governance in a globalizing
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Academia De Studii Economice]On: 14 December 2011, At: 06:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK
International Journal of PublicAdministrationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20
Governance in a GlobalizingWorldJamil Jreisat aa Public Administration Program, University ofSouth Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
Available online: 07 Aug 2006
To cite this article: Jamil Jreisat (2004): Governance in a Globalizing World,International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1003-1029
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200039883
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or
damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONVol. 27, Nos. 13 & 14, pp. 1003–1029, 2004
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-200039883 0190-0692 (Print); 1532-4265 (Online)Copyright © 2004 by Taylor & Francis Inc.
1003
International Journal of Public Administration2713 & 14Taylor & FrancisTaylor and Francis 325 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphiaPA191060190-06921532-4265LPADTaylor & Francis Inc.3988310.1081/PAD-2000398832004140JreisatGovernance in a Globalizing World Governance in a Globalizing World
Jamil Jreisat*
Public Administration Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
ABSTRACT
The capacity of a governance system to act and the integrity of its actionsare increasingly recognized as foundations to society’s advancement anddevelopment. Globalization influences on governance, particularly itsadministrative side, are creating new needs and demands. Even when theoutcome of globalization is debatable, its impact on today’s publicmanagers clearly calls for expansion of their intellectual horizons andrefinement of their operational skills. Managers must improve theircommunication and negotiation skills, conform to higher standards ofaccountability, transparency, and ethics, and master the complexnew technologies within e-government. In fostering reform, publicinstitutions must rely on their own internal learning processes whileadapting to international standards and practices. The lesson: Within thestill-unfolding global conditions, systems of governance everywhere havea choice of adapting or losing the game.
*Correspondence: Jamil Jreisat, Professor of Public Administration and PoliticalScience, University of South Florida (SOC107), Tampa, FL 33620, USA; E-mail:[email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1004 Jreisat
GOVERNANCE
Governance is the general exercise of authority,[1] and the process bywhich a society or an organization steers itself.[2] At the level of the sovereignstate, governance generally denotes a complex mix of institutions (executive,legislative, judiciary) as well as interactions, behaviors, and processes. Aprincipal reason here for focusing on governance is that it directs ourattention to various critical institutions, particularly those involved in theadministration of public policy and their interconnections with theirlarger contexts. After the World Bank gave governance a prominent roleon the economic development agenda in 1989, the term “governance”gained popularity, particularly among development economists and policymakers.[3] Recognition of the strategic importance of governanceextended the pursuance of its reform worldwide.
Despite its inconsistent usage, governance “essentially refers to two ofthe most basic questions posed by political scientists since the foundationof their discipline: ‘Who governs?’ and ‘How well?’”[4] The first questionfocuses on the issues of power and the distribution of power and resourcesin the society. The second question is primarily concerned with “goodgovernment,” judged by such elements as effective institutions, efficientmethods of operation, and equitable policy outcomes. As a system, gover-nance is rarely static, even if the change is particular to conditions in eachcountry reflecting historical, political, cultural, educational, and economiccircumstances. Any appraisal of a system of governance has to considerresults, seriously. Good performance is inescapably related to satisfactionof criteria such as the participation of citizens in decisions affecting them,the capacity to aggregate and coordinate various interests in order tobring about consensus on policies, and the managing of institutions andregime structures with efficiency, accountability, and transparency.
Thus, the profound effects of governance on contemporary societiesinspired a global resurgence of interest in the theory and in the practice ofgovernance.[5] Ineffective and corrupt governance has been blamed forconditions of poverty, economic stagnation, lack of political stability,confused priorities, chaos, and violations of human rights of citizens andnoncitizens. As Werlin argues, “governance rather than natural resourcesis the primary reason for the wealth and poverty of nations.”[6] Similarly,Rosell concludes: “In no small measure, the ability of a society to prosperin a world of rapid change will depend on its ability to develop [moreparticipatory and more effective] governance systems.”[7] The recent warsin Afghanistan and Iraq convey an important lesson: “When governance sys-tems break down or are destroyed, the door is opened to instability, oppres-sion, conflict and unchecked political and economic opportunism . . . leading
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1005
to further decay and conflict.”[8] Ending such “vicious cycles” is not achiev-able without empowered, capable, operational, and trusted political andadministrative institutions.
The intensified search for better explanations and deeper understandingof governance also precipitated enduring drives for reform and moderniza-tion. According to Ahrens,[9] among the important factors that motivaterecent research on governance are the widespread failure of economicadjustment programs, the misuse of public funds and corruption in manydeveloping countries, the collapse of centrally planned economies, the fiscalcrisis of the welfare states, and the role of the state in the high-performingEast Asian economies and its more recent role in the Asian financial crisis.
While the deluge of studies has enriched our general knowledge ofgovernance and its context, so far, these studies have produced neitheruniversally accepted explanations of effective governance nor viable pre-scriptions for its reform. One problem is that research activities have oftenfocused on “failed states” with broken-down governance systems, enduringinstability, oppression, and conflicts.[10] Another problem is that descrip-tions and interpretations have been largely based on or derived fromWestern context and experience. Existing governance systems vary world-wide; even systems lumped together under descriptions such as “democratic”or “Western” are significantly different from each other in form and inprocess. Constitutional monarchies of the Netherlands, Spain, or theUnited Kingdom, for example, are not entirely like each other, nor arethey like the presidential systems of the United States or Germany. Aparliamentary system such as the French also is not identical to a presi-dential system as that of the US.
