Searching for civil society: changing patterns of governance in Britain

Abstract

To understand governance, we ask who is telling the story from within which tradition. We argue there is no essentialist notion of governance but at least four conceptions each rooted in a distinctive tradition. The first section of the paper describes the relevant traditions: Tory, Liberal, Whig and Socialist. The second section describes the different notions of governance associated with each tradition; intermediate institutions, marketizing public services, reinventing the constitution and trust and negotiation. We explain these distinct conceptions of governance as responses to the dilemmas of inflation and state overload. In the conclusion, we summarize how and why traditions change, concluding, there is no such thing as governance, but only the differing constructions of the several traditions.

A framework for profiling the characteristics of risk governance in natural hazard contexts

“…This means that there will be increasing interdependence between actors and agencies, a need to negotiate shared goals and some degree of blurring of boundaries between private, public and voluntary sectors. Governance is characterised by different state-society relationships and responsibilities, involving co-resourcing, co-decision and codelivery, with the state becoming increasingly dependent on other actors to deliver services and to implement policies (Bevir and Trentmann, 2007). The "hollowing out of the nation state", to which governance theorists often refer, captures the dissolution of linear chains of command associated with different tiers of government (local, regional, national, international) and the emergence of more complex structures based on networks involving social groups, private companies, policy makers, civic and voluntary organisations and agencies, which can work interdependently and communicate across boundaries at different levels (Rhodes, 1997).…”

“…However, critics of the "new governance" argue that power relations still play an intrinsic role in policy negotiations and that whilst participation can give an impression of transparency, engagement and interaction, decision-making still rests in the hands of a few influential individuals or organisations ). There are also major debates about issues of accountability and justice, both of which formerly rested with elected political parties, but are now becoming increasingly opaque or elusive as a consequence of the distribution of management responsibility to the private sector or to un-elected bodies and the difficulties in stimulating, coordinating and adjusting activities amongst and between different actors (Bovens, 1990;Ahrens and Rudolph, 2006;Bevir, 2007).…”

“…Over the past thirty years or so, moves away from government towards a broader practice of "governance" have been identified (Rhodes, 1997;Bevir and Rhodes, 2003), a shift that is potentially as relevant to the handling of natural hazards as it is to other societal concerns such as economic regeneration or transport. The characteristics of what has been termed "new governance" include the emergence of multilevel governance processes and the "hollowing out" of the power of the nation state; moves away from the exercise of centralised authority towards the involvement of a multiplicity of private sector and civil society actors; the creation of new forms of authority and control; and changing distributions of responsibilities between the state and other actors, including individual citizens (Walker et al, 2010).…”

Law After the Welfare State: Formalism, Functionalism, and the Ironic Turn of Reflexive Law

“…185. (Harlow 1999); (Harlow 2006); (Stillman II 2003); (Bevir and Rhodes 2003); (Elgie 2003); (Jann 2003). 186.…”

Аксиологическая Характеристика Гражданского Общества

“…По нашему мнению, формирование причин такого поведения связано с самими ценностями граждан-ского общества, заключенными не в абстрактной и недостижимой, но вполне конкретной возможно-сти реализации интересов, а при необходимости -и их защиты. Это в определенной мере создает ощущение общности ценностей, единства социальных акторов, указывая при этом на высокий уро-вень правовой культуры [14]. По В.В.…”