The contributors' findings on South Africa, Kenya and Germany demonstrate that business contributions to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change vary significantly. About The Author. Tanja A. Look for similar items by category: Books Business and Finance Economics.
Select Parent Grandparent Teacher Kid at heart. No ratings or reviews yet. Be the first to write a review. Best Selling in Nonfiction See all. Unfreedom of The Press by Mark R. Levin , Hardcover Blue Book of Gun Values 40 40th Edition. Sabatine Ringbound, Revised Edition, Save on Nonfiction Trending price is based on prices over last 90 days. The Book of Enoch by R.
Nomos - eLibrary | Security and Human Rights
And yet, the theoretical shift towards more liberal constructivist understandings of diaspora agency generates increased interest in unpacking the potential contributions of diaspora to global political processes. Empirically, a widening of diaspora research takes place. Crucially, in these liberal accounts causal power is transferred to the diaspora agent and emphasis is placed on the normatively positive contributions of diaspora to political processes. Power struggles involving diaspora are conceptualized as interactions between rational thinking agents, whether driven by a logic of profit maximization or normative appropriateness.
In that sense, diaspora mobilization is the result of individual speech acts, of persuasion or negotiation. This recognition of the agency of diasporas and their potential to impact on security and development is reflected by emergent policy initiatives. Accordingly, the focus in diaspora research in IR has, most recently, shifted to explaining the rise and proliferation of these institutions. For example, Gamlen et al.
Some scholars have argued that through engaging diasporas states seek to increase their power and build their capacities. Diasporas are ultimately pawns of powerful states. For example, Varadarajan suggests that contemporary state attitudes towards diasporas must be understood as part of the hegemony of a neoliberal global political economy, whereby diaspora communities offer opportunities for capitalist expansion.
Poststructuralists agree with the reasoning that liberal international community is driven by a will to subjugate and discipline global populations but argue that this happens in different ways. For example, Ragazzi uses Foucauldian governmentality theory to explain why states are increasingly interested in engaging their respective diasporas in an effort to reproduce the global political economy. All of these authors offer critical insights into the structural forces that drive state—diaspora relations.
In contrast to the liberal literature they also make explicit the often-exploitative power relations, which underlie diaspora engagement practices. The latter literature hints at the political complexities that are set in motion when diasporas engage in or are engaged by their home states and other powerful global actors. By focusing on the constraints posed upon actors by structural dynamics and the whims of powerful imperialist states these theories certainly complicate the picture of diasporas as sovereign agents in global politics.
While studying the power struggles that inform global diaspora politics is crucial see Craven , this task is beyond the scope of this paper. However, criticism does not negate the fact that the governance research agenda has had a huge impact on both domestic and international politics and policy-making over the last 25 years and thus must be subject to ongoing scrutiny. I will now trace a brief history of the governance concept, culminating with the most recent iteration of governance research that has been especially keen to provide a state-critical perspective on governance.
Business and governance in South Africa : racing to the top?
Accordingly, global governance emerges as a new mode of democratic governance at the critical juncture that is the end of the Cold War, at which point technological advancement in concert with the proliferation of liberal social and fiscal policies has resulted in a decline in state power welcomed by hyperglobalists such as Friedman and Ohmae The term describes the ways in which a diversifying group of actors, both above and below the nation state, are now contributing to the conduct of global affairs.
However, governance is not a response to these shifts in the empirical world. Rather, in the discipline of IR, it now describes a mode of non-hierarchical order creation, or the functioning of power under the absence of top-down state rule. Global governance is no more than international governance-PLUS, thus its analytical value is diminished.
Shop by category
Meanwhile, in an effort to not throw the baby out with the metaphorical bathwater, others try to reclaim the global governance term. Dingwerth and Pattberg suggest that it remains a useful concept because it allows one to identify and describe transformation processes with a new conceptual toolkit that includes not just a variety in actors but action across different policy levels.
Ultimately, the theory that there should not be an ontological hierarchy between transnational and international actors presents a first attempt to decenter the state. Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood If, according to Dingwerth and Pattberg , global governance can offer a non-state centric understanding of global policy-making, then can governance do the same for non-global policy- making?
This question has recently been of concern to a number of scholars who argue that power vacuums not only emerge with globalization; they also exist, and have always existed, within states. Traditionally, such absence of domestically-projected state power has been described as state failure.
However, besides being blatantly euro-centric, diagnosing state failure also creates an analytical dead end Draude However, in order to further assess the conditions of effective and legitimate governance in a place like Somalia, once again, a reconceptualization of the governance term is required. The reasoning behind this decentering is based on the following interrelated claims about the relationship of governance and the state. First, linking governance to the state does not make sense empirically or historically. Both from an historical and regional perspective, limited statehood has been the norm rather than the exception.
Thus, we should be able to assess the effectiveness and legitimacy of such rule- and service-provision without building the state into the definition of said rule- and service-provision. Second, if the state is reified as the sole provider of governance, then state failure logically implies the absence of governance.
Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 700 "Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood"
This approach expects that governance can only take place through the state, making it so that other variants of rule and governance are considered suboptimal. Besides being ahistorical, this conceptualization is inherently euro-centric, pandering to racist and orientalist stereotypes about the uncivilized and primitive nature of non-Western subjects, societies and political relations. From this follows that, theoretically, linking governance to the state obscures our ability to analyse governance provision outside of the narrow confines of the Westphalian Treaty context.
For the research on governance in areas of limited statehood to have wider analytical value an ontological separation of governance and state is required. Finally, and maybe most importantly for this paper, the ontological separation of the state from governance, implies a widening of the pool of actors that govern.
This explicit rejection of state-centrism is also intended to open up space for the analysis of non-state governance actors.
That diasporas have barely featured in this governance research, which explicitly aims to study governance by actors other than the state and also to ontologically de-center the state from governance research, is therefore surprising. After all, diasporas, by definition, challenge the state and its boundaries. In the following section I aim to illustrate why this blind spot is no coincidence. In the next section I will explore how, despite explicit efforts to minimize state-centrism and methodological nationalism, for that matter , a certain assumption reintroduces state-centrism through the back door; that assumption is the insistence on an analytical dichotomy between external and internal governance actors.
Diasporas Through the Governance Lens Based on the above outlined definitions of governance as the production and implementation of collectively binding rules, goods and services and diasporas as individual and collective agents that are mobilizing socially, politically or economically towards a homeland in which they do not reside diasporas are governance actors. The following paragraphs will now empirically map some of the governance activities that diasporas engage in. I have organized this mapping by diaspora engagement channel direct service provision vs.
While these are, arguably, the most prominent contributions that diasporas make to the governance of their homelands, they are made indirectly. This means that the intervention is intended to strengthen the capacity of local actors to provide governance themselves. The following paragraphs will now shed further light on indirect diaspora governance. A significant indirect contribution that diasporas make to the governance of their homelands is through financial remittances. Remittances have been well-researched and describe all money sent by a migrant worker to their family at home.
The concept may also include diasporic contributions to villages or community organizations Helweg Since the mids research on the link between remittances and global poverty reduction or development has mushroomed. Such advocacy may take the form of public demonstrations, lobbying members of parliament or IOs.
Studies have found that diasporas may further democratize governance in their homelands by pushing for institutional reforms and normative change or by bolstering local civil society e. Koinova Toward the more complex end of the spectrum of indirect governance tasks that diasporas engage in lies conflict mediation. This can be indirect in the sense that mediation takes place between ethnic groups in the diaspora.
Here conflicting parties are engaged in dialogue and design conflict solutions, which are then proposed to actors in the homeland. Further, diasporas may contribute indirectly to conflict mediation by influencing the agenda setting processes of international organizations. Finally, an area of governance in which diasporas are currently a hot topic is that of development. Since the initial link was drawn between migrant remittances and poverty reduction — and migration and development more widely — a huge amount of interest has been generated in the potential contributions of diasporas to the economic and social development of their homelands e.
While their role as sources of innovation and capital has long been acknowledged Minto-Coy , they are also increasingly engaged in formal programs that aim to foster knowledge transfers see Tejada in Walton-Roberts et al.
- Racing to the Top?.
- Engaging Europe: Rethinking a Changing Continent.
- BE THE FIRST TO KNOW.
- Osteoarthritis: Diagnosis and Therapy Proceedings of an International Meeting.
- Table of contents.
- Shop by category?
While the private sector has been a first-mover in this regard, increasingly we see diasporas building public sector capacity by diffusing good governance norms and practices. For example, the Canadian government, as part of its international assistance policy, sends Canadian public servants abroad to offer their expertise on specific governance issue areas.
So, what does this direct governance by diasporas look like? A growing proportion of direct diaspora governance today is organized through volunteering programs. Here members of a diaspora may spend a few weeks or months in their country of origin to contribute to development projects in their homeland.
They may engage in simple tasks such as contributing manual labour to the building of wells or larger infrastructural development projects. In a recent project on diasporic Armenians, Darieva investigates this booming industry of diaspora-volunteering. For example, an Ivorian diaspora organization has taken over not just the fundraising for, but the operation of an entire hospital in Ivory Coast. Because this is an area in which the governance impact of diasporas has been highly visible, it has also received a lot of attention from scholars and policy-makers.
As mentioned in the state-of-the-art section, much early research on diaspora impact on global politics found that diasporas may directly provide security to members of their community in the homeland by supplying arms and manpower for armies or police forces Chalk Of course, questions regarding the extent to which the support of an army can be considered a public good need to be considered case by case. Berti and exceeds the scope of this paper. Finally, while diasporas are engaged in the general provision of goods and services during violent conflict, Brinkerhoff a; b has been at the forefront of arguing that they are consequently also key to rebuilding governance in post-conflict countries.
This is because they are often first movers in humanitarian relief and post-conflict reconstruction efforts. The preceding paragraphs have provided a sweeping, but by no means exhaustive account of the many ways in which diasporas contribute to governance in their homelands. Accordingly, we would expect to find diasporas amongst the actors examined in the governance literature.