Hyvän hallinnon muunnelmat : Julkisoikeudellinen tutkimus

This doctoral thesis analyses the concepts of good governance and good administration. The hypothesis is that the concepts are radically indeterminate and over-inclusive. In the study the mechanisms of this indeterminacy are examined: why are the concepts indeterminate; how does the indeterminacy work and, indeed, is it by any means plausible to try to define the concepts in a closed way? Therefore, the study focuses on various current perspectives, from which the concepts of good governance and good administration are relevant and what kind of discursive contents they may include. The approach is both legal (a right to good administration) and one of moral philosophy and discourse analysis. It appears that under the meta-discourse of good governance and good administration there are different sub-discourses: at least a legal sub-discourse, a moral/ethical sub-discourse and sub-discourses concerning economic effectiveness and the promotion of societal and economic development. The main claim is that the various sub-discourses do not necessarily identify each other s value premises and conceptual underpinnings: for which value could the attribute good be substituted in different discourses (for example, good as legal, good as ethical and so on)? The underlying presumption is, of course, that values are ultimately subjective and incommensurable. One possible way of trying to resolve the dynamics of possible discourse collisions is to employ the systems theory approach. Can the different discourses be interpreted as autopoietic systems, which create and change themselves according to their own criteria and are formed around a binary code? Can the different discourses be reconciled or are they indifferent or hostile towards each other? Is there a hegemonic super discourse or is the construction of a correct meaning purely contextual? The questions come back to the notions of administration and governance themselves the terms the good in its polymorphic ways is attempting to define. Do they engage different political rationalities? It can be suggested that administration is labelled by instrumental reason, governance by teleological reason. In the final analysis, the most crucial factor is that of power. It is about a Schmittian battle of concepts; how meanings are constructed in the interplay between conceptual ambiguity and social power. Thus, the study deals with administrative law, legal theory and the limits of law from the perspective of revealing critique.

Administrativa sanktioner – Utmaningar och möjligheter

I seminariet samlades nordiska experter inom fältet för att diskutera om de aktuella frågorna gällande administrativa sanktioner.