Variations of governance systems are even greater among non-West-ern large systems such as China, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, India, Egypt,Iran, and Indonesia. Factors widening the conceptual and operationaldiversity can be historical, economic, cultural, or global. From thisperspective, effective governance is independent of the basic character ofa political system (the regime type).[11] Moreover, based on such views, agovernance framework has to be a politically neutral concept. Ahrensstates: “Numerous empirical studies suggest that there is no evidence thateither democratic or non-democratic states are better suited to initiateand consolidate policy reforms effectively and to promote sustained eco-nomic development.”[12] Moreover, the pluralism inherent in the study ofhow governance evolved over time and place is at the opposite pole fromthe monistic view favoring one form and attempting to impose it on thehuman race.
Still, the quest for defining common features of “good governance” iscontinuous. Richard Chapman observes that in the modern world “there
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1006 Jreisat
are no democracies without constitutions.”[13] He claims both written andunwritten aspects of a constitution encompass customs and conventions.While Chapman recognizes constitutions and elections as determinants ofthe legitimacy of governance, there are many such systems of governancethat conduct regular elections and have constitutions but still lack fidelityto democratic values. A constitution may be the basic document thatspecifies the main structure of a governance system, but it is not a guaranteeof practicing democratic governance.
A true democracy has prerequisites. To have a government by thepeople, it is imperative that unfettered equality of all citizens prevails irre-spective of gender, religion, race, or ethnicity. In reality, many governmentsthat have constitutions and hold elections remain oppressive and totalitarian,openly discriminate against segments of the population, and habitually disre-gard international laws and conventions. Yet, a reformist view, seeking thealignment of state–society relations, often resorts to reconstitution of rulesthat guide public action, ultimately hoping to establish and manage the con-stitutional principles at international or national levels.[14]
At the same time, a broadly conceived governance is not limited tothe activities or functions of the central public authority. In every society,other players (in addition to government) share in the responsibilities:business, interest groups, voluntary organizations, mass media, religiousestablishments, and a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).“With the growing involvement of third sector organizations in gover-nance (through contracting, mobilizing, advocacy, and developmentactivities), the traditional meaning of accountability is shifting towards anemergent accountability regime.”[15] The central government in any society,however, holds the greater power and responsibilities, generally facilitatedby the civil and military services. For any national governance system tosucceed in an increasingly interconnected, rapidly changing world, itneeds to develop learning-based governance and decision-making pro-cesses in order to grow and adapt to citizens’ expectations as well as tooperate effectively across shifting boundaries. Such a governance systemalso has to be inclusive, allowing more people to participate.[16]
GLOBALIZATION: MAGNIFIED OR CRITICIZED
Focus on governance here is not intended to reinvent it, but, rather,to understand it and to improve its performance. Consequently, a keenlyrelevant inquiry is to ascertain where and how governance has beenaffected by globalization trends. Specifically, the overriding concern is todetermine what aspects of governance have been influenced, and to what
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1007
extent, by the processes of globalization. Globalization is viewed as a mul-tidimensional, “worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporarysocial life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual.”[17]
The unfolding globalization is widening and deepening global inte-gration, and it is strengthening numerous, mutually reinforcing relationshipsamong countries. International organizations such as the United Nations(UN) and the European Union (EU) are concrete results of this integration.Another outcome is the development of international law of human rightsand the crafting of various normative frameworks in trade, health, andenvironment that represent limitations on the absolute sovereignty andterritorial supremacy of the state. Nevertheless, when a state enters intothese agreements, it is exercising its sovereignty, not abdicating it. Thegovernment acts for the state; the effectiveness of governance largelydetermines the extent of state benefits from entering into such globalframeworks. Because various activities regularly cross cultural boundariesin important areas such as finance, technology, and management, statesare increasingly concerned about the capacity of their institutions toshoulder the new responsibilities and to ensure fair dealings within theglobal structure.
Whether globalization is considered “an inevitable byproduct of tech-nological innovation,”[18] or regarded as “shaped by markets”[19], govern-ments’ decisions remain significantly involved in broadening andmanaging various aspects of globalization. True, technological advance-ments in communication, and the succeeding information revolution,have been instrumental in aiding the processes of globalization. However,the claim that the market alone or the power of the electronic freeway isthe real architect or the inventor of globalism is a misleading conclusion.First, various forms of globalization have taken shape throughout historyand for various reasons. For example, the British tried to build an empireon which “the sun never set” by dominating others, but in a few years itcrumbled amid the devastation of World War II and the irresistible strugglefor independence by the colonies. Environmental issues have overcomedistances, cultures, and borders. The transport of pollution and othermaterials created global problems that require global solutions. Keohaneand Nye point out that “Social and cultural globalism involves movementsof ideas, information, and images, and of people—who of course carryideas and information with them.”[20]
Second, in recent decades globalization has come to be associatedwith the ascendancy of a group of ideas that have been called“neoliberalism.”[21] Neoliberalism involves such moves as “privatization,minimizing economic regulations, rolling back welfare, reducing expendi-tures on public goods, tightening fiscal discipline, favoring free flow of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1008 Jreisat
capital, strict control on organized labor, tax reductions, and unrestrictedcurrency repatriation.”[22] Although the conception of globalization as“the thickening of interdependence”[23] is a phenomenon with ancientroot, it seems that this neoliberal package has given globalization its mostsalient characteristics in recent years.
