Democratic Governance Processes Research Articles

Democratic governance in the context of public administration concept. Historical and theoretical analysis

The article substantiates and studies the coverage of key parameters of democratic governance in the context of the public administration concept. The conceptual and categorical apparatus of the science of state administration are analyzed. An attempt is made to regulate the theoretical foundations of management processes of public administration. The place and essence of democratic governance processes in the system of public administration are determined. In the example of the political history of the United States, the origin and features of the functioning of key English-language terms used in the national concept of public administration are demonstrated. The use of new terminology in state administration as well as the theoretical approaches of domestic and foreign scholars who have studied this issue, are analysed. Statement of the problem. The development of such a branch of science as “state administration” requires expanding the boundaries of its scientific research and rethinking the subject area. The problem of forming a conceptual and categorical system is a key task for the development of the national science of state administration. Unlike the classical sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.), the state administration is a complicated scientific complex of interdisciplinary cooperation of various social sciences and comprehension of practical experience in the implementation of state-building. In our opinion, this is the whole complexity of the formation and application of the conceptual and categorical apparatus. The globalization processes of the development of this science further complicate the use of state administration terminology. Therefore, the issues of mutual responsibility between the definitions of the basic concepts of state administration come to the fore. In addition, the process of globalization in the development of this science has complicated the use of national administrative terminology. Therefore, the question of mutual responsibility between the definitions of the main concepts of public administration arose. Public administration is a complex process that expresses the practical, organizational, and regulatory influence of the state on the public life of the people, which aims to organize, preserve, or change public life and is based on its power.

AI for the public. How public interest theory shifts the discourse on AI

AI for social good is a thriving research topic and a frequently declared goal of AI strategies and regulation. This article investigates the requirements necessary in order for AI to actually serve a public interest, and hence be socially good. The authors propose shifting the focus of the discourse towards democratic governance processes when developing and deploying AI systems. The article draws from the rich history of public interest theory in political philosophy and law, and develops a framework for ‘public interest AI’. The framework consists of (1) public justification for the AI system, (2) an emphasis on equality, (3) deliberation/ co-design process, (4) technical safeguards, and (5) openness to validation. This framework is then applied to two case studies, namely SyRI, the Dutch welfare fraud detection project, and UNICEF’s Project Connect, that maps schools worldwide. Through the analysis of these cases, the authors conclude that public interest is a helpful and practical guide for the development and governance of AI for the people.

Traditional Administration and its Impact on Democratic Governance in Africa “The Nigerian Experience”

Democratic governance is undoubtedly adjudged to be the most acceptable instrument through which people can be better served and administered for sustainable development. Even though traditional institution has been the indigenous governance instrument long before the advent of modern democracy, it is a framework that survived and believed to have tremendous impacts on the modern democratic process and governance in Nigeria. This paper therefore examines the relationship inherent between the traditional institutions and the modern democratic process of governance in Africa with particular reference to Nigeria. The research is a survey type which relies on available literature on governance, close observations and discussion with intellectuals and experts on governance generally. The paper finds a close relationship between the traditional administration and the democratic governance processes in Nigeria. This relationship by way of impacts on democratisation process is seen in the following ways; despotic disposition to leadership, personalisation of the instruments of governance, apparent disregard for constitutional limitations of tenure, masculinisation of leadership, class domination and promotion of political hegemony. The paper concludes that there is a dominance of such traditional administration values among Nigerian politicians and leaders. The paper recommends a systemic restructuring, systematic but aggressive mass reorientation and sensitisation about the true democratic culture and value as against the old order, promotion of equal opportunities for all, mass literacy campaign against despotism and personalisation of instruments of governance, promotion of transparency and accountability amongst others, for good governance and sustainable development.

Methodological framework of the process of democratic governance in the theory of public administration

