Search results

This paper brings insights from accounting scholarship to the measurement and reporting challenges of metagovernance approaches to sustainable development. Where scholarship on metagovernance—the combination of market, hierarchical and network governance—proposes deductive approaches to such challenges, we contend that a historically informed “abductive” approach offers valuable insight into the realpolitik of intergovernmental frameworks.

The paper adopts a Foucauldian “archaeological–genealogical” method to investigate the inclusion of climate change as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). It analyses more than 100 documents and texts, tracking the statement forms that crystallise prevailing truth claims across the development of climate and SDG metagovernance.

We show how the truth claims now enshrined in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change constrained the conceptualisation and operationalisation of SDG 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. The paper thereby reframes recent measurement and reporting challenges as outcomes of conceptual conflicts between the technicist emphasis of divisions within the United Nations and the truth claims enshrined in intergovernmental agreements.

This paper demonstrates how an archaeological–genealogical approach may start to address the measurement and reporting challenges facing climate and SDG metagovernance. It also highlights that the two degrees target on climate change has a manifest variability of interpretation and shows how this characteristic has become pivotal to operationalising climate metagovernance in a manner that respects the sovereignty of developing nations.

This chapter argues that the concept of metagovernance offers an alternative to multi-level governance (MLG) for understanding how policy is delivered through complex networks. Whereas MLG portrays the state as a diminished entity, metagovernance argues for a strong, capable state that can govern through the deployment of policy tools. The chapter identifies and evaluates how policy tools are selected to realise the strategic objectives of government.

A critical case methodology is employed. Nuclear power is held to be a most difficult test for the British government’s ability to metagovern. The empirical data was collected from in-depth qualitative interviews conducted between August 2008 and July 2013.

The chapter shows that the British government’s metagovernance efforts are informed by the risks that would-be developer face. The British government is shown to have some ability to practice metagovernance but the complexities of nuclear power and the existence of a MLG structure create risks that government cannot overcome. It is also observed that in nuclear power programmes, the risks of construction cost overruns and electricity price fluctuations have the greatest impact on the calculations of would-be developers.

The findings offer insight into the limits of government capacity in the face of networks and claims of continued state power. The chapter links together the literature on risk and the emergent literature on metagovernance. It is shown that institutional risks in the form of political opportunism are ever present and cannot be easily overcome.

Government are often called upon oversee difficult projects that are delivered by commercial actors. The findings indicate how governments might approach the task and point to a need for greater sensitivity to the nature of the project itself.

The empirical results show that to moderate risk, government has tended to adopt very technocratic policies that limit wider democratic consultation in favour of working directly with commercial actors.

The chapter presents a detailed analysis of government decision-making in a highly controversial area of public policy – nuclear power.

The 2030 Agenda provides the normative framework for much contemporary thinking on sustainable tourism. This viewpoint paper aims to discuss the inherently political nature of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the implications for tourism and sustainability.

This is a paper that highlights the political dimensions of positioning tourism within the SDGs.

This paper highlights continuing challenges in the broader politics of sustainable development in terms of the development of the 2030 Agenda and its implementation. It finds that the SDGs function as a form of metagovernance for sustainable development and sustainable tourism in particular.

This paper reinforces the importance of understanding the politics of the 2030 Agenda by locating sustainable tourism and the SDGs in the broader political context and the significance of metagovernance. In so doing, this paper contributes to continued theoretical debates on the framing of sustainable tourism that are key to understanding the politics of sustainable development and the winners and losers in the politics of tourism.

《2030议程》为关于可持续旅游业的许多当代思考提供了规范的框架。 该观点论文讨论了可持续发展目标（SDGs）固有的政治属性以及对旅游业和可持续性的影响。

本文强调了在可持续发展目标中定位旅游业的政治维度。

本文强调了在制定《2030议程》及其实施层面, 可持续发展会在更广泛的政治维度遇到持续的挑战。它还强调了可持续发展目标在可持续发展和可持续旅游业方面作为一种元治理形式的作用。

本文通过将可持续旅游业置于更广泛的政治背景下, 强化了理解《2030议程》的政治和元治理的重要性。通过这种方式, 本文在关于构建可持续旅游业框架、持续性理论辩论的问题上做出贡献, 这些问题对于理解可持续发展政治以及旅游政治中赢家和输家至关重要。

la Agenda 2030 constituye el marco normativo para gran parte del pensamiento contemporáneo sobre el turismo sostenible. Este artículo de opinión analiza la naturaleza intrínsecamente política de los ODS y sus implicaciones para el turismo y la sostenibilidad. 

este artículo destaca las dimensiones políticas del posicionamiento del turismo dentro de los ODS.

este artículo pone de relieve los continuos desafíos en la política más amplia del desarrollo sostenible en términos de la evolución de la Agenda 2030 y su implementación. Destaca que los ODS funcionan como una forma de metagobernanza, en particular, para el desarrollo y el turismo sostenibles.

este artículo refuerza la importancia de comprender las políticas de la Agenda 2030 al situar el turismo sostenible y los ODS en un contexto político más amplio y la importancia de la metagobernanza. Al hacerlo, este artículo contribuye a los continuos debates teóricos sobre el marco del turismo sostenible que son clave para comprender las políticas del desarrollo sostenible, y los ganadores y los perdedores en las políticas de turismo.

