Informal Governance and Decision-making Through Multiple Streams

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-33
Author(s):  
Alison Harcourt ◽  
George Christou ◽  
Seamus Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Multiple Streams ◽  
Informal Governance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Multiple Streams Approach ◽  
Standards Development

Chapter 2 develops the analytical framework for the book. It sets out the twin theoretical premises of the book, the first relating to global governance at the level of actor influence and the second applying the multiple streams (MS) framework to the level of decision-making within standards-developing organizations (SDOs). It provides critical discussion of the literature on the influence of different actors in international self-regulatory fora and explains how certain actors can uphold the public interest in fora where states and public actors are largely absent. The multiple streams approach provides an in-depth account of how problems appear on SDO agendas, the nature of the contestation relating to the discussion of standards development, and the extent to which and how standards are translated to final adoption. The chapter identifies mechanisms at the conceptual level which facilitate our understanding of how deliberation of standards development lead to agreement and policy decisions.

Conclusion: SDO Decision-making and the Public Interest

2020 ◽  
pp. 210-237
Author(s):  
Alison Harcourt ◽  
George Christou ◽  
Seamus Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
International Level ◽  
Multiple Streams ◽  
Policy Entrepreneurship ◽  
Historical Representation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The conclusion situates the book’s findings in academic debates on democracy and the Internet, global self-regulation, and civil society, and international decision-making processes in unstructured environments. It assesses whether current standards-developing organization (SDO) decision-making is able to bridge historical representation gaps and deficiencies. A nuanced pattern is emerging with increasing inclusion of a wider number of actors within SDO fora. The first part of the chapter returns to the Multiple Streams (MS) framework applied to the case studies on a comparative basis. It identifies key processes under which SDO rules of interaction are established at the international level and explains which interests have come to the fore within decision-making highlighting the occurrence of policy entrepreneurship, forum shopping, and coupling. The final part explores additional frameworks for SDO regulation where spaces for public interest consideration might occur in the future. These are opportunities for inserting public interest considerations into international and national Acts, certification programmes, and the move towards open source solutions for Internet management. The book concludes that, although the literature is expansive on the interaction of corporate sector actors within SDOs, the study of other actors, such as digital rights groups, civil society, academics, policy entrepreneurs and the technical community as a whole, has been underdressed in the literature on international self-regulatory fora to date. In this respect, the book raises important questions of representation of the public interest at the international level by having addressed the actions of actors within SDO fora who promote public interest goals.

Deliberative Democracy and Public Dispute Resolution

2018 ◽  
pp. 709-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Susskind ◽  
Jessica Gordon ◽  
Yasmin Zaerpoor
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Strategy ◽  
Fact Finding

Deliberative democracy and public dispute resolution (PDR) have the same goal—to inform and determine the public interest—but they involve different skills and practices. This article considers the ways in which deliberative democratic approaches to policy-related decision-making can be supplemented with tools used in public dispute resolution—specifically, the use of an independent mediator, the well-developed technique of stakeholder assessment, and a new strategy called joint fact-finding, where stakeholders with different interests work together with outside experts to identify common assumptions, gather information together, and formulate and clarify opinions. All are designed to achieve fairer, wiser, more stable and more efficient outcomes.

Prison Crowding and the Evolution of Public Policy

1985 ◽  
Vol 478 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOAN MULLEN
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Budget Constraints ◽  
The Public ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Future ◽  
American Prison

While crowding has been a persistent feature of the American prison since its invention in the nineteenth century, the last decade of crisis has brought more outspoken media investigations of prison conditions, higher levels of political and managerial turmoil, and a judiciary increasingly willing to bring the conditions of confinement under the scope of Eighth Amendment review. With the added incentive of severe budget constraints, liberals and conservatives alike now question whether this is any way to do business. Although crowding cannot be defined by quantitative measures alone, many institutions have far exceeded their limits of density according to minimum standards promulgated by the corrections profession. Some fall far below any reasonable standard of human decency. The results are costly, dangerous, and offensive to the public interest. Breaking the cycle of recurrent crisis requires considered efforts to address the decentralized, discretionary nature of sentence decision making and to link sentencing policies to the resources available to the corrections function. The demand to match policy with resources is simply a call for more rational policymaking. To ask for less is to allow the future of corrections to resemble its troubled past.

Democratic Rationales for Pre-Strike Ballots

2020 ◽  
pp. 189-213
Author(s):  
Breen Creighton ◽  
Catrina Denvir ◽  
Richard Johnstone ◽  
Shae McCrystal ◽  
Alice Orchiston
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
The Public ◽  
Industrial Action ◽  
Democratic Rights

Chapter 7 interrogates the central issue in the book—the extent to which pre-strike ballot requirements give effect to the democratic rights of individual workers and the public interest in ensuring that the exercise of strike action is based on democratic decision-making. It argues that pre-strike ballot requirements are imposed on trade unions in a very different context when compared with other forms of political or industrial contests. The chapter analyses unions’ democratic processes in three interrelated, but different, key decisions in the process to take strike action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): (i) the decision to apply for an order for a pre-strike ballot to be held; (ii) the decision to approve proposed industrial action in a pre-strike ballot; and (iii) the decision to take approved industrial action after such action has been approved in a pre-strike ballot. Each of these decisions occurs within the context of the legal and industrial relations framework, and the democratic processes involved are inevitably shaped by those frameworks. The evidence presented in this chapter suggests that the first and third decisions are generally conducted in a manner that allows for participatory democratic processes. However, when union members vote in a pre-strike ballot, there is little evidence of the kinds of practices that typically characterize a participatory democratic model. Instead, union engagement with members is focused on educating them about the legal requirements and the consequences of abstention or a no vote in associated bargaining, rather than on the arguments for and against the proposed industrial action.

