The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance

Héritier, Adrienne; Lehmkuhl, Dirk

doi:10.1017/s0143814x08000755

Cited by 359 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many assume that a new way of governing society -"new governance" -has supplanted the old governance model and represents "a change in the nature of the meaning of government" (Bevir and Rhodes 2003, p. 4). On the other hand, there are those who genuinely doubt that "government" -meaning a hierarchical framework of government -is losing its central role in the policy-making process, to be replaced by a more decentralized, "self-governing" variety of governance (Hill and Lynn 2005;Goetz 2008;Héritier and Lehmkuhl 2008). However, we need to avoid using governance as a catch-all description, or assuming its superiority over earlier forms a priori, if the concept is to be useful.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis

Capano

Howlett

Ramesh

2015

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many visions of governance, governments are portrayed as playing a "steering", rather than "rowing", role. The widespread use of privatization, deregulation, decentralization and third-party governments are often mentioned as concrete manifestations of the broad transformation which has led to new forms of governance. Examined more closely, however, the large and growing body of literature on governance has done little to clarify what is "new" about "new governance". Does it indicate a clean break from institutions and processes of the past, or is it merely chronicling an assortment of instrument changes necessary for governments to adapt to changing socioeconomic conditions? Do the changes really indicate the emergence of a new system in which the government is merely another player on a par with societal and international counterparts? More fundamentally, is governance a normative framework reflecting the hopes and desires of those who prefer smaller governments, or an empirical description of an existing reality? This article briefly surveys existing studies in the field as an introduction to the articles in this special issue. These articles provide strong arguments in support of the view that governments continue to play a pivotal role in policy-making, and that if this fact is not taken into consideration then the perception is of governance risk being anchored to a merely normative or prescriptive view rather than an empirically robust one.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis

Capano

Howlett

Ramesh

2015

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would suggest a division of labor along the lines of a 'principled pragmatism' (Ruggie, 2013; see also Abbott, 2012b) in which public regulators set the broad goals and private regulators seek diverse ways of making the achievement of these goals possible. Eventually, the 'shadow of hierarchy' (Héritier & Lehmkuhl, 2008) that such a division of labour allows for could even become a co-benefit for resolving a further normative challenge, namely the risk of greenwashing to which critics of private transnational self-regulation frequently point.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Recognition and the State Prerogative: Why Democratic Legitimation Recedes in Private Transnational Sustainability Regulation

Dingwerth

2017

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like any regulatory effort, private transnational standard-setters need to legitimate themselves to the audiences from which they seek support or obedience. While early scholarship on private transnational governance has emphasized the centrality of democratic legitimation narratives in rendering private governance socially acceptable, evidence from more recent standard-setting schemes suggests a declining relevance of that narrative over time. In my analysis of private sustainability regulation, I identify a combination of two factors that jointly contribute to this diminished role of democratic legitimation. First, private transnational governance has become a pervasive phenomenon. This means that new entrants to the field no longer face the same liability of newness that required first movers to make an extra effort in legitimation. Second, private standard-setting has moved from areas characterized by 'governance gaps' to areas in which meaningful intergovernmental regulation already exists. In these areas, however, the 'state prerogative' in legitimating governance holds. As a result, transnational standard-setters rely not so much on stressing their democratic credentials, but instead emphasize their contribution to achieving internationally agreed goals.

show abstract

“…202 As reflected in the further expanding research on transnational regulatory areas 203 , the high degree of technicality of the regulatory subjects and the crucial role of expert committees in drafting applicable norms in considerable distance from formal legislative processes 204 presents a formidable challenge to traditional, regulatory theories of law. 205 As we begin to understand the emerging regulatory frameworks in highly specialized areas as an illustration of contemporary rule-making, we can appreciate the legal pluralist deconstruction of formal and informal legal orders in a new light. Building, on the one hand, on early legal-sociological work by Ehrlich ('living law') and Gurvitch ('social law'), we are prompted to revisit the core question of any sociology of law, namely how 'to investigate the correlations between law and other spheres of society.'…”

Section: Transnational Governance Regimes As Cases In Point Of Posmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnational Legal Pluralism

Zumbansen¹

2010

Transnational Legal Theory

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper draws out the analogies and connections between long-standing legal sociological insights into pluralistic legal orders and present concerns with the fragmentation of law outside of the nation state. Within the nation-state, the discovery of legal pluralism inspired a larger contestation of concepts of legal formalism, of the alleged unity of the legal order and of the hierarchy of norms against the background of a consistently advancing process of constitutionalization. This research heightened regulators' sensitivity to blind spots and exclusionary dynamics in the design of rights, leading inter alia to wide-ranging efforts to render more effective access to justice, legal aid and legal representation. Another important consequence concerned an increased awareness of different levels and sites of norm-creation in various societal areas. Much of this is mirrored by today's quest for a just, democratic and equitable global legal order, for example in the debate about 'fragmentation of international law' or 'global administrative law'. But, while the legal pluralism debate largely unfolded in the context (and contestation) of relatively mature legal orders and institutions, such institutional frameworks and safeguards are largely absent on the international plane. As a result, the emergence of numerous norm-setting agencies, specialized courts and tribunals and regulatory networks are perceived as obstacles or impediments to the creation of a sound legal order on a global scale, rather than as inherent traits of an evolving legal order.In order to grasp the increasingly transterritorial nature of regulatory governance it is necessary to revisit the arguments in support of legal pluralism and, in particular, the legal pluralist critique of the association of law with the state. On that basis, it becomes possible to read the currently dominant narrative of the 'end of law' in an era of globalisation in a different light. Rather than describing the advent of globalisation as an end-point of legal development, the transnational perspective seeks to deconstruct the various law-state associations by understanding the evolution of law in relation and response to the development of 'world society'. The currently lamented lack of democratic accountability, say, in international economic governance, can then be perceived as a further consequence in a highly differentiated and de-territorialized society. The paper thus rejects the attempts by lawyers to re-align transnational governance actors with traditional concepts of the state or of civil society and, instead, contrasts them with various advances in sociology and anthropology with regard to the evolution of 'social norms' and 'spaces' of governance and regulation. These perspectives effectively challenge present attempts to conceptualize a hierarchically structured global legal order. This article's proposed concept of 'transnational legal pluralism' [TLP] goes beyond Philip Jessup's 1956 idea of 'transnational law', through which he sought to both...

show abstract

The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance

Cited by 359 publications

References 0 publications

Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis

Bringing Governments Back in: Governance and Governing in Comparative Policy Analysis

Field Recognition and the State Prerogative: Why Democratic Legitimation Recedes in Private Transnational Sustainability Regulation

Transnational Legal Pluralism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About