Search

Begin New Search Topic Governance Political Geography Global Focus

131. Quality of Government and the Relationship between Natural Disasters and Child Poverty: A Comparative Analysis.

Author:
Adel Daoud, Bjorn Hallerod, and Debarati Guha Sapir
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies
Abstract:
This paper explores the degree to which exposure to reoccurring natural disasters of various kinds explains seven dimensions of severe child poverty in 67 middle- and low-income countries. It also analyzes how certain institutional conditions, namely the quality of government (QoG), have moderating effects on the relationship between disasters and child poverty. Two main hypotheses are tested. The first is that disasters do have an adverse average effect on severe poverty. The second is that disasters reveal a positive coefficient (i.e., more disasters, more deprivation) but that higher levels of QoG negatively moderate this effect, i.e., the adverse effect of disasters is diminished by increasingly high QoG levels. From 70 possible combinations of relationships (7 types of deprivation combined with 10 types of natural disaster measures), 11 have the expected correlation between disasters and child deprivation and only one has the expected interactive correlation between quality of government, disasters, and child poverty. Several unexpected results could also be observed which are discussed in the paper along with recommendations for future research.
Topic:
Economics, Natural Disasters, Governance, Research, and Child Poverty
Political Geography:
Global Focus

132. Dysfunctional Institutions, Social Trust, and Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood

Author:
Thomas Risse and Tanja A. Börzel
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 700
Abstract:
Areas of limited statehood where the state is absent or dysfunctional are rarely ungoverned or ungovernable spaces. The provision of rules and regulations as well as of public goods and services – governance – does not necessarily depend on the existence of functioning state institutions. How can this be explained? This article makes two claims. First, we identify functional equivalents to state institutions that fail to govern hierarchically. Second, we focus on informal institutions based on social trust that are endogenous to areas of limited statehood. Personalized social trust among community members enables actors to overcome collective action problems, enhancing the legitimacy of governance actors. The main challenge in areas of limited statehood, which are often characterized by social heterogeneity and deep social and cultural cleavages (particularly in post-conflict societies), is to move from personalized to generalized trust in “imagined communities” despite dysfunctional state institutions. We argue that generalized trust in areas of limited statehood crucially depends on inclusive social identities as an enabling condition for effective and legitimate governance.
Topic:
Governance, Community, Statehood, and Social Identities
Political Geography:
Global Focus

133. Meta-Governance of Partnerships for Sustainable Development - Actors’ Perspectives on How the UN Could Improve Partnerships’ Governance Services in Areas of Limited Statehood

Author:
Marianne Beisheim and Nils Simon
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 700
Abstract:
In the context of negotiations on the Post-2015 or 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the process of formulating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations (UN) (again) assigns an important role to multi-stakeholder partnerships. But how do actors view these partnerships more than ten years after the UN’s engagement with them? Our previous research found that transnational multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development are neither as successful as their proponents claim nor as ineffective as their critics argue (Beisheim/Liese 2014). In light of these findings, we ask whether relevant actors argue that lessons learned with regard to partnerships’ success conditions should be translated into rules and standards that guide the operations of existing and the development of new partnerships. This kind of meta-governance of partnerships could be exerted by state or non-state actors at the national or international level. Moreover, we distinguish between two broad functions of meta-governance: enabling and ensuring. In this paper, we present first insights into actors’ views on the meta-governance of partnerships. We focus on the actors in the UN-context, where reforms of the framework for partnerships are under debate.
Topic:
United Nations, Governance, Reform, and Sustainable Development Goals
Political Geography:
Global Focus

134. Economics and the Near-Death Experience of Democratic Governance

Author:
June Sekera
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University
Abstract:
Non-market public production makes up a quarter to a half or more of all economic activity in advanced democratic nation-states. Yet here in the United States the public economy’s ability to function productively on behalf of the citizenry is seriously imperiled. In this paper I trace the connection between mainstream, market-centric economics and what James Galbraith has called “the collapse of the public governing capacity.” Marketization and its confederate, privatization, have led, sometimes intentionally, to the evisceration of governmental capacity, the downsizing of democracy and the dismantling of traditions of responsible public administration that are grounded in law and the Constitution. Over the last decades, apostles of the market have intruded upon government a pseudo-market with outcomes ranging from the unfortunate to the disastrous. So-called “New Public Management” –“a child of neoclassical economics,” – has colonized and weakened every level of public administration. Hollowed out through the cathartic of a “competition prescription,” the public sector time and again seems to fail us, so systems of performance measurement transplanted from profit-driven business models are being imposed across government, ostensibly to improve results and better supply what the populace wants and needs, but instead often leaving harm in their wake. We find our most basic public services and rights in jeopardy: from clean air and water to unencumbered judicial due process. While government “reinventors” boast about shrinking government, in reality a “submerged state” mushrooms through an explosion of private profit- making contractors and behind the hidden hand of tax expenditures. Yet, as I argue in this paper, there is no viable explanatory theory of the public non-market economy or of production within it, nor any consensus about how to measure public purpose or assess results in the public domain. Instead, a market-centric economics prevails in textbooks, university teaching and public policy, while private, market-mimicking motivations and values displace public purpose in measurement schemes.
Topic:
Governance, Democracy, Public Sector, Private Sector, and Non-Market Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

