Promoting academic engagement: university context and individual characteristics

The Journal of Technology Transfer - This paper aims to explore the impact of organizational context on individuals’ industry activities in Chinese universities. Academic engagement, which...     

Civil Society Democratising Global Governance? Potentials and Limitations of “Counter-Democracy”

A major aspect of global interdependencies during the last two decades has been the intensified interactions between international organizations (IOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). In this paper, we propose a new way of analysing the potential of CSO inclusion to democratise global governance. The aim is to explore the possibility for CSOs to function as a form of counter-democratic force. This approach contrasts with earlier research that has tended to focus on participation, voice or representation when evaluating IO-CSO interaction from a democratisation perspective. Using Pierre Rosanvallon's term, we argue that counter-democratic actors organise distrust against power-holders, pressuring them to strengthen accountability. Counter-democracy is manifested in the institutions, agents and functions that are committed to overseeing ruling institutions, expressing mistrust and channelling dissent. Importantly, counter-democracy is not contrary to democracy, but a vital and perennial aspect of it. Our argument is that Rosanvallon's concept of counter-democracy can help us understand how the monitoring activities of CSOs may restrain the power of IOs and make them more responsible which in turn can be related to democratic qualities of global governance. However, we maintain that not all activities of transnational CSOs have counter-democratic qualities. To examine if and how a specific CSO might serve as a democratising force in global governance, we suggest that the actors and their activities should be scrutinised according to an analytical framework centred on the concepts of power-resources, ideational foundations and activities. Empirically, we investigate three carefully selected cases of CSOs that perform monitoring activities in a global governance context: the Corporate Europe Observatory, the NGO forum on the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and NGO Monitor.     

Dismantling the Social Democratic Welfare Model? Has the Swedish Welfare State Lost Its Defining Characteristics?

The Swedish welfare state was often seen as the most highly developed welfare state and a model for others to follow. In the early 1990s, however, the Swedish economy was in big trouble; the state budget had enormous deficits which the government had to cover by loans in the finance market, exposing the Swedish welfare state model to the evaluation of international capital. This article describes what happened to the welfare state in the 1990s. Was it dismantled? The Swedish experience can shed some light on two competing hypotheses. Globalisation is often seen as an irresistible force that dismantles national autonomy and particularly the possibility of generous welfare arrangements. Another line of thought, however, points out that the welfare state is highly resilient to cutbacks. Cuts are very unpopular among voters and are therefore very dangerous for politicians or parties that aspire to be re‐elected. I argue that my data show that although the Swedish welfare state was reformed in many ways in the 1990s and some cutbacks were made, the welfare state has not been dismantled. Its major attributes when compared with other countries —— e.g. its generosity, universality and developed welfare services —— are almost as prominent as before the crisis. This result is in line with the thesis of the welfare state's resilience and contradicts the globalisation thesis.