In Governance in the 21st Century, Michalski, Miller, and Stevenspoint out that technological breakthroughs and market-driven economictransformation have been potent forces in extending and deepening therelationships of market powers.[24] They regard the global economy asinfluenced by three sets of powerful changes that will sustain growth andwealth creation in the future: “the shift to a knowledge economy, muchdeeper global integration, and a transformation in humanity’s relationshipto the environment.”[25] From this perspective, the rules and behavior thatshape governance within such a highly interdependent context are alsoexpected to change.
Current definitions of globalism also need to recognize an importantreality: Globalization is not a constant movement in a linear path. Reversalsand setbacks of the trend can be frequent and formidable. Skeptics arguethat regional trading blocks may become alternatives to globalization.Although at different levels of efficacy, many regional associations arealready operational, such as the EU, Organization of African Unity(OAU), the Arab League, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and theOrganization of American States (OAS). Serious reversals also occurwhen one or more national governments emerge with enormous powersto dictate rather than cooperate globally. Specifically, unilateral responsesto globalization, whether by isolationists, protectionists, or hegemonists,ultimately diminish globalism.[26]
One of the most detracting factors to healthy globalization is the eco-nomic issues that have been heightened by global economic integration,cross-boundary financial investment, the digital revolution, and multina-tional corporate powers. Specifically, the gap in wealth and economic growthbetween North and South countries (developed and developing) has not beenreduced; in many cases the gap has increased. Income statistics from the USand the UN Development Program indicate that the combined income of the400 richest persons in the US is more than the combined national income of20 African states totaling over 300 million people, and is also more than thetotal national income of the 146 million people of Pakistan.[27] As Weissmanconcludes: “There is something profoundly wrong with a world [in whichsuch] global inequalities persist at a staggering level.”[28]
Poor countries may not have been full participants in global advance-ments and may find global capitalism disruptive to their lives and societies.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1009
Lacking effective systems of governance, poor nations have been unableto enact safeguards and regulations to protect their environments andworkers as the industrial countries have done for decades.[29] Clearly,globalism serves the interests of the big industrial nations in their searchfor new markets. At the same time, irrespective of global agreements andconventions, powerful countries often are able, at will, to restrict the free-doms of travel, trade, and exchange of information.
A contrary view of the unilateralist, hegemonic perspective has beenarticulated in a three-day congress of political personalities from aroundthe world in Sao Paulo, Brazil (October 27–29, 2003). The “Declarationof Sao Paulo,” approved by delegates to the 22nd Congress of the SocialistInternational, called for “reshaping globalization, which it says nowfavors rich countries and corporations to the detriment of the Planet’spoor.”[30] The Declaration decried attempts to “dismantle all forms of globalgovernance, to minimize the role of the United Nations, to underminemultilateral institutions, to promote unilateralism and the consecration ofthe market, and to impose the will of the powerful to decide the future ofmankind.”[31]
The critics and skeptics found more credence for their arguments inrecent US behavior on the international level. It is a fact that globalismtoday “is America-centric, in that most of the impetus for the informationrevolution comes from the United States, and a large part of the contentof global information networks is created in the United States.”[32] Butthis reality has been tempered by certain factors. The critics point out thefollowing:
• First, nation-states apply and interpret information and images intheir own national contexts and within dissimilar local culturesnot as filtered for them by the dominant source.
• Second, recent US actions in world affairs provoked profound,widespread resentment. Specifically, the critics point out that theUS walked away from international agreements, such as settingup an International Criminal Court,[33] the Kyoto Protocol on cli-mate change, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.At the UN meetings, the US repeatedly ignored decisions itfound objectionable. Perhaps the most serious action is theundermining of the essence of the concept of multilateralism, “anunderpinning of the global system since the end of World WarII.”[34] In September 2002, the US Administration published theNational Security Strategy of the United States of America,enshrining the doctrines of preemptive war and overwhelmingUS military superiority.[35]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1010 Jreisat
• Third, the unfolding economic globalization has been associatedwith a certain ideological scheme that has been known as “theWashington consensus,” which accurately highlights the neoliberalscheme.[36] In essence, this scheme “points in the general directionof autonomous markets and facilitative states.”[37] After severalyears of following these prescriptions, many countries have dis-covered that the promises expected from following the neoliberaleconomic “road map” were largely misleading.
• Finally, even free trade among countries has often been used toreward those who yield to US policies and to punish those who donot. Similarly, WTO rules require all member countries to adoptUS-style patent laws, as well as copyright, trademark, and tradesecret protections.[38] The end result of these rules is increasing theimbalance between rich and poor countries and extracting moneyout of poor countries in the form of royalty payments.[39]
It is too early to determine whether these US policies are sustainableto become permanently institutionalized or are merely a transient modeemanating from an excessive, ideological zeal. A closer look at the diag-nosis by the magnifying advocates as well as the detracting skeptics indi-cates some merit and justification in either position. Unfortunately, eachside seems to consider different facts and to focus on different aspects ofglobalism. Globalization, therefore, is “a contestable concept,” bestthought of as a multidimensional set of social processes that resists beingconfined to any single thematic framework.[40] Crocker identifies threemain interpretations, each with a substantial following, that haveemerged in relation to globalism:
1. The hyperglobalists, who conceive of globalization as a world-wide age of economic (capitalist) integration characterized byopen trade, global financial flows, and the triumph of multina-tional corporations.
