Understanding democratic governance: practical trends and theoretical puzzles

In line with the major philosophical (epistemological) transition in the social sciences from developmental historicism to modernist social science, there have been significant intellectual shifts in academic fields related to politics, state, and administration. More specifically, based on the modernist social science foundation, there has emerged the so-called ‘new governance’ encapsulating diverse neoliberal labels, theories, and models—including reinvention, new public management, networked governance, rational choice, and new institutionalism—which have serious adverse implications for democracy. These are some of the central arguments and claims made by Mark Bevir in his Democratic Governance. This article critically examines these claims and offers alternative viewpoints, especially regarding the controversial nexus between epistemology, theory, governance, and democracy.     

Political linkages between CSOs and parliament in Indonesia: a case study of political linkages in drafting the Aceh Governance Law

This research explores how political linkages between civil society organizations (CSOs) and Parliament are established, formed, and operated, using the drafting of the Aceh Governance Law as a case study. It finds that the initiative of establishing political linkages between CSOs and Parliament was taken by the CSOs joined in the Aceh Democracy Network (JDA, Jaringan Demokrasi Aceh). It confirms Lawson’s finding that parties are not the only linkage providers; however, the establishment of non-party linkages are not indicators of parties’ failure to provide linkage. This article shows how what Lawson terms ‘typology’—participatory linkage, policy-responsive linkage, linkage by reward, directive or coercive linkage—is manifested more as different ‘dimensions’ of linkages. Participatory linkage involves a bottom-up model, unlike directive or coercive linkage, which are top-down. Likewise, the motives behind responsive linkages—for aspirations, demands, and views to be heard—tend to be from the bottom, while the motives of linkage by reward is more frequently from the top.Abbreviations: ACSTF: Aceh Civil Society Task Force; ADF: Aceh Development Fund. Independent non-profit organization that works to mobilize funds and other resources to be channelled to CSOs are characterized by changes in the framework of poverty alleviation and strengthening of democracy, with the scope of the working area of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam; AJMI: Aceh Judicial Monitoring Institute. Aceh-based nongovernmental organization which advocates for victims of state violence; Cetro: Centre for Electoral Reform. Non-profit organization that aim to strengthen and promote fair elections through electoral system reformation; Demos: Lembaga Kajian Demokrasi dan Hak Asasi (democracy and human rights think tank); ELSAM: Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat (Institute for Societal Study and Advocacy); Flower: Aceh-based civil society organization concerned with gender, empowerment and strengthening grassroots women in urban and rural areas; FORBES: Forum bersama politisi asal Aceh (Joint Forum of Politicians from Aceh); Forum: LSM Aceh Forum Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (Aceh Nongovernment Organization Forum); GAM: Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (Free Aceh Movement); Golkar: Golongan Karya (Functional Groups). Party formed under the New Order and represented as a governmental party at that time; ICW: Indonesia Corruption Watch. Nongovernmental organization founded in 1998 whose primary mission is to monitor and report to the public incidents of corruption in Indonesia; Imparsial: Indonesian Human Rights Monitor. Founded in 2002 to monitor and investigate human right violations; JDA: Jaringan Demokrasi Aceh (Aceh Democracy Network); JPUK: Jaringan Perempuan untuk Kebijakan (Women’s Policy Network); Kalyanamitra: Women’s advocacy organization, especially for women who work as labourers, farmers, fishers, informal sector workers. Kalyanamitra derives from Sanskrit ‘Good Friend’; Koalisi NGO HAM: Coalition of Human Right Nongovernment Organizations. Founded in 1998 by nongovernmental organizations whose concern is promoting human rights in Aceh; KontraS: Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence; KPMD: Komite Monitoring Perdamaian dan Demokrasi (Committee for Peace and Democracy). Founded in Aceh in 2002 to bring peace and justice for Acehnese people; MISPI: Mitra Sejati Perempuan Indonesia (True Partner of Indonesian Women). Aceh-based women’s organization that promotes women’s participation and encourages women to speak with their own voices; MPR: Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (People’s Consultative Assembly); PAN: Partai Amanat Nasional (National Mandate Party). Moderate Islamist political party that was founded by reformists, including Amien Rais, former chairman of the Muhammadiyah organization; PBR: Partai Bintang Reformasi (Star of Reform Party). Islamist political party founded in 2002 as a result of PPP conflict; PDIP: Partai Demokrasi Indonesia-Perjuangan (Indonesian Democrat Party-Struggle). Founded by Megawati Soekarnoputri, daughter of Soekarno, in 1999; PDRM: Pergerakan Demokratik Rakyat Miskin (Democratic Movement for the Poor); PKB: Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (National Awakening Party). Established in 1998, representing Nahdlatul Ulama organization (associations of ulamas formed in 1926 in East Java); PKS: Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (Prosperous Justice Party). New name of Partai Keadilan (Justice Party), which emerged from the Tarbiyah party movement; PPP: Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (United Development Party). Founded by the New Order in 1973 as part of the ‘rationalization of political life’; PSHK: Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan (Centre for Legal and Policy Studies). Established in 2008 by several scholars, advocates, and law students to drive efforts for legal reform after the 1998 reformation; WALHI: Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (Indonesian Environmental Forum). Founded in 1980, its scope is broader than just environmental concerns, but also works for social transformation, people’s sovereignty, and sustainability of life and livelihoods; YAPPIKA: Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi Inisiatif dan Kemitraan Masyarakat (Foundation to Reinforce Public Participation, Initiative, and Partnership). Founded in 1991 to promote peacebuilding, development of democratic local governance, active citizenship, and claiming state responsibility to meet people’s basic needs     

