Discourses on Modernization in the Employment Public Services: Towards a New Form of Governance?

The “crisis of the social issue” in the EU has led to a certain consensus in the need to renew the organizational and institutional model of public administration. The core of the reform implies important administrative changes in most of the European welfare states. Those changes are inspired on theories such as the new public management, management by objectives or partnership. Such changes involve both semantic (“sharing responsibilities”, “effective costs”, or the substitution of “citizen under an administration” by “consumer”) and political (predominance of scattered forms of power and the individualization of responsibilities) transformations which operate in the framework of individuals and State relations. The paradigms of activation and flexicurity have been central in this public administration modernization project. This commitment with new forms of governance of social issues has important consequences for the political and moral foundations of social cohesion, and the Spanish case is not an exception. This paper aims at looking at those representations of “modernization” (as they appear in debates about the employment services restructuring policies) in detail as well as providing references to the trajectory of such reforms of public services since the early eighties to the beginning of the crisis.

Looking for Determinants of Ontological Security in the Spain of the Crisis

The concept of ontological security has a remarkable echo in the current sociology to describe emotional status of men of late modernity. However, the concept created by Giddens in the eighties has been little used in empirical research covering various sources of risk or uncertainty. In this paper, a scale for ontological security is proposed. To do this, we start from the results of a research focused on the relationship between risk, uncertainty and vulnerability in the context of the economic crisis in Spain. These results were produced through nine focus groups and a telephone survey with standardized questionnaire applied to a national sample of 2,408 individuals over 18 years. This work is divided into three main sections. In the fi rst, a scale has been built from the results of the application of different items present in the questionnaire used. The second part explores the relationships of the scale obtained with the variables further approximate the emotional dimensions of individuals. The third part observes the variables that contribute to changes in the scale: These variables show the structural feature of the ontological security.

The Communicative Dimension and Security in Asia-Pacific: A communicative-viewing proposal for reform of the Japanese Intelligence Services

The postwar development of the Intelligence Services in Japan has been based on two contrasting models: the centralized model of the USA and the collegiality of UK, neither of which has been fully developed. This has led to clashes of institutional competencies and poor anticipation of threats towards national security. This problem of opposing models has been partially overcome through two dimensions: externally through the cooperation with the US Intelligence Service under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security; and internally though the pre-eminence in the national sphere of the Department of Public Safety. However, the emergence of a new global communicative dimension requires that a communicative-viewing remodeling of this dual model is necessary due to the increasing capacity of the individual actors to determine the dynamics of international events. This article examines these challenges for the Intelligence Services of Japan and proposes a reform based on this new global communicative dimension.

The Challenge of Migration and the Global Security Strategy of the European Union

This article discusses the challenges of irregular migration for the security of the EU. They are analyzed starting with the European Security Strategy 2003, and the Report on its Implementation, 2008, and notes many failures: The EU Members did not follow the directives adopted in Brussels, the mismanagement of migration and asylum policies, and numerous actions that can be characterized or described as improvised, scattered or irresponsible. The 2016 Global Strategy recognizes these failures and call attention to the European leaders to reconsider how the EU functions and operates, suggesting the need for greater unity and cooperation to achieve a more effective migration policy. However, the article points out that practically all of the sections of the new Strategy dealing with migration were already embodied in previous Strategies, and stress that in parallel with the publication of the 2016 Global Strategy, actions are already undertaken, such as the EU readmission agreements signed with several important third countries of origin.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Global Security Strategy of the EU

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) is one of the main security challenges facing the international community today. However the new Global Security Strategy of 2016 raises the question of non-proliferation of WMD only as an incidental matter, not addressing directly the threat, a fundamental threat in the regional and global security. This is a clear step backwards for the European common security.

Russia and the Global Security Strategy of the European Union

The present article reviews the relations between the EU and Russia in the past decade and shows the deterioration of the bilateral relations. The Putin´s Russia has become a very active geostrategic player, with a worrying behaviour, breaking balances in the international scene established since the end of the Cold War. Russia is a priority in the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Global Security Strategy, but has become also a clear competitor. This last aspect is not sufficiently underlined in the Strategy and thus the strategic framework is not clear. In parallel, it is not clear in the Strategy which are the tools the EU has to defend its neighbourhood when their independence, sovereignty or territorial defence may be put in question. This question goes beyond the support to the resilience of those neighbours.