No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Is good governance a global public good?
... With growing foreign investment not only in processing but in upstream production, global value chains are speeding up concentration and technological change. This is stimulated by global traders and transnational companies that are seeking to enhance their economies of scale in both supply and marketing, which ultimately tends to displace local farmers who are integrated into more traditional food production systems (Page, 2013 ). Retailers and supermarkets also tend to impose higher quality standards to suppliers in order to meet more demanding consumption patterns, mainly in urban markets (Reardon et al., 2003 ). ...
... Incentives for adoption are related to managing social risks by reducing civil society pressure and improving relations with communities, as well as reducing the implications that reputational risk can have on financial risks for company operations (Campbell, 2007). In other cases, adopting codes of conduct, sustainability standards and certification schemes may enable access to more discerning and specialised markets as well as optimising harvesting and production processes (Page, 2013). While these instruments provide little scope for public actors' participation in their design, the implementation phase provides more opportunities for achieving synergies and complementarities among different actors (Pacheco et al., 2011). ...
... The state of emergency and the subsequent Authorization Act enabled the government to introduce restrictions and overrule existing acts without legislative consent (Hajnal and Kovács, 2020). The government used the pandemic to expand and entrench illiberal institutions, for example with the alteration of the Penal Act and reduction of party subsidies (Hajnal et al., 2021;Batory, 2022). ...
While a large literature studies the various tools of autocratic survival, targeting opposition actors with austerity measures in electoral autocracies is hitherto understudied. This paper argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a rare opportunity for Hungary’s Fidesz party to disarm opposition parties via cutting off resources of municipalities led by opposition mayors and eliminating any remnants of local governments’ fiscal autonomy. Analysing original data from government decrees on local transfers, this study contributes to the existing literature by conceptualising fiscal strangulation as part of electoral authoritarian regimes’ toolbox to discredit opposition parties and their ability to govern locally.
... When conflicts and protracted crises leave millions of people hungry (FAO, 2017a; FAO/IFAD/UNICEF/WFP/WHO, 2017; HLPE, 2017a), peace, which can be considered as a "public good", is a critical condition for FSN. Appropriate global governance mechanisms to address global food security have also been considered as public goods (Page, 2013). ...
... When conflicts and protracted crises leave millions of people hungry (FAO, 2017a; FAO/IFAD/UNICEF/WFP/WHO, 2017; HLPE, 2017a), peace, which can be considered as a "public good", is a critical condition for FSN. Appropriate global governance mechanisms to address global food security have also been considered as public goods (Page, 2013). ...
Contribution (see page 91) to the Committee on World Food Security report of the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition on “Multi-stakeholder partnerships to finance and improve food security and nutrition in the framework of the 2030 Agenda”.
Text box example with lessons learned on multi-stakeholder processes and platforms to implement the the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the context of National Food Security (VGGT) in South Africa.
... However, claims about stakeholder participation and social and ecological outcomes are often presumed, but rarely proven ([23,24], see[21]for an exception). A synthesis of studies that do evaluate participation[23](e.g.,[25][26][27]) suggests improvements in quality of decisions are strongly contingent upon the qualities of the associated process. ...
Multi-stakeholder environmental management and governance processes are essential to realize social and ecological outcomes. Participation, collaboration, and learning are emphasized in these processes; to gain insights into how they influence stakeholders’ evaluations of outcomes in relation to management and governance interventions we use a path analysis approach to examine their relationships in individuals in four UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. We confirm a model showing that participation in more activities leads to greater ratings of process, and in turn, better evaluations of outcomes. We show the effects of participation in activities on evaluation of outcomes appear to be driven by learning more than collaboration. Original insights are offered as to how the evaluations of outcomes by stakeholders are shaped by their participation in activities and their experiences in management and governance processes. Understanding stakeholder perceptions about the processes in which they are involved and their evaluation of outcomes is imperative, and influences current and future levels of engagement. As such, the evaluation of outcomes themselves are an important tangible product from initiatives. Our research contributes to a future research agenda aimed at better understanding these pathways and their implications for engagement in stewardship and ultimately social and ecological outcomes, and to developing recommendations for practitioners engaged in environmental management and governance.