Local climate governance and policy innovation in China: a case study of a piloting emission trading scheme in Guangdong province

This paper investigates how piloting programmes in China can promote local policy innovations. By using one of the piloting emission trading schemes (ETS) in Guangdong province as a case study, it is argued that the main features of the piloting experiments, particularly in the climate change domain, are largely different from previous local marketization experiments that dominate the reform period of China. Whereas previous experiments are often characterized as bottom-up or indigenous initiatives with strong patronage relations to the pro-reform politicians at central level, the current piloting programmes are often crafted in a top-down fashion that is often misaligned with local market or corporate interests. Hence, local policy innovations are designed, developed and brokered by the local state officers, in order to bridge this central–local interest gap. As a result, successful implementation of these policy innovations largely depends on local political traditions, bureaucratic culture and perceptions of distinctive development needs.     

The Limits of Governance: How Far Does Policy Analysis Travel in International Relations?

ABSTRACT

This article retraces the mutual rapprochement between Policy Analysis and International Relations and addresses its limits. Looking beyond the circle of advanced liberal-democratic economies, three limits are discussed: the need to specify the prerequisites of different modes of governance; to consider the relations of power and domination in these processes; and to look beyond regulatory issues at the political and societal conflicts surrounding policy diffusion.     

论生态环境治理体系现代化与环境行政互动式执法

环境行政执法是生态环境治理的核心内容,我国环境行政执法以威慑式执法为主,执法实践陷入执法者与违法者对立冲突之困境,需以生态环境治理体系现代化为契机,向新的执法方式转变和发展。随着环境立法的发展,我国环境治理模式经历了从政府管制到政府与社会二元合作模式,再到政府、企业、社会公众三元互动模式的转变,形成了新时期社会共治的现代化生态环境治理体系。现代化生态环境治理体系与社会共治理论相契合。现代化生态环境治理体系为构建环境行政互动式执法系统提供了互动前提与理论支撑。以此为基础,环境行政互动式执法的实现需要生态环境行政机关让渡权力空间,以吸纳企业协商和公众参与。     