The methodological grounds of the democratic governance process based on the analysis of domestic and foreign scientific experience of public administration science are considered in the article. The study aims to analyze and investigate the nature of the origin and use of the latest terminology of public administration, to offer their own approaches to adapting English definitions to existing terminology. Thus, for a long time since the accreditation of the science of public administration, some domestic researchers have implemented the experience of advanced European and American theories of public administration, doing so superficially, without taking into account the peculiarities of management processes. In a relatively short time, a large number of literally adapted concepts have appeared in the theory of public administration. In some places, some studies contain a significant number of English terms without translation into Ukrainian, simply with an explanation of what is meant by this or that concept. Since domestic public administration was based on the experience of authoritarian traditions, the methodological approaches to the terminology of key concepts differ significantly from the public administration practices of democracies in Europe and North America. In our country, for example, the state power – manages, hence the concept – management, respectively, in democratic countries, the state power is rather a service for providing administrative services to its citizens, or carries out administration. To understand the concept of "management", the most suitable English equivalent – "management", which in domestic economics is not even translated. Public administration of foreign interpretation is no longer management but administration, very often this term is used with the term "public". At the beginning of the XXI century in foreign theory another concept of public administration – "governance" is firmly entrenched, which has become a destroyer of peace in the terminology and methodology of domestic science of public administration. The concept of "governance" which in the domestic terminology of public administration science borders on the definition of two concepts of "governance" carries out a "revolution" of modern domestic theory of public administration and requires significant modernization of its methodology and conceptual apparatus.

Democratic Governance: Civil Society Participation in Migrant Worker Advocacy

This article was (1) to examine the process of democratic governance carried out by Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute through advocating the Erwiana case and (2) to find out the supporting and inhibiting factors in promoting democratic governance. This study is descriptive qualitative research. The informants were the director, head of the division, and members of Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute and Erwiana as the beneficiary. Data collection techniques used non-participant observation, interviews, and documentation studies and followed with data sources triangulation to check its validity. The data analysis then applied an interactive model through data collection, data presentation, verification, and conclusions. The results showed that the Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute's implementation of democratic governance in advocating law enforcement on the injustices experienced toward migrant workers was optimal. As an NGO, LBH has been able to bridge differences in legal policies between the two countries and efficient against diplomatic barriers. Its supporting factors are political development as mobilization and mass participation, collaboration with grassroots groups, donor support, and public policies that support case counseling. Simultaneously, the inhibiting factors are political will, intolerant group resistance, and lack of human resources.

The listening hermeneutic of public servants: building on the implicit

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of phenomenological or attuned listening and explore its implications for deliberative governance. Drawing on examples from urban planning and city administration, we make a case for listening as a hermeneutic phenomenological practice of crucial importance for public organizations.Design/methodology/approachThis research relies on interpretive phenomenology, critical reflection, and political theory. Through the examination of case studies, we show that attuned or phenomenological listening contributes to greater participatory processes in organizations and to democratic governance processes, more generally.FindingsBy enhancing both collaborative endeavors and discretionary action, phenomenological listening acknowledges the unpredictable, dynamic and political aspects of organizations. Finally, it helps transform the latter into spaces where democratic and accountable action can take place.Practical implicationsThis perspective encourages public deliberation and attentive listening for practitioners to make decisions on the spot that are sensitive to people’s needs.Originality/valueEmbodied and attuned listening fosters reflection-in-action, as well as a reasoned pathway toward public accountability and deliberative democracy.

Social Checks and Balances: A Private Fairness

This Essay proposes a private standards and certification system to induce media firms to provide more complete and accurate information. The Essay argues that this new private governance system is a viable response to the channelized flow of information that is exacerbating political polarization in the United States. Specifically, the Essay proposes development of a new private fairness doctrine to replace the standard repealed by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987. A broad-based, multi-stakeholder organization could develop and implement this private fairness doctrine, and the certification process could harness market and social pressure to influence the practices of traditional and new media firms. A growing literature demonstrates how private governance initiatives can perform the functions of government in the environmental, labor, gun control, animal welfare, fair trade, and other areas. The Essay argues that private governance initiatives such as the new private fairness doctrine also can bolster the social checks and balances that support the processes of democratic governance. Any intervention into the flow of information creates risks, but so does inaction, and the private fairness doctrine holds out the possibility of improving the information available for public discourse while limiting the risks of government intervention. In the long term, the concept of private governance also can stimulate creative thinking on interventions to improve other core democratic processes, including campaign finance, voting, ballot security, and others.

The Problem of Democratic Dirty Hands: Citizen Complicity, Responsibility, and Guilt

Abstract This paper outlines and explores the problem of democratic dirty hands (DDH), the sui generis moral situation where democratic politicians justifiably violate both a cherished moral principle and the fundamental processes of democratic governance. Some recent contributions to the dirty-hands (DH) debate have argued that the principles of democratic governance render DDH impossible. The paper rejects this view as based on a misunderstanding of the minimal and necessary conditions for both DH and democratic overnance. However, DDH does raise interesting issues concerning the complicity of citizens with their politicians’ DH. Citizens are accessories to such acts and have a duty to contribute to the reparations for the victims of DDH. Furthermore, as citizens bear some responsibility for the moral violations that were done in their name, they properly ought to feel some of the moral pollution that these actions generated.

