The EU Constitution of Social Governance in an Economic Crisis: in Defence of a Transnational Dimension to Social Europe

Conventional wisdom has it that the EU is unable to promote viable social integration, which contrasts with its commitments to improving working and living conditions and to social values and goals such as solidarity, social protection and social inclusion. This
article challenges two diff erent standpoints: on the one hand, competitive neoliberalism demands that the EU focuses on economic integration through legally binding internal market and competition rules even if Member States can only maintain a limited commitment to social inclusion, while authors defending the social models unique to the continent of Europe demand that the EU rescinds some of its established legal principles in order to make breathing space for Member States to maintain market correcting social policies. Both positions convene that there should be no genuine social policy at EU level.
This article uses scenarios of widely discussed rulings by the Court of Justice to illustrate that legally enforceable economic integration would prevent most Member States from achieving sustainable health services, labour relations and free university education on the basis of national closure. Since the EU has limited legislative competences to create EU level institutions to balance inequalities, it derives a Constitution of Social Governance from the EU’s values, proposing that the Court of Justice develops its urisprudence into an instrument for challenging European disunion induced by new EU economic governance

The Governance of Mandated Partnerships: The Case of Social Housing Procurement

Partnership working is nowadays a seemingly ubiquitous aspect of the management and delivery of public services, yet there remain major differences of opinion about how they best work for the different stakeholders they involve. The balances between mandate and trust, and between hard and soft power, are crucial to current debates about public service partnerships. This paper explores the example of social housing procurement in Northern Ireland, and the requirement to form mandated procurement groups. The research shows that the exercise of hierarchical power is still important in network governance; that mandated partnerships alter the balance between trust and power in partnership working, but the impact is uneven; and that these relationships are (re)shaping the ‘hybrid’ identity of housing associations. The balance between accountability for public resources and the independence of third sector organisations is the key tension in mandated partnerships. The Northern Ireland experience suggests that trust-based networks could provide more productive working relationships in partnerships for service delivery.

The rise of the digital citizen-stakeholder: rebalancing multistakeholder governance

The principle feature in the evolution of the internet has been its ever growing reach to include old and young, rich and poor. The internet’s ever encroaching presence has transported it from our desktop to our pocket and into our glasses. This is illustrated in the Internet Society Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Governance, which found the main factors affecting change in the Internet governance landscape were more users online from more countries and the influence of the internet over daily life. The omnipresence of the internet is self- perpetuating; its usefulness grows with every new user and every new piece of data uploaded. The advent of social media and the creation of a virtual presence for each of us, even when we are not physically present or ‘logged on’, means we are fast approaching the point where we are all connected, to everyone else, all the time. We have moved far beyond the point where governments can claim to represent our views which evolve constantly rather than being measured in electoral cycles.
The shift, which has seen citizens as creators of content rather than consumers of it, has undermined the centralist view of democracy and created an environment of wiki democracy or crowd sourced democracy. This is at the heart of what is generally known as Web 2.0, and widely considered to be a positive, democratising force. However, we argue, there are worrying elements here too. Government does not always deliver on the promise of the networked society as it involves citizens and others in the process of government. Also a number of key internet companies have emerged as powerful intermediaries harnessing the efforts of the many, and re- using and re-selling the products and data of content providers in the Web 2.0 environment. A discourse about openness and transparency has been offered as a democratising rationale but much of this masks an uneven relationship where the value of online activity flows not to the creators of content but to those who own the channels of communication and the metadata that they produce.
In this context the state is just one stakeholder in the mix of influencers and opinion formers impacting on our behaviours, and indeed our ideas of what is public. The question of what it means to create or own something, and how all these new relationships to be ordered and governed are subject to fundamental change. While government can often appear slow, unwieldy and even irrelevant in much of this context, there remains a need for some sort of political control to deal with the challenges that technology creates but cannot by itself control. In order for the internet to continue to evolve successfully both technically and socially it is critical that the multistakeholder nature of internet governance be understood and acknowledged, and perhaps to an extent, re- balanced. Stakeholders can no longer be classified in the broad headings of government, private sector and civil society, and their roles seen as some sort of benign and open co-production. Each user of the internet has a stake in its efficacy and each by their presence and participation is contributing to the experience, positive or negative of other users as well as to the commercial success or otherwise of various online service providers. However stakeholders have neither an equal role nor an equal share. The unequal relationship between the providers of content and those who simple package up and transmit that content - while harvesting the valuable data thus produced - needs to be addressed. Arguably this suggests a role for government that involves it moving beyond simply celebrating and facilitating the on- going technological revolution. This paper reviews the shifting landscape of stakeholders and their contribution to the efficacy of the internet. It will look to critically evaluate the primacy of the individual as the key stakeholder and their supposed developing empowerment within the ever growing sea of data. It also looks at the role of individuals in wider governance roles. Governments in a number of jurisdictions have sought to engage, consult or empower citizens through technology but in general these attempts have had little appeal. Citizens have been too busy engaging, consulting and empowering each other to pay much attention to what their governments are up to. George Orwell’s view of the future has not come to pass; in fact the internet has insured the opposite scenario has come to pass. There is no big brother but we are all looking over each other’s shoulder all the time, while at the same time a number of big corporations are capturing and selling all this collective endeavour back to us.

Rescaling the Governance of Renewable Energy: Lessons from the UK Devolution Experience

Efforts to rescale governance arrangements to foster sustainable development are rarely simple in their consequences, an out-turn examined in this paper through an analysis of how the governance of renewable energy in the UK has been impacted by the devolution of power to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Theoretically, attention is given to the ways in which multiple modes of governing renewable energy, and the interactions between modes and objects of governance, together configure the scalar organization of renewable energy governance. Our findings show how the devolved governments have created new, sub-national renewable energy strategies and targets, yet their effectiveness largely depends on UK-wide systems of subsidy. Moreover, shared support for particular objects of governance—large-scale, commercial electricity generation facilities—has driven all the devolved government to centralize and expedite the issuing of consents. This leads to a wider conclusion. While the level at which environmental problems are addressed can affect how they are governed, what key actors believe about the objects of governance can mediate the effects of any rescaling processes.