... There is a growing consensus that health and good nutrition can be considered as global public goods with global food security recently joining that debate in international forums (Page, 2013). Although this political approach is still at an early stage of development, far from established as a general understanding and certainly without a negotiated global statement as yet, it is an idea that is taking hold, as witness FAO Director General Graziano da Silva in the closing remarks of the International Conference of Nutrition, November 2014. ...
In the wake of socialism’s demise and liberalism’s loss of direction, new ideas are needed for the next major realignment of the social and political domain. Making a unique contribution to the idea of ‘the commons’, this book offers a radical form of direct democracy with real-world implications. But whereas much of the current scholarship has looked at the commons from the perspective of governance, this book instead focuses on ‘commoning’ as social practice.
Perspectives on Commoning argues that the commons are not just resources external to us, but are a function or characterisation of what we do. Thus, we can talk of the act of commoning, positioning our behaviour beyond the domains of the private and the public, beyond the dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism.
Covering everything from biopolitics to urban spaces, this impressive range of international contributors address the commons as both theory and history, providing a useful review of current conceptions as well as practical proposals for the future. A unique consolidation of philosophy, sociology and economics, the book shows how a new understanding of the commons as practice will help to achieve its full emancipatory potential.
... Additionally, safe and healthy food for everyone is proposed as a feasible policy option as long as food is given the status of a global public good the States have to take care of (Lerin, 2002; Firer, 2004; Burns & Stohr, 2011; Beltrán-García & Gifra-Durall, 2013; McMahon, 2013). Since food and nutrition security becomes an international issue whose benefits are relevant to all and requiring collective global actions to be achieved, several scholars have posited that it should be considered as a Global Public Good (Bratspies 2010; Page, 2013), a political understanding that is not yet granted in the international arena or the UN system. ...
... Given the stance of the CBD as guide-line targets only, the structure of governance for implementing biodiversity conservation is not prescribed beyond the principle of 'good governance' (GG). GG is a set of overarching principles that promote participation , transparency and fairness (see [28] ), which not only challenges illegitimate regimes but is advocated as a means for solving environmental problems such as climate change, food security and biodiversity loss [30,40]. However, the principles of GG are ideals, and their application on the ground is never complete but always involves compromise, trade-offs between power structures, and hidden agendas. ...
... Given the stance of the CBD as guide-line targets only, the structure of governance for implementing biodiversity conservation is not prescribed beyond the principle of 'good governance' (GG). GG is a set of overarching principles that promote participation , transparency and fairness (see [28] ), which not only challenges illegitimate regimes but is advocated as a means for solving environmental problems such as climate change, food security and biodiversity loss [30,40]. However, the principles of GG are ideals, and their application on the ground is never complete but always involves compromise, trade-offs between power structures, and hidden agendas. ...
Successful implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requires critical reflection on governance structures especially in the biodiverse tropics where institutional capacity is weak and fragmented. This paper explores three modes of marine governance in Thailand and discusses the challenges each faces when delivering conservation and sustainable development objectives. Focusing on Marine Protected Areas (MPA), the dominant management approaches to biodiversity conservation, centralised, decentralised and shared governance, are scrutinised through a review of the literature and 24 key informant interviews with leading Thai academics, national and regional government officers and NGOs. We find both the centralised, state-managed MPA system and the decentralised, community-based MPA system to have severe limitations, for different reasons, in protecting biodiversity, whereas shared governance, despite being less common, is the best intermediate mode. Shared governance is the most viable option available in Thailand for working towards key CBD targets because: (1) local participation can legitimise much of the relationship with the centralised system and can help embed a decentralised system in natural resources management; (2) the centralised system will still remain in ultimate control, which, whilst not favoured by those who want decentralisation, will satisfy powerful elites, and offer more opportunity to empower local people to take responsibility for conservation targets; and (3) the capacity of both local and national stakeholders can be built to deal with the complexity of the marine environment.
... There is a growing consensus that health and good nutrition can be considered as global public goods (Chen, Evans & Cash, 1999) with global food security recently joining that debate in international forums (Page, 2013). Although this political approach is still at an early stage of development, far from established as a general understanding and certainly without a negotiated global statement as yet, it is an idea that is taking hold, as witness FAO Director General Graziano in the closing remarks of the International Conference of Nutrition, November 2014. ...