2. The skeptics, who reject the hyperglobalist view and see insteadtrade blocks emerging, economic clubs and fraternities developing,and stronger national governments asserting their wills.
3. The transformationalists, who rely on empirical and normativeinquiry, utilizing ethical appraisals of globalization and offeringsuggestions for better ways of managing the new and evolvingglobal interconnectedness.[41]
Although current globalization trends are powerful, mostly irreversible,and some are unprecedented, one cannot be blind to potent actions of a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1011
dominant single nation–state that can radically undermine global accom-plishments through cooperation. This is a major concern of the skeptics.Whether a satisfactory transformation of globalism can be achievedremains difficult to predict. The challenge is how to realize the real andpotential benefits of globalization while, at the same time, avoiding theshortcomings of the past and the obstacles of the present. Managingglobalism to attain an outcome that is balanced, just, and ethical requiresrethinking and reforming the processes of global decision making. Inrecent years, buoyed by the ascendency of neoliberal economic policies,the private sector has won back, at the global level, the degree of freedomthey had lost at the national level with the advent of the welfare state andits vital regulatory powers. “At no previous time have goods, money, andpeople crossed national borders so rapidly and in such high volume.”[42]
At the same time, transnational capital has escaped accountability andmeaningful democratic controls. Thus, at a global level, the private capitaldoes not now encounter the equivalent of the state, an entity that can tax,regulate, and redistribute.[43] Capital and multinational corporations arethe beneficiaries of a global system with as few restraints and inhibitionsas possible. The result has been described as “predatory globalization,”[44]
rather than a cooperative international system governed by democraticrules. Two specific negatives are usually underlined: a Darwinist economicculture that benefits the few, and a careless ravaging of the environment.
Reformers wish to see a transformation of the global system into amore active, orderly, and cooperative system serving the common interest.Hence, drawbacks are being defined and many remedial proposals arebeing debated. There is the need “to evolve some equivalent of the state atthe global level—not a global government, but a more effective system forglobal governance.”[45] In the same reformist strand, Falk and Strausspropose a Global Parliament, akin to the European Parliament, to managedemocratically the processes of globalization.[46] Certainly, need exists fora better managed globalization to achieve more equitable outcomes andbetter service for the common interest. Some countries, for example, Brazil,Argentina, and India, are already promoting demands to “allow some-what less dependence on the wealthiest nations” and to democratize theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the UN.[47]
GOVERNANCE—PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD
With a more precise meaning of governance, Hyden points out, it ispossible to distinguish between the distributive side of politics (how public
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1012 Jreisat
resources are allocated), addressing the perennial question of “who getswhat, when, and how,” and the constitutive side, dealing with the questionof “who sets what rules, when, and how?”[48] This distinction is particu-larly important to a developing country that has ambitions for realizing asustainable development. The conventional-needs approach that hasdominated international development assistance relies more on the dis-tributive side, and does not ask for changes in the rules of the game toachieve its objectives.[49] Sustainable development, however, is concernedwith empowerment and enhanced access to resources, calls for a change inthe rules, and, by implication, urges a shift in power relations. Gover-nance, then, encourages people to think beyond the routine, the minorrefinements in public decision making, and the incremental steps that donot call for change in power allocations or existing rules. Focus on gover-nance compels people to look at a problem in the context of the “big picture”of adapting systems of rules to changes in the environment and encouragingleaders to find consensual solutions to the problems their constituentsencounter.[50]
Governance is a dynamic process that seldom stays in a fixed modefor a long time. Recent history shows that such change can be a progres-sive or regressive. Thus, one needs to inquire about elements that induceor cause steady, positive, reformative change. Excluding change intro-duced through revolutions or military interventions, it seems that othercritical sources that stimulate and articulate change include: (1) influenceof the global context; (2) institutional self-learning and development; and(3) pressure from within and from without to influence a governance systemto abide by some “core values” that are quickly acquiring internationaladherence as standards of “good” governance.
Global Influences and Public Administration
The increasing interdependence of the world has arisen through marketforces, the information revolution, technological breakthroughs, increasingtravel, cultural exchange, and many other developments—all have createda different context for contemporary governance. Consequently, gover-nance of the contemporary state is encountering new needs and demands,which require alteration of the traditional governance systems. As a criticalcomponent of governance, Public Administration is facing a reassessmentof its main premises and tenets. Today, a government attempting successfulimplementation of its public policies has to apply information, use newtechnologies, recruit and develop the required managerial leadership, andbuild overall administrative competence and integrity. Within this new
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1013
global reality, an “increasing number of policy decisions are now beingmade by global institutions instead of individual countries.”[51] Thus, PublicAdministration is facing new challenges, new needs, and different demands,outlined in the following discussion.
First, a growing need for negotiation skills among sovereign states
Globalization trends have underscored the necessity for effectivecommunication as economic integration increases and the financial, political,social, and cultural lives of countries become more intertwined.[52] It isimportant to understand that the new reality requires free interactionsamong nations seeking to promote their self-interest within the rules ofthe game. “With the advance of globalization and the development ofregional integration in Europe, Asia, and the Americas, national govern-ments and international organizations have come to rely more than everbefore on reaching decisions through multilateral negotiations.”[53]
This does not account for a view that embraces an empire-buildingapproach with imperial authority to put down challenges rather than topersuade and to negotiate agreements. Nor does the negotiation stancefully answer the question of distribution of power within a society. Never-theless, from different starting points, all societies have experiencedprofound shifts in authority relationships. The concentration of powershas been challenged everywhere. Absolutist, authoritarian regimes havebeen undermined by forces of democratic values, competition, new meansof communication, education, and the far-reaching global interactions.[54]
Thus, the character of governance and the methods of exercising powerhave been changed significantly. While students of Public Administrationand politics have to reach a clearer understanding of what is beingchanged and why, they have also to be prepared for dealing with newopportunities as they evolve.