This concluding chapter summarizes the critical insights that changemakers ought to consider in their attempt to lead and manage cocreation processes and enhance their impact. The chapter also addresses three crucial challenges to the advent of a sustainable future: the need to rethink the assumptions of mainstream economics, the need to secure political stability in times of rapid societal change; and the demand for the deepening democracy. Finally, the chapter argues that local efforts to build a sustainable future will only succeed if key economic, political, and democratic challenges are effectively dealt with at the global and national levels.

This paper analyzes scholarly literature and the development of a nonstate food strategy in Canada, the Conference Board of Canada's Canadian Food Strategy, to explore the role of the administrative state in food policymaking.

This research is based on an exploratory case study drawing data from 38 semistructured interviews, including elite interviews. It also draws on policy documents from the nonstate food strategy.

This paper shows that various nonstate actors, including large food industry players, identify a role for the state in food policy in two ways: as a “conductor,” playing a managing role in the food policy process, and as a “commander,” taking control of policy development and involving nonstate actors when necessary. The complex and wicked aspects of food policy require the administrative state's involvement in food policymaking, while tamer aspects of food policy may be less state-centric.

This paper fills gaps in studies exploring food policymaking processes as well as the administrative state's role in food policymaking in a governance era. It contributes to a better understanding of the state's role in complex and wicked policy domains.

The explanatory power of Multi-Level Governance (MLG) has been and is being questioned. Two main criticisms have been raised: first, that MLG is ultimately descriptive, not explanatory; second, that MLG is a case of concept stretching, that it is ultimately an umbrella notion rather than a theory. This chapter outlines what ripostes may be provided to such critiques and argues that the progress of the study of MLG and its usage in political science and public policy and management may lie to an important extent in fostering the dialogue with other streams of research (thus filling the gap of some ‘missing linkages’ in the extant MLG literature), like network governance; policy learning; the analysis of policy tools and the tools of government in complex systems; models in strategic management like stakeholder analysis and others.

This volume is a collective contribution by authors from different disciplinary backgrounds who all address, from different angles and by using a variety of research methods, the key question of how to bring into the MLG research agenda a range of disciplines and applied fields of inquiry that have so far only limitedly been used in the MLG stream of research and literature more systematically.

It arises from the volume that theoretical frames like network governance; policy learning; policy tools analysis; stakeholder analysis and others have important potential to further the MLG research agenda. A number of contributions address the transformation of MLG in the European Union (EU), the polity where MLG arrangements where first detected and labelled as such (Marks, 1993). Others apply MLG frames to other institutional settings, including non-democratic regimes.

This volume is a collective attempt to suggest ‘cross-fertilisations’ from other disciplines or applied fields that may lead to unleash more of the potential and promises of the MLG agenda. It is hoped that this work lays some of the foundations for building bridges between the MLG literature and disciplines and theoretical frames that may be effectively brought into the MLG research agenda.

MLG has long gone beyond the academic debate, to become an analytical lens employed by EU and other institutions across the globe. MLG informs the practice of policy-making. By addressing some key gaps in the extant literature and furnishing perspectives to link MLG to disciplines that may provide theories and models to further its analytical potential, this volume aims at contributing to improving the practice of MLG.

The volume is – to our knowledge – the first systematic attempt to bring into the MLG literature a whole range of theories and models that may provide ways forward to the understanding and usage of MLG.

The concept of collaboration has received increased attention from scholars in public management, as it has been seen as a viable solution to address “wicked” problems. Solving such problems may require a horizontal collaboration within the same governmental jurisdiction or, vertically, between different levels of government. Despite broad interest from the field of public management, the dynamics of public interinstitutional collaboration have received little attention within the literature. This paper aims to provide a systematic overview of the most significant academic contributions on the topic, highlighting the features of this collaborative context and identifying determinants those can foster its performance.

In total, two main literature streams have occasionally dealt with public interinstitutional collaboration and related performance management: the “collaborative governance” stream and “public network performance”. Through a systematic literature review (SLR), this paper answers the following research question: what has been done and what is missing in order to assess performance in the context of public interinstitutional collaboration?

The findings of this study suggest that the most relevant papers are those dealing with public interagency collaboration, as this form of collaboration presents several similarities with public interinstitutional circumstances. Furthermore, the authors provide an analysis of the main determinants of public interinstitutional performance, which highlight the effects of trust, power sharing, leadership style, management strategies and formalization on the achievement of efficient and effective collaboration between public entities.