行贿意愿差异与大湾区廉政合作治理:基于A市与香港的比较研究

粤港澳大湾区各城市在社会环境上的差异,既是廉政建设区域间合作的挑战,也是机遇。在不同的社会背景下,人们对腐败的认知和接受程度不同,这在很大程度上通过行贿意愿的差异呈现。因此,了解社会环境对行贿意愿的影响,不仅有助于制定行之有效的廉政治理策略,也凸显不同地区之间信息交流和治理合作的重要性。那么,在不同的社会场景下,人们的行贿意愿会有怎样的差异?受到哪些社会环境因素的影响?行贿意愿差异的比较研究对廉政合作治理具有什么理论和政策涵义?新制度主义理论为回答这些问题提供了有益的启发。2019年在香港与大湾区A城市所作的问卷调查为不同地区相异的社会条件下的行贿意愿差异提供了分析依据。研究结果表明,在行贿场景所预示的社会条件发生变化时,市民行贿的意愿也随之变化。这种变化受到制度环境因素和社会环境因素两方面的影响。因此,在香港与大湾区其他城市社会条件不尽相同、而经济和社会交往又不断增加的情况下,如何抑制跨境贿赂是廉政合作治理必须面对的重要问题。     

超大型国家治理中的地方法治试验及其制度约束

地方法治试验既能够激发地方政府的创造性,又能够科学有效地规范地方政府权力运作。竞争动力学理论从经济发展产生的内生性驱动和官员晋升锦标赛产生的外在压力两方面,解释了地方法治试验的动力机制。中国采取“政府集权+行政集权”模式在促进国家统一同时,扩大了国家的治理规模,增加了国家的治理负荷,引发了超大型国家治理的结构性难题。中央试图通过允许地方进行法治试验的方式,来解决这一难题。它能够在统护法律统一的前提下,及时调整中央集权与分权的程度。中央通过宪制约束、组织约束和政策调控等多种手段,加强对地方法治试验的约束,确保国家整体主义体制结构的实现。地方法治不是一个脱离中国整体法治而存在的本体论意义上的概念,而是一个具有强烈方法论意义的概念。     

政府治理体系优化的逻辑与路径:基于复杂性管理的分析

国家治理现代化的重要标志是将制度优势转化为治理效能,而政府治理体系和治理能力现代化是国家治理现代化的关键环节和核心任务。国家治理的复杂性要求政府治理体系所展现的功能与外在复杂性相适应:一方面,政府治理体系优化要根据"递归结构"实现体系纵向结构的科学定责、合理赋权,使每一层级的政府责任契合于国家治理的客观要求;另一方面,要实现横向结构中不同主体的功能协同、资源整合,使政府在处理跨地域、跨领域问题上能够有效地集中其他治理主体的力量,实现公共治理的"整体功能大于部分之和"。     

政务服务“好差评”制度：政策意蕴、理论阐释与路径建构

党的十八大以来,政务服务已成为建设服务型政府的新引擎。政务服务质量高不高、企业群众满意度如何衡量,长期以来缺乏制度化保障。公共管理学界已经认识到,构建科学合理的政务服务“好差评”制度已提上日程。基于政务服务助力推进政府治理现代化的宏大视角,本文探讨了现阶段我国政务服务“好差评”制度的政策意蕴,基于公共受托责任理论和新公共管理理论阐释了政务服务“好差评”与服务型政府的理念映射,并从价值取向、评价机制、评价内容、评价方法四个维度勾勒出了其建构路径。本文研究既丰富和发展了新公共管理运动的理论体系,亦有助于在实践中为加快我国服务型政府建设提供方法论借鉴。     

Governance of Education in the United Kingdom: Convergence or Divergence?

Abstract

This article considers how structures and processes of governance in education have changed in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland over recent years, setting this discussion within the context of debates about the nature of governance and governing in public services more generally. It is argued, firstly, that governance needs to be considered as a comprehensive concept that encompasses both the role of the state and the range of other actors and processes through which educational provision is steered; and secondly, that governance is essentially about power: its distribution and its use. The article draws on these key ideas to explore the similarities and differences between the experiences of the four constituent jurisdictions of the United Kingdom over recent years. It considers whether the approaches in the jurisdictions are converging or diverging, the reasons underlying this, and prospects for the future. It is concluded that, while national histories and cultures have served to maintain very distinctive governance identities among the jurisdictions, international trends, and the ways in which governments respond to these, are putting these identities under considerable pressure.