STAR METRICS and the Science of Science Policy

STAR METRICS is a data platform that is being voluntarily and collaboratively developed by U.S. federal science agencies and research institutions to describe investments in science and their results. It initially emerged as a result of reporting requirements associated with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; it has developed in response to a recognized need to begin to systematically document federal investments in science and their immediate and long‐term results. The eventual goal is to draw information from existing data on scientific and economic activities as well as from research institutions' and federal science agencies' systems to provide data that can be used for a more scientific analysis of science investments and their outcomes.     

When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges

Risk‐based regulation is becoming a familiar regulatory strategy in a wide range of areas and countries. Regulatory attention tends to focus, at least initially, on high risks but low‐risk regulatees or activities tend to form the bulk of the regulated population. This article asks why regulators need to address low risks and it outlines the potential difficulties that such risks present. It then considers how regulators tend to deal with lower risks in practice. A body of literature and survey‐based research is used to develop a taxonomy of intervention strategies that may be useful in relation to low‐risk activities, and, indeed, more widely. In an article to be published in the subsequent issue of this journal, we will then develop a strategic framework for regulators to employ when choosing intervention strategies and we will assesses whether, and how, such a framework could be used by regulatory agencies in a manner that is operable, dynamic, transparent, and justifiable.     

Paradoxes and Failures: ‘New Governance’ Techniques and the Financial Crisis

This article examines the performance of four ‘new governance’ techniques of regulation in the period leading up to the financial crisis: principles based regulation, risk based regulation, meta‐regulation and enrolment. These techniques have been advocated on the basis that they are responsive, flexible, and in enrolling others in the regulatory project thereby expand its capacity, and even its legitimacy. However, experience in the crisis revealed that in their implementation they can be out of touch or indulgent, focus heavily on auditable systems and processes, and that in enrolling others they can increase vulnerabilities and the potential for negative endogenous effects. The argument is not that there should be a return to adversarial ‘command and control’ regulation, rather that experience of these strategies in the crisis suggests a need to understand in greater depth the refractive effects of the organisational, technical/functional and cognitive dimensions of regulatory governance, if we are to understand and adapt its performance in different contexts.     

Clash of Realities: Gazprom’s Reasoning on the EU Gas Trade

Abstract

Gazprom, the state-controlled Russian energy company, has major export markets in the European Union, but these are changing, challenging the established trading principles of Russian gas. The EU promotes switching to hub-based pricing, whereas Gazprom, despite adapting to some degree, has continued to highlight the advantages of long-term contracts. This article analyses the reasoning of selected Gazprom actors from an institutional-cultural perspective. Apart from conflicts of interest between Russia and the EU, it finds deep-seated differences in worldviews and perceptions of appropriate behaviour in trade relations. Such factors may play a larger role in decision-making than is generally acknowledged.     

De-canting ‘Trafficking in Human Beings’, Re-centring the State

Contemporary liberal states are eager to combat ‘human trafficking’, which state actors describe as ‘the scourge of modern slavery’ and a violation of human rights. The same states are also depriving migrants of their freedom on an unprecedented scale through immigration detention, forcibly moving them across borders through deportation, and sustaining a flourishing industry in the prevention and control of human movement. This is not a paradox. The ambition to eradicate ‘slavery’, as much as the desire to severely restrict freedom of movement, reflects a concern to preserve and extend state powers, in particular its monopoly on violence and on the control of mobility.     

Is it Time to Cut the Gordian Knot of Polar Sovereignty?

There has been recent discussion on the abandonment of sovereignty in the Arctic and territorial and marine claims in Antarctica in the interests of redefining these regions into global commons with joint management. Global commons refers to a region, or group of valued resources, protected from exploitation in the interests of the global population and future generations. While it may be reasonable to examine the possibility of shifting sovereignty in these regions and locking access to any of the resources, an academic examination must not focus on sovereignty in isolation from existing management regimes. Sovereignty is not displaced easily, and nor are sovereign rights; however there is a large capacity for negotiation, consent and agreement towards how resources and areas may be used and enjoyed while maintaining an indifference to existing or exerted territorial and/or marine claims. Sovereignty and sovereign rights can also be preserved, but their utility minimized in the presence of alternative arrangements, as exemplified in the Antarctic Treaty. In the absence of such arrangements, the self-interest of States is manifest. A false sense of probability is fostered by any examination that only considers sovereignty and disregards State practice or current management initiatives. This article demonstrates that the current governance arrangements are legitimate in a dynamic world, regardless of sovereignty, and identifies the lengths to which the stakeholders go to preserve both their national interest and that of the global community in de facto global commons areas. It concludes by offering a view that cutting the Gordian knot of polar sovereignty is both risky and premature in the absence of suitable alternatives.