This paper analyses the main fault lines of the industrial food system and the consequences of the absolute commodification of food. Then, using the food regime theory and exploring the developments in the industrial food system (mainstream) and the urban alternative food networks (AFNs) and rural food sovereignty movement (innovative niches), the author proposes a transition pathway (the re-commonification of food) towards a food commons regime in which primacy rests in its feature as human beings' absolute need and the different dimensions of food are properly valued, in opposition to the corporate mono-dimensional valuation of food as a commodity. In order to crowdsource this transition, this paper argues the food sovereignty movement and the AFNs need to grow together, beyond individual organisations, to knit a different and bigger food web capable of confronting the industrial food system for the common good. This ongoing transition that will span decades is to be steered by a tricentric governance system (urban and rural civic collective actions for food, partner states and social private enterprises) that enables access and promote food in all its dimensions through a multiplicity of open structures and sustainable peer-to-peer practices aimed at sharing, co-producing and trading food and knowledge. Unlike the market, the food commons are about cooperation, sharing, stewardship, equity, self-production, sustainability, collectiveness, embeddedness and direct democracy from local to global. Shifting the dominant discourse from the private sphere to the commons arena will open up a whole new world of economic, political and societal innovations, not least the Universal Food Coverage.
... The CFS also has membership of civil society organisations and Private Sector representatives participating. This platform is informed in turn by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) that provides independent, scientific knowledge-based analysis and advice – and involves a steering committee of acknowledged experts from different countries, further informed by issue based teams (Page, 2013). These two structures intersect with national food security programmes that draw together national decision makers from relevant sectors. ...
... The economic theory of institutions and fiscal federalism theory can be applied to understand under what circumstances the production of trans-national public goods requires the establishment of specific institutions and at what level (local, national, regional, or global). However, this economic approach must be integrated into a wider political vision of global governance, taking into account the problems of legitimacy, fairness and accountability of international institutions (Higgott 2006). Since the reach of spill-overs generated by trans-national public goods is often limited to regional groupings of countries, it has been argued that their production should be fostered by regional institutions (Sandler 2004). ...
This paper presents a critical survey of different proposals to measure globalisation, from the perspective of a more general view of the relationship between international integration and societal progress. A higher degree of international integration can be seen in itself as an indicator of societal progress, inasmuch as it reveals that human societies more and more acknowledge their common destiny. In addition, international integration fosters the provision of essential ingredients of societal progress, such as trans-national public goods and economic growth. The available composite indicators of globalisation, although going beyond the limits of a purely economic definition of international integration, fail to perform adequately their task for a variety of conceptual and methodological reasons. A promising alternative is based on the recognition that the scope of international integration is not necessarily global, as cross-border interactions among human societies are often limited in their geographic reach. A new generation of statistical indicators is therefore being developed, in order to clearly distinguish between regional and global integration.
The emergence of a growing number of global issues-global public goods and bads-has started to erode the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. Discusses three issues that highlight the changing constellation of politics. First, it examines how globalization is altering state politics and policy-making. Then, it explores the implications of these political transformations for the notion of a political community. Finally, it discusses the policy choices available and required to govern, democratize, and civilize globalization more effectively than at present. © 2003 by the United Nations Development Programme. All rights reserved.
Arising from a survey of critical literature, three questions are posed concerning the linkage of development aid to the promotion of democratic governance. Is democracy promotion by Northern governments restricted to a narrow, procedural version? Is a 'Western' model of democracy imposed? Are programmes part of a wider neo-liberal hegemonic project of global domination? Investigation is through a comparative examination of the political aid programmes of four official donors, the governments of Sweden, the UK and the US, plus the European Union. Analysis explores two main dimensions: the major recipient countries and the main beneficiary sectors to which political aid is directed. Findings are threefold. First, some emphasis on electoral assistance was confirmed, yet fairly substantial support was provided to other dimensions of democratic development, including civil society organisations, though the latter lacked focus and overall coherence. Second, each bilateral donor tends to promote and universalise its own country-specific form of democracy. Third, whilst some credence is found for the predominance of hidden agendas, including economic liberalisation, there is also evidence of measures that are more genuinely orientated at promoting democratic development. Thus, it is argued that the picture of neo-liberal hegemony is less a description of how the world is and more an account of some attempts to construct it. A counter-hegemonic strategy includes pressure for greater host country authorship of political aid programmes, including the strengthening of processes of national democratic dialogue.