LEARNING DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW GILDED AGE

Can democracy be learned? The election of Donald Trump has reinvigorated debates about the practice and process of democratic governance. It has highlighted the ways in which political behavior and ideologies are rooted in different cultures and geographies, and, in our new Gilded Age, the effects of the increasing polarization of the wealthy few and the 99 percent. These conditions make it an opportune time to reexamine earlier social critics who pointed to an array of institutions to combat political and economic inequality. Pragmatist thinkers, John Dewey foremost among them, considered the electoral process only one facet of a democratic ideal that citizens would need to strive to realize in the economic, social, and cultural realms. “Democracy” described not only a political system, but also an egalitarian “mode of associated living.” Such a way of life did not take place exclusively in the realm of formal politics, but in any instance of communal activity. Most importantly, democracy was a learned disposition: a form of egalitarian human organization that could only emerge if individuals developed the right habits of mind and used their shared intelligence to build inclusive communities of mutual flourishing.

The Prehistory and Meaning of Civil Society and its Role in Political Life in Different Countries

The democratic system of governance reform is one of the main directions of the establishment and development of the civil society. Civil society is any activity, any initiative of individuals, spontaneously created self-governance and citizens based associations and organizations, which are supported and protected by the law of the state in their work. Tocqueville first presented civil society to the West as voluntary, non-political social organizations that strengthen democracy preventing a tyranny of the majority. Associations, which can be “religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive”, protect diversity by uniting equal but weak individuals into powerful groups. These associations prevent the fragmentation of society by forcing men to consider the affairs of others and to work with their neighbors. In different epoch and in different situations the term “civil society” may be understood in different ways, it may be freedom of speech, wide field of opportunities, democracy, unity of some interests, communication, globalization, activity, governmental and non-governmental associations. In order to get effective functioning of the mechanism, the main thing is to inform society and earn good reputation and trust. All citizens should be acknowledged with the main point of civil society, their functions, duties, obligations and when they can apply to them and what kind of problems they are concerned with. Most important, is more communication, and civil society itself should be interested in providing them with more information about their job, aims, plans and do their best to make citizens get involved in any business or activities. This communication should be bilateral, active and effective. The purpose of the paper isto discuss what kind of prehistory civil society had and how great its role is in the development processes of democratic governance.

Accountable to Whom? Rethinking the Role of Corporations in Political CSR

According to Palazzo and Scherer, the changing role of business corporations in society requires that we take new measures to integrate these organizations into society-wide processes of democratic governance. We argue that their model of integration has a fundamental problem. Instead of treating business corporations as agents that must be held accountable to the democratic reasoning of affected parties, it treats corporations as agents who can hold others accountable. In our terminology, it treats business corporations as “supervising authorities” rather than “functionaries.” The result is that Palazzo and Scherer’s model does not actually address the democratic deficit that it is meant to solve. In order to fix the problem, we advocate removing business corporations from any policymaking role in political CSR and limiting participation to political NGOs and other groups that meet the standards we set out for a politically representative organization (PRO).

Local Government Innovation and Revealed Ideas of Political Legitimacy: a Comparative Study between the United States and China

This study constructs a typology of innovation from the winning nominations of local government innovation award programs in the US and China, two countries with histories of subnational policy innovation, to reveal what types of policy initiatives local officials believe will improve governance in each country. I argue that improving governance is important as it serves as a main source of modern political legitimacy, regardless of regime type. To analyze if ideas of good governance differ by regime type, I classify local government innovation into six thematic areas, and then examine how each of these are expected to improve governance and thus contribute to political legitimacy. In China, I find that the predominant local innovations are in the area of governance and management, which demonstrate that government officials believe that reforming the democratic governance process will solve governance problems and enhance political legitimacy. In the United States, however, economic, social, cultural, and environmental areas occupied a larger proportion of government innovation, illustrating that local officials pay more attention to enhancing political legitimacy through improving the performance and quality of government services. This analysis shows that ideas of good governance, as revealed by local government innovation awards, differ across these two regime types. Although government officials in both regimes desire improved governance as a way to enhance political legitimacy, what that means in each country differs.