Second, changed views of bureaucracy
Failures of governance in many countries, and the trend of allocatinga greater role for the private sector in national development, provided theimpetus for those who prefer shifting the responsibility of public bureau-cracy from managing to facilitating economic activities.[55] Neoliberalglobalism has inspired persistent attacks on bureaucracy and renewedattempts to discredit the traditional administrative system withoutadvancing viable, workable alternatives; thus, increasing the confusion.[56]
Current global conditions require special institutional capacities in man-aging public affairs. Despite fads and fashions in the field of Public
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1014 Jreisat
Administration, a growing emphasis is on improving traditional adminis-trative knowledge, skills, and attitudes, not supplanting them with alter-native notions, often described as “more than a little vague.”[57]
True, early models of organization and management, in governmentand nongovernmental institutions, were based on hierarchical “commandand control” paradigms. These models have been undermined by new ormodified forms, processes, and systems. Current emphases on Total QualityManagement (TQM), team building, motivation, performance measurement,accountability, ethics, and empowerment of employees have contributedsignificantly to a meaningful transformation of contemporary gover-nance. Although the applications of these new organizational and mana-gerial changes are not uniform, one finds many demonstrations of theireffects on development and institutional learning as well as on changinggovernance itself.
Third, the performance culture
Globalization has advanced an almost universal organizational andmanagerial culture, which stresses performance and accentuates results-oriented management. As Kettl points out, “Governments around theglobe adopted management reforms to squeeze extra efficiency out of thepublic sector.”[58] Thus, managerial skills of adaptability, cooperation,and creativity came in greater demands. Public Administration, aware ofthe proclivities of its traditional tendencies to drift into a hierarchical“command and control” mode and to produce rule-driven rigidities, hasinvariably emphasized performance and elevated reform objectives to ahigher priority.
The New Public Management (NPM) movement is only one responsethat endeavors to speak for some of these needs and changes prompted byglobalization. However, NPM has not received uncritical endorsementfrom the profession. Among many criticisms leveled against NPM is thatit remains grounded in instrumental rationality that, ultimately, coulderode fundamental values of representative governance. Actually, not allthe effects of globalization on Public Administration have been sorted outin terms of significance and magnitude.[59]
Fourth, the role of leadership
Public Administration education has been making serious strides inresponding to distinct demands for managerial leadership and expertise.Focus on leadership has been necessitated by the demands of negotia-tions, mediation, sensitivity to human rights, and diversity. Organizational
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1015
leaders are critical for managing conflict, contracting, and applying ofproblem solving techniques, beyond the often derogated “traditional”public service activities.
Studies of leadership offer a variety of perspectives and theories:traits approach, contingency theory, situational approach, transforma-tional leadership, behavioral approach, and others. In this context, whatis needed most, particularly in developing countries, is leadership withskills and integrity. A comprehensive, skills-based model of leadership hasattracted the attention of researchers for a long time.[60] Briefly, the“skills-approach” is more concerned with what leaders can accomplishthan with who they are. It is the “ability to use one’s knowledge and com-petencies to accomplish a set of goals or objectives.”[61] Among the manycritical functions of leadership is the development and implementation ofthe strategic objectives of the organization (the society), and the coordina-tion of various initiatives to improve performance and overcome obstacles.Moreover, those skilled, ethical leaders are in serious demand for negotiatingon behalf of their countries equal rights and fair deals in the global arena.
Fifth, E-Government
It is safe to assume that all countries “have been executing major ini-tiatives in order to tap the vast potential of the Internet for the distinctpurpose of improving and perfecting the governing process.”[62] Broadlydefined, e-government refers to various information and communicationtechnologies in use by the public sector. A more specific view of e-governmentdefines it as “utilizing the internet and the worldwide web for deliveringgovernment information and services to citizens.”[63] In a report publishedby the UN Division for Public Administration in cooperation with theAmerican Society for Public Administration (ASPA),[64] countries areclassified into “high e-gov capacity,” such as the Australia, Canada,France, New Zealand, Norway, the UK, and US; “medium e-gov capacity,”such as Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Venezu-ela; “minimal e-gov capacity,” such as Armenia, Cuba, Jamaica, andSouth Africa; and “deficient e-gov capacity” such as Cameron, Ghana,Tanzania, and Thailand. The same UN-ASPA report compares theworld’s reliance on the information technology and found that the e-government profiles of the UN member states are at extremely differentphases of development. The stages of e-government are described below:
1. Emerging: An official government online presence is established.2. Enhanced: Government sites increase, information becomes
more dynamic.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1016 Jreisat
3. Interactive: Users can download forms, e-mail officials, andinteract through the web.
4. Transactional: Users can actually pay for services and othertransactions online.
5. Seamless: Full integration of e-services across administrativeboundaries.
Accordingly, one compelling questions on the issue of capacity iswhat environmental factors help promote building societal capacity ininformation technology? Clear evidence links wealth, government policies,access, training opportunities, and education in general to high capacitye-government. The opposite is also true, that is, lack of these factors leadsto deficient capacity. Another important question relates to application ofthis capacity: To what extent is information technology used by publicadministrators for interfacing with citizens as well as for improving ser-vices and enhancing performance? The answers vary from one country toanother.