Managing for Legitimacy: Agency Governance in its “Deep” Constitutional Context

Recent literature on bureaucratic structure has gone further than studying discretions given to bureaucrats in policy making, and much attention is now paid to understanding how bureaucratic agencies are managed. This article proposes that the way in which executive governments manage their agencies varies according to their constitutional setting and that this relationship is driven by considerations of the executive’s governing legitimacy. Inspired by Tilly (1984), we compare patterns of agency governance in Hong Kong and Ireland, in particular configurations of assigned decision-making autonomies and control mechanisms. This comparison shows that in governing their agencies the elected government of Ireland’s parliamentary democracy pays more attention to input (i.e. democratic) legitimacy while the executive government of Hong Kong’s administrative state favors output (i.e. performance) legitimacy. These different forms of autonomy and control mechanism reflect different constitutional models of how political executives acquire and sustain their governing legitimacy.

Social Services of General Interest: The EU Competence Regime and a Constitution of Social Governance

In discussing the potential role of the EU, the Member States, their composite parts and civil society organisations in establishing social services of general interest at sub-national, national, transnational and EU wide levels, this chapter explores the EU competence regime for social services of general interest. Its analysis contradicts a tendency in academic writing to demand protection of national prerogatives for shaping welfare states against EU intervention at all costs, because this would be counterproductive for the progress of the EU project. It submits that an EU constitution of social governance should create mixed responsibilities so that the EU, states and civil society actors support each other in creating preconditions for social integration in the EU. It uses the field of social services of general interests as an example of applying this general theoretical concept.

Attaining Subsidiarity-Based Multilevel Governance of Genetically Modified Cultivation?

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, but with persisting conflicts over authority. The Commission responded to internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and a promise to review the existing EU GM regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. This article considers the post-authorisation policy-making powers of Member States and subnational regions, in light of subsidiarity-based multilevel governance. It considers the different approaches to risk-centred issues and more general policy choices. Overall, the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening subsidiarity-based multilevel governance within the GM cultivation regime, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the complementary powers, coordination and the regional levels in particular.

A Constitution of Social Governance for the European Union

This chapter considers the EU’s socio-economic constitution under the lens of humaneness. It argues that the EU’s unique socio-economic constitution demands equilibrium of socio-economic integration instead of widening the gap between economic integration at EU levels and social integration at national levels. While the EU lacks the legislative competences to achieve this equilibrium, the constitutional principle still prevails. Indeed, the EU competences reflect its own values as well as the socio-economic constitutions of its constituent Member States. These frequently do not allow for total state-governance of social spheres such as working life, education, care or other social services. Instead, societal actors are given scope to (co-)govern these spheres at national levels. Accordingly, the apparent tension between the EU’s socio-economic values and principles and its limited competences in the social policy field can be resolved through a dynamic interpretation of the EU Treaties towards a “constitution of social governance”. This interpretation reads the Treaties as authorising governance by societal actors. The chapter connects the idea of humanness to the ideals of social governance at EU level and proposes two options for practical application of the concept. These are rules for trans-national labour markets based on European collective labour agreements and a European higher education sector developed by agreements between universities.

New governance for higher education institutions:prospects for female university careers and equality law

This paper analyses the reforms in employment conditions at German public universities from the 1990s to the 2000s, considering how these impact on practical equal opportunities between women and men. It concludes that while the so called "new governance" in universities would have offered opportunities to integrate positive measures to increase female participation in research and teaching, these opportunities were missed in most German states.

Understanding Risk: Contributions from the Journal of Risk and Governance

During recent years, news headlines have been rife with criticisms of the risk management practices of public and private sector entities. These criticisms have often been accompanied by calls for greater transparency in the way government entities manage risks and communicate dangers to the public. Similarly, in the private sector, the internationalisation of economic activity has heightened concerns over the potential adverse implications of mismanagement and financial scandals, and has led to calls for greater regulation and supervision. While the responses of public sector agencies and private sector actors to these challenges have differed, they share a common acknowledgement that effective governance relies on the pro-active identification, assessment, and management of risks as well as appropriate regulatory frameworks.

This edited book covers a number of divergent topics illustrating the emergence of several novel themes in the area of economic and social risks. As a communality, these novel themes relate to the complexity in which human activity in this late stage of capitalist development is embedded. This risk-generating complexity, in turn, can be observed at several levels, including workplace hazards, governance problems within the private sector or the intersection between public and private, and in relation to the economic risks faced by larger entities such as national governments.

Understanding Risk: Recent Contributions from the Journal of Risk and Governance

Following on from the format of the previous Book Understanding Risk: Contributions from the Journal of Risk and Governance, this collection of recent contributions (including work by the editor) this book is divided in three sections .  The first section examines issues relating to corporate governance in the private sector, with emphasis being placed on issues of 'Board Decision Making,' Earnings Management and Audit Committee Effectiveness'  and ' Corporate Governance Failures.'  These contributions are complemented by the second sections which looks at governance and risk issues affecting the public sector, with a focus being places on 'Public Private Partnerships' and regulation of activities in the Life Sciences.'  Section three focuses on societal risk management in relation to health, safety and the environment.  In this context, contributions are presented in relation to major debates surrounding 'Rising Trends in Cancer Cases,' dilemmas surrounding 'Medical Self Help,' 'Mental Health Policy' and the use of 'Information Technology in Health Care.'