Escaping the Middleman Paradox: Better Reykjavik and Open Policy Innovation

Better Reykjavik is a unique municipal ePetition website that is developed and maintained by a grassroots nonprofit organization, has significant deliberative mechanisms, and has been normalized as an ongoing channel for citizen-government interaction across multiple elected administrations. The primary contribution of this study is an analysis of the novel “interface” that was established between the grassroots-developed technical system and the existing political and administrative institutions of policymaking. I begin with a brief overview of the challenges that citizens and governments face in the implementation of ePetition processes. I then suggest that Landemore’s (2012) “democratic reason” and Coleman’s (2008) “autonomous citizenship” constructs provide useful insights into why and how the Better Reykjavik has made a continuing impact on city governance. Next, I present an analysis of the socio-technical process of the initiative’s software development and political integration, showing how this project moved from the fringes of the grassroots towards the center of public and governmental awareness. I conclude by examining Reykjavik’s “new normal” political culture, which illustrates how a bottom-up, fast-moving technical initiative can productively support the slower-moving processes of democratic governance.

The Use of Evidence Within Policy Evaluation in Health in Ghana: Implications for Accountability and Democratic Governance

The use of evidence in policymaking is commonly considered a good practice of democratic governance by improving accountability, effectiveness, and stakeholders’ involvement in policy decisions. The features of this practice, however, remain vague in the general discourse of evidence‐based policymaking (EBPM) with the risk of obscuring important governance and legitimacy implications. In policy evaluation especially, the use of evidence can be critical to translate technical measurements of policy achievements into political values for shaping future policy directions. We present a case study based on the health policy review process in Ghana in order to discuss how institutionalized evidentiary practices used in policy evaluation affect structures and processes of democratic governance. Drawing on qualitative interviews with international and local actors, we reflect on how the evidence review process—a process agreed in collaboration with development partners—links to the evidence advisory system and the accountability systems in place. We find that the uses of evidence promoted by international donors within the evaluation process actually creates disconnect with the national accountability system in place, with implications for democratic governance.

Connective management and governance network performance: the mediating role of throughput legitimacy. Findings from survey research on complex water projects in the Netherlands

In this paper we empirically examine the relationship between connective management, democratic legitimacy, and network performance in governance networks around complex water projects in the Netherlands. Realizing effective and legitimate solutions in such a context is highly challenging, as a variety of interests are at stake, and actors often disagree about goals of the water issue at stake. Although previous research has indicated the importance of network management for the performance of governance networks, the issue of democratic legitimacy is not much addressed in this relationship. Building on the literature, we expect to find that throughput legitimacy has a partly mediating role in the relationship between connective management and network performance. The results, based on survey research, indicate that governance networks have indeed democratic potential but, in order to make this potential manifest, network managers can play a key ‘connective’ role. Furthermore, the results confirm our hypotheses that throughput legitimacy positively affects network performance and that it has a mediating effect on the relationship between connective management and network performance. Network managers can create important conditions for the evolution of a democratic governance process, but are dependent on the way stakeholders interact with one another and the democratic quality of that interaction.

Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis

Questions of how best to define the ends, justify the means, and measure the performance of governments have preoccupied political economists for centuries. Recently, the concept of public value—defined in terms of the many dimensions of value that a democratic public might want to see produced by and reflected in the performance of government—has been proposed as an alternative approach. This article develops three philosophical claims central to the practice of public value accounting: (1) when the collectively owned assets of government are being deployed, the appropriate arbiter of public value is the collectively defined values of a “public” called into existence and made articulate through the quite imperfect processes of democratic governance; (2) the collectively owned assets include not only government money but also the authority of the state; (3) the normative framework for assessing the value of government production relies on both utilitarian and deontological philosophical frameworks.

Authority Migration and Accountability in Canadian Public Governance

AbstractIn the tradition of democratic theory, elections are recognized as important mechanisms of accountability. However, the migration of public decision-making responsibility away from elected representatives and the emergence of new governance actors necessitate a fuller conceptualization of accountability relationships. As governments pursue partnerships with societal actors and disperse authority across multiple levels, questions of public input and accountability within the democratic governance process arise. In this paper, cases of authority migration in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia between the years of 1946 and 2005 are used to examine the accountability relationships between new governance actors and both government and society. The existence and relative strength of accountability relationships are evaluated using the rules stipulated in the provincial legislation. Political ideology of governing parties, geographic scale of new jurisdictions and period in time are evaluated as predictors of the strength of the accountability relationship overall.

