democracies ( Wigura and Kuisz 2020 ), which suggest that it might be timely to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different governance arrangements leveraged to tackle the crisis. In this article we examine what we can learn about the operational
Which Governance Systems are Having a “Good” Pandemic?
Jennifer Gaskell and Gerry Stoker
A Market-based Approach to Address Garrett W. Brown's 'Deliberative Deficit' within the Global Fund
Garrett W. Brown has argued that donor voting caucuses produce a deliberative deficit between donor and non-donor members in the Global Fund International Board. Although we agree with this assessment, in our research on low-transaction cost alternatives to cope with consistent deliberative conditions (i.e. low-cost arrangements to bring about the exchange among Board members in a certain way) we have found that deliberation and interest-based preference maximisation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as long as we manage to stop donor members from behaving like monopolists. To this end, we have to open up the Board from its present state of non-transparency, so that new input can be obtained from new constituents. This will also soften the current principal-agent structure that links members to their donors, easing the transition to market-driven governance rules that provide for the replacement of Board members if they do not fulfil the new constituents' expectations.
Jeffrey D. Hilmer
Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance by John S. Dryzek
Michel Foucault on Power
How and why is it that we in the West, in our arduous and incessant search for truth, have also built into and around ourselves intricate and powerful systems intended to manage all that we know and do? This, arguably, was the key problem to which Foucault applied himself. Central to his critical, historical ontology of Western, and especially Enlightenment, reason is an investigation of the constitutive relations between the operation of power relations, the production of knowledge, and ways of relating ethically to oneself and others. This article examines Foucault’s account of the relations of power which are said to underpin contemporary thought and to regulate and subject modern individuals. Contrary to the belief that Foucault’s conception of power is dogmatic and all-encompassing, leaving no room for progressive resistance or change and flowing over into the realm of theory such that truth itself becomes questionable, it is argued here that Foucault offers us an analysis of relations of power as ‘strategies of governance’ which depend for their operation on the existence of free subjects capable not only of resistance but of positively producing effects of truth in reality.
Democratic Theory and Democracy beyond Borders
Anthony G. McGrew
The prospect of a global economic recession, in the wake of the financial crises in the world’s emerging economies, has injected a sense of renewed urgency into longstanding discussions about the reform of global economic governance. But the calls for greater transparency and openness in the deliberations of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank are largely symptomatic of a deeper legitimation crisis which afflicts all the key institutions of global governance, including the United Nations itself. For there is a growing perception that existing mechanisms of global governance are both ineffectual in relation to the tasks they have acquired, especially so in managing the consequences of globalisation, whilst also being unaccountable sites of power.
Why Politicians Matter
Distrust towards politicians is often identified as a key factor behind the current “crisis of democracy.” If there is a crisis, it only seems natural that at least some responsibility must rest with the political elite. This article locates this distrust in the context of broader debates about “antipolitics” and depoliticization. It examines how these debates have been informed by the putatively new set of challenges presented by the shift to governance and changing notions of legitimacy. The article concludes that politicians remain a necessity, not a choice. Politicians might be part of the problem, but they are certainly not the only problem. It ends by calling for a re-articulation of the relationship between government and citizens and leadership and democracy.
Alternative forms of political participation that place little emphasis on traditional representative forms of democracy are becoming more prevalent. Typifying the shift from government to governance, forest certification provides important opportunities for political participation with local, national, and global influence. Using Pippa Norris's three dimensions of political participation—agencies, repertoires, and targets—this article explores political participation within the practice of forest certification. The article highlights how traditional and alternative forms of political participation do not act as a dualism and instead occur simultaneously in practice due to historical, spatial, and practical influences.
Defining Politics in the Emerging Global Order
In the wake of globalisation different social science disciplines have found themselves entering into similar terrains of inquiry. However, each discipline tends to draw on different and often contradictory understandings of the political, and of related notions such as power. The lack of a shared notion of politics may prevent social scientists from gaining important insights from other disciplines. In this paper I therefore seek to demonstrate that seemingly contradictory notions of politics are better seen as different forms of political interaction. I define politics as activities through which people and groups articulate, negotiate, implement and enforce competing claims. By distinguishing different types of claims made within different institutional circumstances, I outline three basic forms of political interaction: governance, stalemate and social dilemma, and give examples of how each of these forms of political interaction has emerged in response to the global integration of market in different circumstances and areas of the world.
Comparable Practices, Contested Meanings
Ian Shapiro identifies three traditions of democratic thought: aggregative, deliberative, and minimalist. All three are apparent in the Pacific Islands despite most commentators and donors assuming that the meaning of democracy is fixed. The focus in development studies on institutions and their capacity to deliver pro-poor growth has generated a fourth tradition that revolves around the now pervasive governance concept. Rather than focusing on the general will of a sovereign people, this perspective is predominately concerned with the legitimate use of violence as a precursor to any development-orientated democratic state. Having reviewed the literature on democracy in the Pacific to parse out these four meanings, this article concludes that paying greater attention to this ideational equivocality would extend discussions about the suitability and transferability of this type of regime.
Responding to a Response by Agafonow
Garrett W. Brown
In the preceding article Alejandro Agafonow explores the idea of incorporating market-based approaches into the structure of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in order to address particular deliberative and democratic shortcomings (Agafonow 2011). This exploration was in response to an article I wrote on safeguarding deliberative global governance within the Global Fund and with particular deliberative deficits that were highlighted within that article (Brown 2010). In my article, it was argued that the decision- making capacity of the Global Fund suffered from a deliberative deficit in that donor members enjoyed an unfair advantage in boardroom deliberations due to two structural inequalities. First, donors enjoyed an unfair deliberative advantage because of their ability to utilise an effective veto, which manifested itself in the form of possible threats in the reduction of future donations if specific initiatives passed. Second, donors often enjoyed an unfair negotiating position due to their ability to meet prior to Board meetings and thus possessed an ability to create donor caucuses where collective voting strategies could be formulated. It was concluded that these two conditions created real perceptions of unequal deliberation between donor and non-donor Board members and therefore threatened to render the Global Fund’s multisectoral mandate for creating deliberative decision-making via agreed consensus as mere window-dressing for an obfuscated form of multilateral power politics as usual. In responding to this deliberative deficit, I argued that certain regulative devices should be incorporated into the Global Fund Framework Document as a means to safeguard deliberative procedures constitutionally within the multisectoral Global Fund Board.