Sixth, the need for a comparative perspective
In response to the new global reality, Public Administration must utilizemore effectively a comparative perspective that incorporates non-Westernsystems as well as more developed, Western administrative states. Amajor challenge to researchers in constructing comparative studies is“resolving issues of purpose and method.”[65] Comparative analysis of thefuture must demonstrate openness to incorporate indigenous models andnative patterns of study and application along with Western concepts andmodels.[66] Properly construed, comparative research consists of the evalu-ation of competing explanatory frameworks, the testing of models acrossspacial structures, cultures, organizations, and contexts, and the compari-son of different instruments for achieving the same end.[67] Resolution ofthese issues would also be judged by criteria based on relevance to practiceand linkage with the main field of Public Administration. Defining commonpatterns of administration from multicultural experiences would improveapplicability, temper the archaic “institutional ethnicities,”[68] and increaseresponsiveness to new needs and demands of a changing context.
Building Capacity Through Learning and Development
Education and knowledge are the most reliable means for change inany social system. The spectacular changes in the technological, economic,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1017
and social aspects of the modern society have come to be called the“information revolution.” The image of an information society is farmore involved than the familiar information technology that is limited toprocessing information and/or offering telecommunication products toincrease linkages and improve communications. The information societyis the end result of the interplay and the dynamics of many qualitative andquantitative factors that converge to produce a changed society. Theseinclude knowledge and skills essential for improved governance. A sureway to achieve a more effective management of public affairs is through abetter-educated and a more informed population.[69]
Building competence at the top level of public organizations is a stra-tegic need for promoting good performance. Thus, leadership trainingand development and overall management development are a continuingpurpose of reform not only in Public Administration but in the largerconcern of governance, as well. Development of leadership skills, knowl-edge, and integrity is a foundational stone in the pursuit of a reformedand effective governance.
Assessments of the training function in many European administra-tive systems reveal various limitations, such as poor integration of train-ing programs with overall human resource management programs,inability of training managers to assume a strategic management role inaddressing organizational problems, and absence of any higher civil servicepolicy on training in general and executive development in particular.[70]
When training activities exist, training programs tend to focus on devel-oping skills in response to immediate challenges rather than as elements ina systematic, continuous career development of public servants responsiblefor organizational performance.
Within the new context of globalization and the urgent need todevelop effective and representative governing institutions, formulating acoherent approach to leadership development is crucial. A survey of exec-utive development training in 11 EU countries (including the UK,Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, France, and Sweden) indicates that“senior officials want to prepare themselves for [EU-related] items ofimportance.”[71] This is also true even when most senior officials do notknow whether their posts will get them into such matters in the short run.
Whereas training and attainment of education legitimize leaders instrategic positions in the organization, the Internet makes voluntary uni-versal dissemination of scientific and technological inventions possiblearound the world, easily, rapidly, and cheaply. In the information society,specialization in the economy and knowledge-based behavior improveefficiency and effectiveness of public and private organizations alike. “Busi-ness is more global than ever,” reports an influential business journal.[72]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1018 Jreisat
Not only because the Internet and air travel made the world “a muchsmaller place,” but also because companies and their executives increas-ingly are paying attention to the international context. Companies, forexample, are often looking to hire managers with international compe-tence. In response, business education programs “have started steppingup the international dimensions of their curriculum. Travel abroad,exchanges of faculty and students, and incorporating global issues into theclassroom work—all have increased, illustrating the impact of globalism.[73]
The information age also has negative side effects. Whereas peopleaccepted technology as part of modern living, they are resisting its down-side and aggravations. A recent public outcry is pressuring lawmakers inthe US “to protect consumers from shady operators and commercializa-tion run amok” and to enact tighter curbs “on financial institutions’ abilityto share customer data with affiliates or outside companies.”[74] Consumersare demanding that legislators rein in “spammers” jamming e-mail sys-tems, telemarketers interrupting ever-vanishing family time, and creditcompanies trading in consumer financial data[75] and routinely intrudingin the privacy of people. As a result, governance has to expand its horizonto regulate and monitor new functions presented by globalization.
To cultivate the full benefits that the information-communicationtechnologies provide, and to properly serve the democratic values of fair-ness and justice, a free and professional mass media is indispensable.Mass media today, however, is not closely resembling what is usually pro-jected in the classic formulations of the democratic governance. An expla-nation of one aspect of the dilemma is provided by a professionaljournalist who reviewed the British and the American newspapers’ coverageof Prime Minister Tony Blair’s address to the US Congress in July, 2003.One major British newspaper described Blair as “nauseating”; anotherreferred to him as a “brilliant contortionist, trying to have it both ways”;yet a third newspaper reported that Blair “backed America in what manynow view [war on Iraq] as a war based on lies.”[76] The American press,however, offered a totally different impression of the same event, and wasfull of praise and appreciation of Blair’s speech. The reviewer offers twoexplanations for such remarkably different descriptions of the samespeech. One difference reflects the vagaries of domestic politics. The seconddifference reflects a larger phenomenon that is not much better under-stood. America and Britain—along with America and anywhere—live inparallel informational universes.[77] “Media produced in different cul-tures don’t merely reflect different opinions about the news, they actuallyrecount alternative versions of reality,” states Applebaum.[78] “The prophetsof globalization once spoke of a seamless, borderless world, in whichnational differences would magically disappear”; but, the columnist
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1019
concludes: “They were wrong.”[79] In this regard, one simply notes themassive corporate ownership of US mass media, the technique of “imbe-ded” journalism, frequent fabrication or slanting of stories by reporters—the credibility and trust of journalists have further receded in the public eye.
