Governance: A model in the pursuit of democratic participation
In the formulation of public policies in general and risk management in particular, there are three models describing the relationship between the three agents (Khademian & Feldman, 2007). The first model focuses on state power, typical in countries with authoritarian governments. A second model, the most common in so-called democratic states, is one that takes into account the experts. A third model, the true ideal democratic states, is one that takes into account all those involved or affected (stakeholders). This latest model is called by Khademian & Feldman (2007, pg. 308) as a model for public participation, to express respect, "A third model of public participation has its roots in the planning and efforts to include people directly affected by the practices resulting from this planning, as well as efforts to democratize the development and implementation of public policies. In this model, the primary role of public manager is to engage the public affected by public policies, creating opportunities for participation and the provision of information to facilitate discussion and decision making. "
(Khademian & Feldman, 2007, pg. 308)
In the context of this model of public participation is to understand the concept of governance, a concept introduced in the debates on development in the late eighties of last century. Stop talking about governance imply a further discussion about how concepts are used in one context or another. For example, the World Bank defined governance as "... the Manner in Which power is Exercise in the management of a country's Economic and social resources for development ", being evaluated further through a series of indicators linked to growth and developing countries. An indicator on the economic governance that allows public participation is "accountability", but in democratic and corrupt states, owners and sources of information or data management performance, no accountability responds to reality. Data are altered or makeup for the incumbent government does not lose its credibility.
According to Hirst (2000, pp. 14-19), as well as the version in the economic context, there are four other versions of governance. A brief analysis of these texts and their relevance to the topic at hand is below.
A second version of global governance is centered in the field of international institutions, which are dealt with problems that can not be controlled locally, climate change and international trade regulation are examples of this, another on urgent international regulations which Internet governance in an attempt to regulate the uncontrolled use of the Internet, control that has resulted in the emergence of new risks to the network (viruses, Trojans, spyware, spam, phishing, child pornography, etc.). The Working Group of Internet Governance WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) consist of forty members representing various governments, the private sector and civil society made the following concept of governance,
"Internet governance is the Development and application by Governments, the private sector and Civil Society, in Their respective roles, of shared Principles, Norms, rules, decision-making Procedures, and Programmes That shape the evolution and use of the Internet. "
http://www.wgig.org/docs/REPORTS.doc
In this definition all stakeholders play an important role, from any of the areas of participation: state , private sector or civil society. The Internet itself becomes a stage that facilitates participation. Through the blogs (the new world of the blogosphere), forums or wikis, public participation had never found a better partner to participate. In this third environment, as called Echeverría (2007, pg. 69), social networks are created torno a una problemática común. La sociedad civil puede entrar a discutir sobre aquellos riesgos que no tienen mayor atención por los otros actores. Un caso real que puede servir para apoyar mi anterior afirmación es el retiro del mercado de más de cuatro millones de baterías por parte de la empresa Dell Computer en 2006 por las denuncias en cientos de blogs de las explosiones que se presentaban en los equipos de cómputo. La proliferación de “noticias”, en otros medios, hizo que se presentara una reacción mundial frente a estas baterías; algunas aerolíneas, por ejemplo, prohibieron el uso de portátiles Dell en sus aviones . El sector privado (Dell, Apple, Sony) tuvieron que aceptar sus errores tecnológicos and support the economic costs it implied. Civil society, through social networks, won the battle for these corporations to make decisions in an attempt to eliminate the risk materialized. Internet governance, in turn, has two versions: the governance of necessity of technological regulation (domains especially) and social governance of the Internet as a need to respond to risks associated with xenophobia, satanic sects racism, terrorism, pornography, among others, which proliferate in the network.
A third version focuses on the context of corporations and is known as corporate governance. This version seeks to regulate and protect the interests of investors and shareholders (shareholders) of companies, firms and corporations in general. Contrary to the concept of governance, which I welcome, the state and civil society do not play an important role in this model. Except for its involvement through activities such as the above, from which corporations are obliged to regulate to keep its competitive power in the market.
The fourth version is governance as a new model of public sector governance which stresses the introduction of business practices and new management styles in the public sector, about Hirst (2000, pg. 18) states: "a new model of public services distinct from That of public administration under hierarchical control and Answer to Directly Elected Officials. "
The latest version of civil society is the main actor. It is the social or governance governance system where they are present unions, environmental groups, NGOs, community groups and civic associations in general. However, the prominence of one of the agents, the lay public, in this type of governance does not fertilize the discussions. Environmental groups like Greenpeace have been branded a radicalism that prevents the development of technology.
A version of governance that are not in the categories of Hirst is the "good governance" version used in the European community. There are five principles that constitute good governance: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. Each of these principles are essential for a more democratic governance (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, pg. 10). In regard to the principle of participation in the white paper on good governance is expressed
"The quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU policies ensuring wide participation of citizens in each and every different stages, from conception to implementation of policies. Improved participation create more confidence in the final results and the Institutions which deliver policies. Participation depends essentially on the adoption of an integrated approach of this kind from central government in the design and implementation of EU policies. " In this version
public participation demand a capacity of citizens to participate in the debate. In that sense, it is possible to have a predominant agent in a model of governance. The lay of the expert required capacity for debate, the expert must approach the civil society to understand the context in which they develop their research results, and both should approach the government for democratic decision-making and policy formulation in science and technology that affect the least involved. Is how I conceive social governance, where all policy makers are finally (policemakers).
A governance that transcends the state incorporating the private sector and civil society creates a political environment, social and economic environment for fertile discussion. The solutions to the problems of risk will be on consensus and results will be everyone's responsibility. It can then reach levels in the debate in which the risk will have a single notion, is the global risk in global governance, risk will be local in local governance, whatever the scope, under the same goals and environments of trust, discussions will be fertile.
debates about subjectivity and objectivity in the assessment of risk will be fruitful if there is a participatory discourse, in which both the mathematical models as the beliefs and values \u200b\u200bare widely discussed (Renn, 2005, pg. 52).
Note: the image of this item is a Dell laptop caught fire at a conference in Japan in 2006 (image taken from the blog http://wappsite.blogspot.com/ )
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Khademian, AM, & Feldman, MS (2007). The Role of the Public Manager in Inclusion: Creating Communities of Participation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20 (2), 305-324.
Hirst, P. (2000). Democracy and Governance. In J. Pierre, Debating Governance: Authority, seering and democracy (pp. 13-35). Unviversity Oxford Press.
Echeverría, J. (2007). Governance of the European information society. CTS, 3 (8), 67-80.
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). European governance. A white paper. Brussels.
Renn, O. (2005). White paper on risk governance: Towards an approach intergrative. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.
0 comments:
Post a Comment