135. Concessions or Coercion? How Governments Respond to Restive Ethnic Minorities

Author:
Arman Grigoryan
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Destabilized multiethnic states and empires are environments that are highly susceptible to violent ethnonationalist conflict. Conflicts between states built on the ruins of such empires and their minorities are especially common. James Fearon has famously argued that these conflicts are the result of minorities' rational incentives to rebel, which in turn are the result of newly independent states' inability to guarantee that these minorities will not be discriminated against if they acquiesce to citizenship, as well as expectations that over time the balance of power will shift against minorities as states consolidate their institutions. States can, however, take steps to reassure their minorities. The puzzle is why they often fail to do so. In fact, states often adopt policies that confirm minorities' worst fears, pushing them toward rebellion. Such action may be precipitated by a state's belief that a minority is motivated by a separatist agenda rather than by the desire to have its concerns and grievances satisfactorily addressed. If secession is a minority's primary objective, then concessions intended to demobilize the minority will only make the state more vulnerable to future demands and separatist bids. The existence of third parties with incentives to support minority separatism exacerbates the problem. The violent and nonviolent minority disputes in post-Soviet Georgia illustrate these findings.
Topic:
Ethnic Government, Governance, Ethnicity, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, Georgia, and Global Focus

136. Reforming Democracies: Six Facts About Politics That Demand a New Agenda

Author:
Douglas A. Chalmers
Publication Date:
01-2014
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Columbia University Press
Abstract:
Even well-established democracies need reform, and any successful effort to reform democracies must look beyond conventional institutions--elections, political parties, special interests, legislatures and their relations with chief executives--to do so. Expanding a traditional vision of the institutions of representative democracy, Douglas A. Chalmers examines six aspects of political practice relating to the people being represented, the structure of those who make law and policy, and the links between those structures and the people. Chalmers concludes with a discussion of where successful reform needs to take place: we must pay attention to a democratic ordering of the constant reconfiguration of decision making patterns; we must recognize the crucial role of information in deliberation; and we must incorporate noncitizens and foreigners into the political system, even when they are not the principal beneficiaries.
Topic:
Civil Society, Democratization, Politics, Political Theory, and Governance
Political Geography:
Global Focus
Publication Identifier:
9780231162951
Publication Identifier Type:
ISBN

137. Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: Towards a Multi-Dimensional Approach

Author:
Manuel Balán
Publication Date:
01-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University
Abstract:
Few if any issues are as crucial in ensuring sustainable development as the promotion and consolidation of the Rule of Law (henceforth RoL). In fact, RoL has become a major ingredient in analyses of what is missing in countries struggling for political and economic development. Yet, this objective remains elusive, as there is limited knowledge of what policies work in promoting the Rule of Law. With this in mind, this paper analyzes CIDA’s approach to RoL promotion, tracking how different programs promoted by CIDA addressed RoL concerns. Overall, and despite the term having been left out of CIDA’s priorities for some time, the organization shows interest and investment in RoL related projects. Yet, CIDA’s approach has lacked a clear and explicit direction, and has emphasized projects dealing with capacity building.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, Governance, Rule of Law, and Political Science
Political Geography:
Global Focus

138. Optimal Deterrence: An Evaluation of the Leaks-Regulating Regime

Author:
Ananth Padmanabhan, Tina Thomas, and Jacob Victor
Publication Date:
12-2012
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
Recent high-profile leaks have led to renewed calls, especially from some members of Congress, for a more rigorous leaks-prosecuting regime. In response, others, most visibly the press and certain watchdog groups, have strongly resisted the claim that a more forceful response to unauthorized disclosures benefits the American public. This report evaluates the existing leaks-regulating regime and considers which of the current reform proposals are most likely to provide optimal deterrence. First, this report outlines the myriad and sometimes contradictory interests at stake implicated by unauthorized disclosure of classified information: protecting national security, safeguarding First Amendment rights, ensuring government accountability and transparency, promoting consistency in prosecution, and furthering efficient government functioning. Second, this report examines why it has proven difficult for the government to successfully prosecute leaks. It identifies four leading reasons. First, it can be difficult to identify a leaker, given the vast proliferation of the classification system and the expansion of national security bureaucracy. Second, the government faces significant legal burdens at trial— prosecutors often have to rely on circumstantial evidence; in the case of intangible information disclosure, the government may also have to deal with a heightened scienter requirements. Third, a trial may attract unwanted attention to an issue the government prefers to keep secret and defendants sometimes try to capitalize on this by using “graymail” defenses. Finally, the recipients of unauthorized disclosures—usually members of the press—enjoy robust constitutional protections that can restrict evidence gathering.
Topic:
Governance, Legal Theory, Deterrence, Classification, and Leaks
Political Geography:
Global Focus