Universalizing Core Values of Governance: Focus on Ethics
Although core values encompass a broad range of questions, a funda-mental challenge facing good governance is the development of desirable,agreed-upon core values that consistently influence administrative andpolitical actions throughout the system. This is largely the domain of ethicsthat permeates all aspects of governance. The “connection between ethicsand governance is immediate,” Rohr concludes.[80] A report on Trust inGovernment” for the 29 OECD countries provides a comprehensive over-view of ethics measures, trends, promising practices, and innovative solu-tions taken by member countries. The report clearly states: “Public ethicsare a prerequisite to, and underpin, public trust and are a keystone ofgood governance.”[81] No doubt, integrity, in addition to capacity, hasbecome a fundamental attribute—a condition for good governance.
Although a set of universal ethical principles remains an inspirationmore than a reality, dramatic cross-cultural advancements towards suchgoal have been made.The OECD’s publication on “Trust in Government”offers the following measures for ensuring integrity in governance:[82]
• Public servants’ behavior is in line with the public purposes.• Daily public service operations for businesses are reliable.• Citizens receive impartial treatment on the basis of legality and
justice.• Public resources are effectively, efficiently, and properly used.• Decision making procedures are transparent to the public and
measures are in place to permit public scrutiny and redress.
Promoting integrity of governance is made easier when broadlyshared values, particularly accountability and transparency, are sustainedwithin an open environment. This means relevant information is freelyand openly discussed and exploration and learning processes are allowedto function. In this regard, leadership is indispensable. Effective leadershipis vital for establishing an overall framework of goals, interpretations,and values (a shared mental map), both within government and acrosssociety. At the same time, leadership encourages a wide range of playersto innovate and to learn better ways to achieve established objectives.[83]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1020 Jreisat
Almost in all cultures, professional codes of ethics that describerequired behaviors in the practice of professions such as medicine, law,engineering, accounting, teaching, and public service have been steadilyconverging into global standards. Globalism seems to have ushered in agrowing emphasis on accountability, democracy, and ethics in managingthe affairs of the state. An illustration here is the Anti corruption Symposiumin Seoul, Korea (2001), cosponsored by the UN Department of Economicand Social Affairs and attended by many Asian and European countries.The purpose of the symposium was to explore the links among anti-corruption initiatives, particularly transparency, accountability, ande-government. Participants promised to work together to promote thesenotions among member states of the United Nations in the “Joint Statementof Cooperation” made at the end of the Symposium. The final statementalso proclaimed “governments and their administrations, no matter whatlevel, have an obligation to the taxpayers to make transparent and facili-tate the understanding of their decision-making processes.”[84] The intro-duction of e-government is also regarded as an opportunity to betterachieve transparency and accountability.[85] Current practices of publicservice indicate a convergence in progress in the area of ethics that is notrelying exclusively upon cultural particularities, but evolving as profes-sionally and intellectually open to global dialogue on shared values,norms, and structures.[86]
The capacity to act in the public interest, and the integrity of actionand behavior, particularly of those in leadership positions, is increasinglyviewed among the most critical attributes of “good” governance. Further,the assumption is that effective governance requires a functioning legalsystem and a regulatory process that works and is supported by anaccountable and legitimate public authority. The rule of law is particu-larly attracting attention among people in all organized societies for itsrestraining effects on arbitrary use of authority and for protection fromthreats to individual liberty and justice, nationally and internationally.Moreover, without effective and legitimate governance, a country losescontrol over the directions of its own economy and services to the publicas it is weakened in its global interactions.
Inherent in the determination of core values is a healthy regard forand understanding of societal history, culture, and common characteristics.As John Rohr points out, “[t]he smug assertion that liberal democraticregimes alone are morally acceptable cannot be sustained.”[87] Not onlywould this be unrealistic, Rohr argues, “but, more importantly, it wouldbe a form of historical imperialism that stands aloof in self-righteousjudgment on how the vast majority of human beings have organized theircivic lives over the centuries.” This does not mean one may not favor a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1021
liberal democracy over authoritarian rule. It means, however, that themoral excellence of a liberal democracy cannot deprive a centralized orauthoritarian system of moral legitimacy.[88]
THE CONSTANT SEARCH FOR REFORM
Overall influences of globalization, internal organizational learningand development capacity, and adjustments to certain political andadministrative core values that are increasingly universalized are recognizedhere as significant sources of governance reform. This is not to excludeother important forces of change that have influenced and reshaped gov-ernance in modern society. The method and the substance of reform varywith existing governance structures and practices, which usually rangefrom democratic representative to authoritarian dictatorship. In mostcountries, developed as well as developing, people are increasingly con-cerned with quality-of-life issues. Issues that now matter greatly to mostpeople worldwide range from work satisfaction, adequate healthcare, andeducational opportunities to home Internet access and a clean environment.
