Whose ETSIP? National and local ownership of Namibia's education and training sector improvement programme

Tämä työ tarkastelee kansallista ja paikallista omistajuutta Namibian opetussektorin kehittämisohjelmassa. Opetussektorin kehittämisohjelma ETSIP on 15-vuotinen sektoriohjelma vuosille 2005-2015 ja sen tavoitteena on edesauttaa Namibian kehittymistä tietoyhteiskunnaksi. Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on selvittää miten kansallinen ja paikallinen omistajuus on toteutunut ETSIP prosessin aikana. Erityisesti pyritään selvittämään paikallistason opetussektorin virkamiesten näkemyksiä ETSIP prosessista, heidän roolistaan siinä ja siitä millaisia vaikuttamisen ja hallinnan mahdollisuuksia heillä on ollut prosessin aikana. Tutkimuksen lähtökohta on laadullinen ja lähestymistapa konstruktionistinen: tutkimus tarkastelee todellisuutta ihmisten kokemusten, näkemysten ja toiminnan kautta. Tutkimusaineisto koostuu haastatteluista, epävirallisista keskusteluista, lehtiartikkeleista ja ETSIP dokumenteista. Tutkimus osoittaa että kansallinen omistajuus on epämääräinen käsite sillä kansallisia toimijoita ja näkemyksiä on useita. Tutkimus vahvistaa Castel-Brancon huomion siitä, että omistajuutta on tarkasteltava kontekstissaan: muuttuvana ja kilpailtuna. ETSIPin rinnalle ollaan valmistelemassa uutta strategista ohjelmaa opetusministeriölle mikä saattaa muuttaa omistajuutta ETSIPiin. ETSIP dokumenttien omistajuusretoriikka myötäilee kansainvälisiä sitoumuksia avun vaikuttavuuden parantamiseksi mutta niistä puuttuu syvällisempi analyysi siitä, miten kansallinen ja paikallinen omistajuus toteutuisi käytännössä. Avunantajien näkemys omistajuudesta on suppea: omistajuus nähdään lähinnä sitoutumisena ennalta määrättyyn politiikkaohjelmaan. Haastatteluaineistosta nousee esiin Whitfieldin ja Frazerin jaottelu suppeista ja laajoista omistajuuskäsityksistä. Sitoutumista ETSIP ohjelmaan pidetään tärkeänä mutta riittämättömänä määritteenä omistajuudelle. Paikallisella tasolla sitoutuminen ETSIP ohjelman periaatteisiin ja tavoitteisiin on toteutunut melko hyvin mutta jos omistajuutta tarkastellaan laajemmin vaikutusvallan ja hallinnan käsitteiden kautta voidaan todeta että omistajuus on ollut heikkoa. Paikallisella tasolla ei ole ollut juurikaan vaikutusvaltaa ETSIP ohjelman sisältöön eikä mahdollisuutta hallita ohjelman toteutusta ja päättää siitä mitä hankkeita ohjelman kautta rahoitetaan. Tujanin demokraattisen omistajuuden käsite kuvaa tarvetta muuttaa ja laajentaa omistajuusajattelua huomioiden paikallisen tason paremmin. Tämä tutkimus viittaa siihen että omistajuuden toteutuminen paikallisella tasolla edellyttäisi institutionaalisen kulttuurin muutosta ja institutionaalisen legitimiteetin vahvistamista. Omistajuuden mahdollistamiseksi paikallisella tasolla tarvittaisiin poliittista johtajuutta, luottamusta, vastuullisuuden kulttuurin kehittämistä, tehokkaampaa tiedonjakoa, laajaa osallistumista, vuoropuhelua ja yhteistyötä. Ennen kaikkea tarvittaisiin paikallisen tason vaikutusvaltaa päätöksenteossa ja kontrollia resurssien käytöstä. Tälle muutokselle on selvä tarve ja tilaus.

