand whether correct choices can still be made. In this paper we identify two elements of political culture that are key to answering this question: (i) whether or not political statements satisfy a so-called “grain of truth” assumption, and (ii) whether or not politicians make statements that are comparative, that is contain information about politicians’ own positions relative to that of their adversaries. The “grain of truth” assumption means that statements, even if vague, do not completely misrepresent the true positions of the parties. We find that only when political campaigning is comparative and has a grain of truth, will voters always make choices as if they were fully informed. Therefore, the imprecision of political statements should not be a problem as long as comparative campaigning is in place.     

Postsovereign Governance in a Globalizing and Fragmenting World: The Case of Mexico

Globalization and “global governance” have become the buzzwords at the turn of the century in order to name and explain the emerging post-Cold War international order. The first one makes reference to the technological revolution that is modifying our notions of space, time, and production, while the latter attempts to illustrate how power and its regulatory practices are being transformed among polities. We discuss these two notions in the first part of this essay to argue that, in fact, the emerging “global” order will be different from that grounded on state-centered notions of territory and sovereignty. Our arguments focus on the Mexican case to highlight how this country is moving from an inward-looking, state-centered, authoritarian machinery of governance, to a postsovereign, principle-based, multilayered governance structure. This transition has mainly manifested in the governance mechanisms of corporate and human rights. This does not mean that policy tools of the “ancient regime” have completely disappeared. State-centered structures of governance will remain important during this stage of economic and political change. Areas moving into postsovereign and principled regulatory practices will overlap with those that remain under the monopoly of national bureaucracies. Though Mexico's economic and political change could be explained as a reactive movement against the collapse of the state-centered authoritarian model, an important conclusion of this essay is that the emerging pattern of postsovereign and principled bureaucratic governance will play a major role in shaping the future of those changes.