Whose Game? FIFA, Corruption and the Challenge of Global Governance

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1041-1066
Author(s):  
Sahiba Gill ◽  
Edouard Adelus ◽  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
General Public ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Present Review ◽  
General Audience ◽  
Coordination Problems ◽  
The Public

Abstract The present review essay provides an analysis of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) from the point of view of global governance. Through a review of five books on corruption in FIFA, written for a general audience, the essay describes FIFA as an institution of global governance in which several forms of corruption are widespread among its member organizations and confederations and within the FIFA leadership. This review essay uses the accounts of corruption in FIFA that these books provide to argue that corruption helps solve coordination problems in FIFA by coordinating divergent interests, allocating or distributing funds and allowing for a network of diverse and diffuse actors to fundamentally shape global football. The systemic use of bribing and the exchange of political favours and other means of informal allocation of power are more than mere spontaneous illegalities; they represent an informal, but systematic, means of governance in FIFA. We argue that the February 2016 FIFA reforms fell short of addressing this activity. The reviewed books all call for governing FIFA in the public interest, and the essay presents some pathways to reform and potential replacements for the use of corruption with the aim of returning the game to the general public.

‘This Happens All the Time’: Organizations, Rationalization and Ethical Dilemmas in Engineering

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 985-1003
Author(s):  
Tracey L Adams
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Professional Misconduct ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Impact

Given their positions of public trust, regulated professions are legally required to uphold ethical standards, and ensure that professional practice protects the public. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that professionals do not always behave ethically. One proposed solution is greater organizational surveillance; however, research from a neo-Weberian perspective encourages scepticism about such arguments. Organizations may not only fail to stop professionals from violating ethical codes, but rationalizing organizations might actively encourage such violations in the name of efficiency. This article explores the impact of organizations and rationalization on professional misconduct through a mixed-methods study of professional engineers in Ontario, Canada. Findings suggest engineers are impacted by rationalization, and that those with less decision-making authority experience pressures discouraging practice in the public interest.

scholarly journals Application of Environmental Conflict Resolution to Public Interest Issues in Water Disputes

2011 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Jeffrey QC ◽  
Donna Craig
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Environmental Conflict ◽  
The Public ◽  
Environmental Conflict Resolution ◽  
Political Economic

This article examines the role of environmental conflict resolution (ECR) in the public interest issues of water disputes. The article endeavours to  illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of a range of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and negotiation approaches in the context of decision-making. Although many embrace ECR as the cheaper and more effective alternative to more formalistic and entrenched judicial processes before courts of law and quasi-judicial tribunals, the authors argue that there is an urgent need for a more critical, contextual and issue-oriented approach. In particular, the article highlights the significant difficulties associated with representing the full range of stakeholders who should be involved in an ADR process, and the lack of transparency and procedural safeguards associated with ADR in complex public interest disputes. The strength of ADR in smaller project-specific disputes involving a very limited number of stakeholders is well understood. The authors argue that ADR may have a significant role in scoping the issues and associated research as well as facilitating agreement on procedural aspects of large, complex public interest water disputes. However, ADR has severe limitations as a decision-making process. For example, water conflicts necessarily involve the concept of sustainability that in turn touches on a complex maze of social, political, economic and ecological values. The probability of reaching a mediated settlement in such a context is severely curtailed. A preferable approach may be one that is entirely transparent, capable of being both monitored and enforced, and is binding on all stakeholders whether or not they are parties to the mediation.

Regulatory Rationales Beyond the Economic: In Search of the Public Interest

2010 ◽  
pp. 38-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Feintuck
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Political Values ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
Market Driven ◽  
Market Economics

This article contends that regulation in certain fields should incorporate and give emphasis to values beyond those of market economics. It is argued here that the frame of reference of the market is too narrow to encompass properly a range of social and political values which are established in liberal democracies and can be seen as constitutional in nature. Examples from fields such as environmental regulation and regulation of the media are used here to illustrate a range of non-economic values which have been, are, or should be reflected in regulatory theory and practice as a means of recognising and reflecting principles related to social justice. Such principles extend beyond, and may be antithetical to the practices, values, and outcomes of market-driven decision-making.

scholarly journals Axiology of Judicial Application of Enforcement Law: View on the Bailiff’s Discretion

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
Piotr Szczekocki
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Important Place ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Clause ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Function

<p class="Standard">In the article, the author focused on three theoretical and philosophical issues of the judicial enforcement law in Poland, connected with the new enforcement acts which entered into force on 1 January 2019. First, the judicial enforcement proceedings were presented as an element of the law application process. The axiological dimension of this law, the place and function of a court bailiff in the law application process and the introduction of general clauses, combined with the basic values of the court enforcement law in the form of efficiency, effectiveness and reliability, form the new picture of the judicial enforcement law. Secondly, the problem of a general clause as a “carrier” of extralegal criteria was discussed, which takes an important place in the process of enforcement law application in the new bailiff’s law. There is the special role of the “public interest” and the “interest of justice” clauses as normative constructions introduced by the legislator to judicial enforcement. Thirdly, an attempt was made to answer the question about the presence and possible limits of discretion (free decision-making) of a court bailiff in the surrounding of the new axiology of enforcement law, and especially the formulation of this issue in the process of operative interpretation of law by a court bailiff.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document