Innovating Innovation: RRI as a Guiding Principle in the ERA

Calling for a 'new renaissance' for Europe in 2009, the European Research Area (ERA) was meant to undergo a paradigm shift in which science policy would now be based upon the shared responsibility of researchers, industry, policymakers and citizens to promote socially beneficial innovation. Through a textual analysis of EU documents, this paper will explore the processes through which this new framework for science policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), has been constructed within the context of the ERA, in order to shape technology towards still uncertainly-defined 'European' values and public goods. Interrogating this still-emergent concept suggests that the construction and operationalisation of RRI will itself be an ongoing innovation in up-stream democratic governance processes. The paper will question whether it has retained its goal of providing democratically accountable governance of science and technology as it begins to move through the policy process and concludes by discussing ways in which RRI might utilise a wider involvement of stakeholders, so that the ERA does not uncritically promote the return of pre-crisis approaches to economic growth, nor create new forms of inequality in the shape of a pan-European technoscientific 'research elite.'

The Disproportionate Erosion of Local Control

This case study of an urban school board’s experiences under high-stakes accountability demonstrates how the district leaders eschewed democratic governance processes in favor of autocratic behaviors. They possessed narrowly defined goals for teaching and learning that emphasized competitive, individualized means of achievement. Their decision making was private; opportunities for local input were missing. They promoted centrally determined, standardized instructional and administrative practices, not locally driven ones. It concludes that accountability policies that are framed in terms of their potential to further democratic aims by granting greater liberty in exchange for results, and by holding all districts to the same high standards, may disproportionately reduce democratic control in urban settings.

An Era of Disruptive Innovation and Opportunity

Thank you for your contribution of leadership to the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) as committed participants in our policy development and democratic governance processes. Over the past year we have seen substantive and important issues take shape in the form of proposed policy. The work has come from standing committees, Councils, the Board and individual members. We have debated them via Webinars and here in person at this meeting. You have engaged in thoughtful policy formation and this work will advance academic pharmacy in countless ways. I promised the members of the Bylaws and Policy Development Committee that I would take just a few minutes this morning to reflect on the nature of this work. With the final report and recommendations of the Committee before you, you might say to yourself, Well, they certainly have muted the controversy for today's House session. And if you have not been actively engaged in the process of considering policy over the last several months and here at the meeting, you might leave Kissimmee thinking Is that all there is? Why bother?! Brian Crabtree served as an AACP delegate to the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) House in New Orleans in March. As he left the final, debate-filled and somewhat exhausting final session of their House, he said to me, Well, that certainly was interesting, and SO different from the AACP House. Different in this case is not necessarily better; it's just different. As the Committee worked in Executive Session yesterday after the best-attended Open Hearing in perhaps 20 years, they worked hard to distinguish statements of educational policy from recommendations for action. They also studied hard and considered the input that suggested that some statements were not ready for action and needed more thoughtful clarification. That is their charge and their work will facilitate the final conduct of House business this morning. Just 2 final thoughts about the work of the House, past and present, before I continue with my other remarks; this meeting of the House marks the 20th anniversary of the historic and hard-to-achieve decision by the AACP House that the entry-level preparation for pharmacists should be the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) degree. That meeting took place in Washington, DC, where it must have felt over 100 degrees, like it is there today! This also makes me wonder whether any issue other than degrees, dues, and dollars can incite the interest and engagement of our members! Perhaps some of the work stimulated by President Bootman's charges to the 2012-2013 committees will test this proposition! It is a privilege to have this 11th opportunity to take a few minutes to report to you from the perspective of the chief staff officer of your Association and to reflect on AACP in these times of disruptive innovation and opportunity. That is the theme I am using to frame these remarks. President Crabtree and I had the enormous good fortune to begin calendar year 2012 in what might have been a Harvard School of Business intensive weekend graduate seminar on the topic of disruptive innovation. While we were actually on the island of St. John with leaders and staff colleagues from 10 other national pharmacy and pharmaceutical industry associations, our professor was none other than Clayton Christensen. Many of you may have heard this Harvard Business School professor's keynote presentation on disruptive innovation in healthcare at the APhA meeting in Seattle in March 2011. Among other titles, Professor Christensen has written the Innovator's Prescription: Disruptive Innovation in Health Care and Disrupting Class, which applies the theory of disruptive innovation to education. We provided a copy of Disrupting Class to the deans attending last February's Deans Retreat in San Diego. If you are keeping score, the good professor suggests clearly and passionately that both healthcare and education at all levels are poised for significant disruption. …