Arguably disruptive policy can function to government as disruptive technology does to industry: to be resisted at all costs up to the subversion of societies and then abandonment of recognisable values. We are needing to reach for new ways of describing the public phenomena of the present. The positive philosophies of the Tavistock Institute [http://www.tavinstitute.org/] seem to have no present day equivalent, The language of institutional governance is empoverished, in line with deterioration in effectiveness of governance models.We have shifted our attention to the moment, to crises, to resolving obvious egregious behaviour, using forms of diplomacy that rest on self interest and stasis. How can we reinvigorate theory and philosophy of change to deal with structures and transactions in connected polities, subject to boundariless externalities.
As you aware of it, historically, two opposite phenamena of extreme supression, and inpowerness opportunities have the same outcome of disruptive behaviors and reactions, and there is no immidiate cure, unless by the variables of time, and economic pulsation-outcomes, that could shift the priorities and policies. In addition, the two CONFLICTED factores of globlization, and identity awareness among all reces and cultures, at the same time, could be considered the reinforceing factor for this situation, in current time too.
But we need some fixed point in this discussion. For me that is the autonomy of the citizen. That is a given. Whether as observer on events, or as actor. Shaping governance, as you say fails at either end: a total subservience to one group or total autonomy/ cupidity of the individual. What is interesting is collective shaping of the field of governance that includes enough of experience to withstand the extremes. Conflict comes into it, and some sense of a buffer - a cure. I would be interested in further references to 'economic pulsation outcomes' . Clearly dynamics must also be included, and the idea of (dynamic) stability..
No. It is not well-conceptualised in physical terms. It depends on people's view of what deserves authority, what does not, and so on. Thus 'a week is a long time on politics', Governance is about politics. But donors want to treat it often in physical terms so they can argue that resources supplied 'will' lead to certain manifest changes, and they organise around that assumption, which lacks decent empirical foundation. If it was predictable, life would be very very different.
I'm not sure I speak the social science language you utilize, but I have written about this a bit in two of my books, at least in the post conflict context: Deconstructing the Reconstruction: Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Bosnia and Herzegovina(Ashgate 2008) and On the Frontlines: OUP (2011), the latter in chapters 10 and 11, and to a certain extent, 4, with a focus on gender.
Dear Stephen,
The issues you mention are in my opinion one of the reasons why a growing number of researchers, for example in economics and governance studies, are developing evolutionary models and frameworks. These do address the polycentric character of governance, in which decision-making sites, as well as the elements of these sites are interdependent and co-evolving. Much of this literature also addresses the contingent nature of governance by addressing the path-dependencies that shape governance trajectories. Coming back to your main questions I would therefore say yes, governance does have a trajectory; a trajectory that can be observed, analyzed and explained.
Chapter Chapter 1. Evolutionary Governance Theory: An introduction.
Chapter Chapter 4. Evolutionary Paths
Thank you both, for these references. Path dependence and density are interesting concepts, as is the role of authority shifts or flows. Is politics then left out in the cold? simply as an apology for institutions?
I would rather say that it is politics (the concept of political power as practiced or better still, the political philosophy) that defines governance. Institutions do not define governance. It is also not material whether the political power is exercised in a democratic format or an autocratic format. Take the example of Hitler (as a symbol of political power), for instance. His concept of superiority of the Aryan race coupled with his antisemitism defined the way institutions functioned in Germany of that time. On the other hand, take FDR. His concept of freedom and democracy defined the way US institutional framework acted/reacted to the events in the world. Any number of such examples can be taken, the latest perhaps would be the extreme Wahabi outlook of Saudi Royal house defining how institutions in Saudi Arabia function.
Coming to the question, yes, governance has a trajectory and the trajectory is defined by the political philosophy of the ruling class. Every institution of government automatically falls in line and tows the philosophy in its function. So, if we can define the political philosophy of a country, then we can define its governance and predict the way its institutions would function.
Have a great day.
Yes! it does have. In fact this is the shape and trajectory which measures the success of governance.
In the beginning itself we expect a trajectory for the governance, in case it follow the desired trajectory; we claim an ideal governance in the country. And, it has also got a definite shape which is guided by its policies in detail.
19 maggio 2015
L'odierna cultura politica è totalmente da rifondare e bisogna adottare un punto di vista alla Machiavelli e alla Marx che faccia piazza pulita della ideologia democratica. Lo scopo di quest'opera di integrale tabula rasa è l'implementazione di politiche che autenticamente e concretamente allarghino gli spazi di libertà sia per gli individui che per i gruppi in cui questi si associano. Per chi sia interessato a queste tematiche, che sono il nucleo della domanda "Does governance, as observed, have a shape, a trajectory?", invito ad impostare sul Web una ricerca avente come termine la locuzione 'Repubblicanesimo Geopolitico'. Massimo Morigi