Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges

Weiss, Thomas G.

doi:10.1080/713701075

Cited by 508 publications

(279 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

198

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mobilizing civil society has become an important pillar on IGOs agenda after the fall of the socialist regime, which had to be revived, supported, encouraged, and developed through training and capacity building programs. The permanent focus by governing institutions (EU, World Bank) on the mobilization of civil society and involvement of NGOs or advocacy groups is based on the rationale that the latter will not only be involved in developing and implementing development strategies but will enable civil society and increase democratization from bottom-up (Weiss 2000). As the European Commission has put it (EC 2000b: 2; 5; 6):…”

Section: The Governance Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Forms of Government and the Europenisation of Minority Representation: the Case of European Roma

Anghel¹

2014

Eur. j. soc. sci. educ. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Governance Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Forms of Government and the Europenisation of Minority Representation: the Case of European Roma

Anghel¹

2014

Eur. j. soc. sci. educ. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 While there are contributions discussing global governance and its different meanings in a self-reflective fashion (Hewson and Sinclair, 1999;Ba and Hoffmann, 2005;Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006;Hofferberth, 2015;Pegram and Acuto, 2015), most authors, for practical reasons, sidestep such debates and refer to global governance to make an argument and advance research agendas by assuming that readers at least share a somewhat similar understanding of the concept. 3 Given the wide range of different meanings in use, however, such assumptions become problematic as global governance is, among other things, referred to as a policy notion with its origins in the practitioners' discourse (Weiss, 2000), as an analytical tool to study and assess scale and dimensions of global change (Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006), as well as an empirical condition reflecting how world politics has changed (Karns and Mingst, 2010). In other words, from its very inception, global governance semantically entailed and continues to entail today a wide range of different meanings, including the activities of actors engaged in world politics, the conceptual tools and the ontology to intellectually grasp these, and the paradigmatic description thereof as a new type of world politics (Smouts, 1998: 81-82).…”

Section: Current Understandings In and Of Global Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“Confusion is a fundamental state of mind”—On the peculiar intellectual career of global governance in international relations

Hofferberth

2016

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 20 years after global governance was introduced to the discipline of International Relations (IR), confusion about its conceptual status remains. In fact, how to even speak and think global governance-whether as a description of world politics, as a theoretical perspective to explain it, or as a normative notion to be realized through global policy-remains debated. This state of confusion affects debates within the Political Science subfield of IR as well as dialogue between different disciplines beyond IR. More specifically, the article argues that the current state of confusion exists not because of a lack of debate but rather because of different understandings of global governance that were attached to the concept during its emergence and which are still advanced and reproduced within debates today. These different understandings have their origin in certain real-world and disciplinary dynamics and constitute global governance in present discourse as a "condensation symbol" of different meanings. It is argued that precisely because of this status, global governance has obtained its "celebrity status", within and beyond IR. By structuring different understandings of global governance and by reconstructing real-world and disciplinary contexts of emergence, the article goes beyond stating the obvious and provides a discussion of various sources and consequences of the confusion surrounding global governance. On the basis of this state-of-the-art overview, it is argued that to realize the full potential of global governance in IR and ensure interdisciplinary dialogue beyond it, one needs to engage with the concept and its immanent confusion in a reflective and cautious way by becoming aware of different meanings attached to it instead of arbitrarily reducing the concept to a single meaning to define its conceptual status. This article is published as part of a thematic collection on global governance.

show abstract

“…September 11 accelerated the already imploding world of globalization and made various aspects of societal and existential security central to many people's self-perceptions. This is also reflected in international relations theory which is no longer limited to state security but elaborates a broad variety of threats (Booth 2004;Burke 2007;Manners 2006;Weiss 2005). Within this emerging body of research is a renewed focus on securitization and desecuritization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global insecurity and citizenship strategies: Young Muslims in the West

Kinnvall

Nesbitt‐Larking²

2011

Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is set in the contemporary context of global challenges: economic crises, state deformations, and rapidly accelerating flows of people, ideas, and ideals. It has two main aims. One is to establish theoretical and empirical links between securitization studies and analyses of citizenship in the light of globalization, multiculturalism and discourses on terror. The second is to illustrate how macro events play out at the collective and individual level in terms of socio-psychological (in)securities that condition different citizenship strategies. The empirical basis for the article includes our studies of Western Muslims in the Netherlands, France, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, and Canada. The article proposes and develops three maps of citizenship strategies in three major sections: retreatism, essentialism, and engagement. Each section elaborates psycho-spatial ways of being in the world that characterize both majority populations and Muslim minorities as they attempt to adapt to the rapidly changing and challenging nature of a globalizing world. The first is the Westphalian version of retreatism that is grounded in an orientalist world of metropolis and distant colony. The other two citizenship strategies are motivated by a world in which territory and space are increasingly in question. In response to a shrinking global experience, the second citizenship strategy, that of essentialism, builds upon and reinforces the binary opposition between East and West in the panic establishment of psycho-social distance, separateness, and rigid distinctiveness. The third citizenship strategy is that of engagement. A strategy of engagement affirms and works with the plurilocational, multiple, and hybrid experiences of the postcolonial and increasingly cosmopolitical world in practices of dialogical openness and deep multiculturalism.

show abstract

Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges

Cited by 508 publications

References 17 publications

New Forms of Government and the Europenisation of Minority Representation: the Case of European Roma

New Forms of Government and the Europenisation of Minority Representation: the Case of European Roma

“Confusion is a fundamental state of mind”—On the peculiar intellectual career of global governance in international relations

Global insecurity and citizenship strategies: Young Muslims in the West

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About