Measuring Governance in Urban Innovation

Abstract

The international political science literature is ambiguous on the point if the involvement of a plurality of external actors (citizens, economic and social groups, NGOs and CSOs, Universities and experts, different public authorities at the same or at different territorial level, etc.) in governance processes is an end in itself (because it increases democracy) or it is useful in order to achieve better results in the production of public goods.

This article espouses the latter hypothesis and tries to understand if a governance perspective brings about a higher level of innovation in metropolitan areas. In order to test this hypothesis, two metrics are designed: ? In measuring innovation, the ideas are that there are four dimensions in urban innovation (agenda innovation, process innovation, product innovation and innovative communication) and that a metropolitan city has to score high in most of them in order to be considered really innovative.

? As far as governance is concerned, the analytical proposal is that the ideal governance network is at the same time complex (bringing together actors from different territorial levels and from different societal and institutional domains), dense (favouring direct interaction between the actors) and ‘focused’ (showing one or few actors able to act as focal points of the network).

Drawing from a research done in four Italian cities (Turin, Milan, Florence and Naples) through the reconstruction of 120 urban innovation processes, the article illustrates the analytical steps taken and the conclusions that can be reached.     

Internet of things – Governance quo vadis?

The Internet of Things (IoT) as an emerging global Internet-based information architecture facilitating the exchange of goods and services is gradually developing. While the technical aspects are being discussed in detail a legal framework does not exist so far. The first supranational organization trying to work out an IoT governance framework has been the European Commission by appointing a large group of experts to examine the relevant aspects of a possible IoT governance regime. In the meantime, however, the activities have been degraded. Nevertheless, even if the differences between the IoT and the Internet have been overestimated at the beginning, many elements of the IoT differ in part from the corresponding problems in the Internet. Therefore, an analysis of the major IoT governance issues (legitimacy, transparency, accountability, anticompetitive behavior) seems to be worthwhile to conduct.     

The OECD and “The Rest”: Analyzing the Limits of Policy Transfer

Abstract

Prompted by the rise of the emerging economies and the growing importance of the G20, the OECD has formally announced its intention of establishing itself as a key actor in global policy coordination. As part of this ambition, it has embarked on cultivating closer relations with five G20 countries it designated as key partners through the so-called “Enhanced Engagement” programme: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. This article mobilizes concepts from the policy transfer literature to explain why the OECD’s attempts to increasingly involve all five countries in its policy have fallen short of its original ambitions, and also why the transfer of its policy work has been uneven across policy and country issue.     

Internet of things – Need for a new legal environment?

The Internet of Things as an emerging global, Internet-based information service architecture facilitating the exchange of goods in global supply chain networks is developing on the technical basis of the present Domain Name System; drivers are private actors. Learning from the experiences with the “traditional” Internet governance it is important to tackle the relevant issues of a regulatory framework from the beginning; in particular, the implementation of an independently managed decentralized multiple-root system and the establishment of basic governance principles (such as transparency and accountability, legitimacy of institutional bodies, inclusion of civil society) are to be envisaged.     

Relativierung des Rechts durch Digitalisierung

Das Recht ist in modernen Gesellschaften ein wichtiges Steuerungsmittel. Schon bisher ist es allerdings nicht das einzige Instrument gewesen, um gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen und individuelles Verhalten zu beeinflussen. Es gab und gibt Bereiche, die sich selbst organisieren und in denen staatliches Recht aus unterschiedlichen Gründen nicht das entscheidende Steuerungsmittel ist. Dieser Beitrag untersucht, wie sich die zunehmende Digitalisierung der modernen Gesellschaften auf die Steuerungsfähigkeit des Rechts auswirkt. Er kommt dabei zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Bedeutung des Rechts in der digitalisierten und hoch fragmentierten Welt abnimmt. Das Recht muss sich deshalb Verbündete in anderen Bereichen der Gesellschaft suchen, um weiterhin Steuerungsfunktionen für die Gesellschaft wahrnehmen zu können. Der Beitrag skizziert, wer als Verbündeter des Rechts in Frage kommt und wie die notwendigen transrechtlichen Kooperationen aussehen könnten.     

The limits of regulatory convergence: globalization and GMO politics in the south

Is globalization promoting regulatory convergence in agricultural biotechnology policies in the South? This article examines the nature and limits of regulatory convergence in the field of agri-biotechnology and investigates the effects that international forces have on biotechnology and biosafety policies in developing countries. Based on detailed case studies of Mexico, China and South Africa this article shows that these three leading biotechnology countries in the South are exposed to powerful international influences but are responding to the regulatory challenges of genetically modified organisms (GMO) adoption in distinctive ways. The existing regulatory polarization between US and EU biotechnology approaches has not forced a convergence around either of these two international models. GMO policies in the South do not simply follow the binary logic of the US–EU regulatory conflict. Instead, they integrate elements from both regulatory approaches and are steering a course that suggests substantial regulatory diversity in the South. The globalization of biotechnology thus goes hand in hand with regulatory diversity in the developing world. Furthermore, regulatory polarization between the EU and US has helped to open up political space in key developing countries.     

数字经济监管体制创新的导向与路径

数字经济发展求对传统监管体制进行重构,通过监管体制创新来促进数字经济高质量发展.数字经济监管体制创新的基本导向为:始终坚持审慎包容的基本原则,将促进开放共享和鼓励创新作为政策基点、维护市场竞争作为政策重心、确保监管体制与政策动态有效作为政策理念.中国数字经济监管体制创新的基本路径为:建立相对完善的监管法律体系,构建"平...     

新时代家风建设与乡村治理互进研究

家风是传统农业时代维系乡土社会的内生秩序,基于传统社会结构显示独特的伦理约束与治理优化功能.进入新时代,乡村社会生态、主客体等发生结构性变迁,乡村治理模式亟须适应性调整与革新,家风及家风建设也需现代化转型与重构.这种现实情境下,湖州南浔区通过"最美家风+"建设,链接并作用于治理主体、治理方式、治理过程等乡村治理体系的基...     

论公共冲突的专业化治理——以上海市H法律服务调解中心为例

合作治理是实现国家与社会之间良性互动的方向.新时代背景下,合作治理呈现出新的特征,政治场域和社会场域基于特定公共事务而进行的专业性合作在维护社会秩序、改善基层治理、化解公共冲突中发挥着举足轻重的作用,这一模式被称之为专业化治理.以上海市H法律服务调解中心为例,对专业化治理的生成背景、运行机理和实践效应进行明晰.在此基础...     

党的领导与中国式善治

我国的国家治理现代化本质是实现中国式善治,根本在于实现人民的主体性,充分保障人民当家作主,充分发挥人民的主动性、积极性、创造性。先锋政党、有为政府、共益市场、有机社会这四个要素,共同保障人民主体性的实现。先锋性政党的领导,是中国善治的关键与根本优势,使得我国善治体系是有为政府而非有限政府,是人民为中心的市场经济而不是资本为中心的市场经济,是有机社会而非市民社会。