By drawing on two autonomous literature streams, this paper describes the main features of public interinstitutional collaboration. It contributes to the field by offering a systematic overview of how specific performance determinants, which are widely recognized as relevant for collaboration in general, work in the specificity of public–public contexts.

Existing work on multi-level governance (MLG) has concentrated on decentring of the state (e.g., Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. Political Quarterly, 65(2), 138–141; Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. London: Open University Press; Rhodes, R. A. W. (2008). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisation Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264); growth of non-state actors in governing (e.g., Crouch, 2004; Jessop, B. (2004). Multi level governance and multi-level metagovernance-changes in the European Union as integral moments in the transformation and re-orientation of contemporary statehood. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press); classifying different types of governance (e.g., type 1 and type 2 MLG – see Hooghe & Marks, 2003; Ongaro, E., Massey, A., Holzer, M., & Wayenberg, E. (Eds.). (2010). Governance and intergovernmental relations in the European Union and the United States: Theoretical perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). The purpose of the chapter is to complement these approaches by focusing on politics and political strategies in multi-level systems.

The chapter draws on an extensive literature in governance and political accountability and on political dynamics, management and strategies within multi-level state systems. Although in international context, particular accentuation is placed on the UK case.

There are three broad findings. First, while the growth of MLG and in particular supra state activities and institutions have undermined conventional conceptions of political accountability, more nuanced interpretations are provided; as are cases of successful popular challenge to a seemingly inevitable application of neo-liberal new public management driven approaches to public service provision, as witnessed in examples of public service de-privatisation and re-municipalisation. Second, as seen in the United Kingdom, political strategies in a multi-state system are presented in terms of zero sum or alternatively win-win scenarios. In Scotland, for example, though there have been difficulties for state wide parties in managing multi-level politics in the devolved arena, yet in that arena win-win strategies have been played out; and in Northern Ireland with a contextual backdrop of conflict, there is also evidence of win-win political actions. Third, some general findings are presented which outline a range of centrifugal and centripetal forces found in some European countries and how these affect the choice of political strategy.

The transformations in the existing forms of governmentality and power regimes are deeply rooted within the political economy of advanced neoliberalism, having profound implications in the governance matrix. The new rationalities and instrumentalities of governance involve ‘governing without government’ (Rhodes, 1996) following the delegitimisation and deconstruction of the Keynesian Welfare State and the gradual enactment of what Jessop (2002) calls the Schumpeterian Competition State. This chapter throws open the play field for competing standpoints on governing the mega corporates. Various theorists consider that there is emptiness within the existing global regulatory armoury concerning the operational activities of TNCs. The convolution of ‘steering’ in this poly-centred, globalised societies with its innate uncertainty makes it tricky to keep an eye on the fix of ‘who actually steers whom’ and ‘with what means’. There also appears to be huge disinclination to spot systemic technical description of the evolving modern institutional structure of economic regulation in a composite and practical manner. Thus, the complexity of international issues, their overlapping nature and the turmoil within the arena in which they surface defy tidy theorizing about effective supervision.

This brings in the wider questions dealt with in the chapter – Is globalisation then a product of material conditions of fundamental technical and economic change or is it collective construct of an artifact of the means we have preferred to arrange political and economic activity? The new reflexive, self-regulatory and horizontal spaces of governance are getting modelled following the logic of competitive market relations whereby multiple formally equal actors (acting or aspiring to act as sources of authority) consult, trade and compete over the deployment of various instruments of authority both intrinsically and in their relations with each other (Shamir, 2008). The chapter also looks into these messy and fluid intersections to situate the key actors at the heart of processes of ‘rearticulation’ and ‘recalibration’ of different modes of governance which operates through a somewhat fuzzy amalgamation of the terrain by corporates, state hierarchy and networks all calibrating and competing to pull off the finest probable’s in metagovernance landscape. Unambiguously, this chapter seeks to elaborate on an institutional-discursive conceptualization of governance while stitching in and out of the complex terrain a weave of governances for modern leviathan – the global corporates.

This paper investigates how the learning trajectory of corporations utilising information and communication technologies has been matched by the labour movement and social movements associated with it.

The paper investigates new communication dynamics of labour in the international setting. It then focuses on a broader and richer set of online practices by labour by drawing on material placed on the world wide web by members of and advocates for the Braceros (the strong arms) – migrant Mexican workers. These practices follow on a history of effective use of the new information communication technologies by the Zapatista movement in Mexico.

The paper places these activities in the context of globalisation and the global movement of capital and labour. It argues that the practices of online communication associated with the Braceros can be harnessed to move beyond the reactive shadowing of capital by labour. Instead innovative and proactive forms of monitoring policies and critiquing outcomes become possible.

Internet‐based counter‐coordination allows the construction and diffusion of a different understanding of the nature and consequences of the current mode of globalisation.

The paper demonstrates the ways in which information and communication technologies can be used to engage in thematic mapping and construction of memory by labour and provides an example of the electronic sampling and indexing of material.