New Governance and the EU Courts : The Experimentalist Architecture of Judicial Decision-Making

The dissertation examines the role of the EU courts in new governance. New governance has raised unprecedented interest in the EU in recent years. This is manifested in a plethora of instruments and actors at various levels that challenge more traditional forms of command-and-control regulation. New governance and political experimentation more generally is thought to sap the ability of the EU judiciary to monitor and review these experiments. The exclusion of the courts is then seen to add to the legitimacy problem of new governance. The starting point of this dissertation is the observation that the marginalised role of the courts is based on theoretical and empirical assumptions which invite scrutiny. The theoretical framework of the dissertation is deliberative democracy and democratic experimentalism. The analysis of deliberative democracy is sustained by an attempt to apply theoretical concepts to three distinctive examples of governance in the EU. These are the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the European Chemicals Agency, and the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. The case studies show numerous disincentives and barriers to judicial review. Among these are questions of the role of courts in shaping governance frameworks, the reviewability of science-based measures, the standing of individuals before the courts, and the justiciability of soft law. The dissertation analyses the conditions of judicial review in each governance environment and proposes improvements. From a more theoretical standpoint it could be said that each case study presents a governance regime which builds on legislation that lays out major (guide)lines but leaves details to be filled out at a later stage. Specification of detailed standards takes place through collaborative networks comprising members from national administrations, NGOs, and the Commission. Viewed this way, deliberative problem-solving is needed to bring people together to clarify, elaborate, and revise largely abstract and general norms in order to resolve concrete and specific problems and to make law applicable and enforceable. The dissertation draws attention to the potential of peer review included there and its profound consequences for judicial accountability structures. It is argued that without this kind of ongoing and dynamic peer review of accountability in governance frameworks, judicial review of new governance is difficult and in some cases impossible. This claim has implications for how we understand the concept of soft law, the role of the courts, participation rights, and the legitimacy of governance measures more generally. The experimentalist architecture of judicial decision-making relies upon a wide variety of actors to provide conditions for legitimate and efficient review.

An Analysis of the Concept of Citizenship: Legal, Political and Social Dimensions

The thesis aims at analyzing concept of citizenship in political philosophy. The concept of citizenship is a complex one: it does not have a definitive explication, but it nevertheless is a very important category in contemporary world. Citizenship is a powerful ideal, and often the way a person is treated depends on whether he or she has the status of a citizen. Citizenship includes protection of a person’s rights both at home and abroad. It entails legal, political and social dimension: the legal status as a full member of society, the recognition of that status by fellow citizens and acting as a member of society. The thesis discusses these three dimensions. Its objective is to show how all of them, despite being insufficient in some aspects, reach something important about the concept. The main sources of the thesis are Civic Republicanism by Iseult Honohan (Routledge 2002), Republicanism by Philip Pettit (Clarendon Press 1997), and Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin (1997). In addition, the historical part of the thesis relies mainly on the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Quentin Skinner, James Pocock and James Tully. The writings of Will Kymlicka, John Rawls, Chantal Mouffe, and Shane Phelan are referred to in the presentation and critique of the liberal tradition of thought. Hannah Arendt and Seyla Benhabib’s analysis of Arendt’s philosophy both address the problematic relations between human rights and nation-states as the main guarantors of rights. The chapter on group rights relies on Peter Jones’ account of corporate and collective rights, after which I continue to Seumas Miller’s essay on the (liberal) account of group rights and their relation to the concept of citizenship. Republicanism and Political Theory (2002) edited by Cécile Laborde and John Maynor is also references. David Miller and Maurizio Viroli represent the more “rooted” version of republicanism. The thesis argues that the full concept of citizenship should be seen as containing legal, political and social dimensions. The concept can be viewed from all of these three angles. The first means that citizenship is connected with certain rights, like the right to vote or stand for election, the right to property and so on. In most societies, the law guarantees these rights to every citizen. Then there is also the social dimension, which can be said to be as important as the legal one: the recognition of equality and identities of others. Finally, there is the political dimension, meaning the importance of citizens’ participation in the society, which is discussed in connection with the contemporary account of republicanism. All these issues are discussed from the point of view of groups demanding for group-specific rights and equal recognition. The challenge with these three aspects of citizenship is, however, that they are difficult to discuss under one heading. Different theories or discourses of citizenship each approach the subject from different starting points, which make reconciling them sometimes hard. The fundamental questions theories try to answer may differ radically depending on the theory. Nevertheless, in order to get the whole image of what the citizenship discourses are about all the aspects deserve to be taken into account.