Historically, good governance is often associated with attributes andactions as these:
• Representation of citizens’ needs and expectations.• Effective service of citizens’ needs and demands.• Accountability and transparency of government decisions and
behaviors.• Developing trust in the fairness, justice, and legality of the state’s
actions.• Building institutional capacities to act independently and with
integrity.
In many countries with powerless public institutions and corrupt,authoritarian leaders, processes of public policy formulation and imple-mentation have been rendered almost inoperable. The catalog of failuresand deficiencies of governance in these situations can be quite lengthy.Political leaders, for example, regularly decline the opportunity todevelop reliable methods of succession that evoke citizens’ confidence andtrust. They fail to advance sustainable and equitable political and eco-nomic policies that are institutionally rather than personally based. FromLatin America to Asia to Africa, the similarities of issues and problems ofgovernance are truly remarkable. Ineffective governance not only hasrepeatedly failed in dealing with major challenges facing the society, but
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1022 Jreisat
also has done so with poor results of developmental policies as well asabuse of citizens’ legal rights.[89]
The need for better governance is not arguable, but understandingwhat constitutes “good governance” often is. Western scholarship in com-parative politics and comparative political theory only infrequently ven-tures outside the cultural boundaries of Europe and the US. They havebeen even less interested in institutional reforms and conditions of politicalthought outside Western democratic models.[90] Information about gover-nance in developing societies has been shaped largely by their failuresrather than by their achievements. Moreover, governance is often regardedas the institutional form rather than the institutional capacity and effec-tiveness of performance. Those who prefer a minimal role for the state andmore reliance on the private sector for steering economic growth anddevelopment, also assume the presence of a lean state, thriving private sec-tor, and free domestic and world markets. The problem in achieving thissynergy profoundly depends on the market to operate the checks and bal-ances and the society accepting Darwinist values to govern it. Recent cor-porate scandals disprove the assumption that market competition imposescost-efficiency and determines the most efficient use of scarce financialresources. Adherence to cherished societal values by the market alone,without state regulation, is a fallacy more than a reality. The experience ofthe constitutional state in the West reaffirms that power of public financeand rule of the law, in a civil society, are basic instruments of governing.
Today, it appears that reformists are facing a dichotomous choicebetween the market and the state as two mutually exclusive mechanismsof resource allocation. The fact is that in the contemporary world, neitherthe minimalist state nor the interventionist state has ensured rapid eco-nomic growth and development.[91] Future reforms must reach beyond thetraditional thinking on either side of the dichotomy. The challenge of thereformers is to recognize the proper roles of the market and the state, proceedto clarify their relations, and then institute checks and balances betweenthem and the society to ensure responsible performance.
Central to effective governance are the administrative institutions andprocesses of the public sector. But the administrative side, often referredto as the bureaucracy, has been blamed for a considerable part of the fail-ures of today’s governance, particularly in developing countries. The liter-ature on bureaucratic shortcomings is too lengthy to review here.[92] Adifferent question, however, is in Baaklini’s thesis, where in he examinesthe role of Public Administration in developing countries and whether itstheories, approaches, and institutions are prepared to face the formidablechallenges of the 21st century.[93] Moreover, theories suggesting interna-tional diffusion of common Public Administration professional standards
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1023
leading to efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness hope for change innations that are afflicted with dictatorship and personal and predatoryrule. The premise that global diffusion of “modern organizationalculture” will irreversibly enhance the management capacities of these sys-tems and promote good governance needs further scrutiny. Many actualexperiences indicate that local forces have been able to inhibit the adop-tion of a “modern organizational culture” and to block the diffusion ofglobal institutional reforms.[94] Thus, the success or failure of reformimplementation seems to depend on the extent of “convergent synergy”between the promoted organizational forms and behaviors and the localinstitutional contexts of culture, politics, and education. To be effective,reform efforts should not only respond to the traditional criteria of designand resource adequacy, they should be built on models that incorporatethe influences of local institutional environments.
Adding to the complexity of the reform question is a wide range oftheoretical and practical issues related to governance that require a con-tinuous adaptation of whatever structures and processes are in place inorder to deliver policies responsive to society’s needs and demands. Failuresof the state to implement effective reform programs—especially those thataim at achieving acceptable rates of economic growth, build political andadministrative institutional capacities, and develop social and civil societyfoundations—have profoundly undermined confidence and trust in thecontemporary state, its leadership, and its ruling class. These failures havealso provided a rationale for the growing role of the marketplace as analternative to the berated performance of institutions of the state. Despitethe common realization that the market is not and cannot be a substitutefor public policy making, one still hears constant calls for the free marketto work its assumed magic.
Finally, even if there is only scant evidence on what reforms andwhich policies have succeeded and which have not, governance continuesto be more than government and more than the proper ingredients ofinvestment and market behavior. In developed and developing countries,the foundations of good governance extend to less visible aspects of society,such as application of equal political, economic, and legal rights and theharmonizing effects of globalization and modern technical change oncommunities and cultures.
CONCLUSIONS
Governance is a complex issue with multiplicity of relevant factorsthat can be effectively analyzed through a multidisciplinary approach.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1024 Jreisat
Analysis of governance encompasses many topics, such as leadership,institutions, culture, economics, and history. Governance integrates allthese elements in order to perform basic functions for the society. Recentglobalization trends have affected many aspects of governance and haverequired the development of new skills and attitudes by public managersand institutions. These trends necessitate critical thinking and profes-sional evaluation not only of the global influences but also of how andwhy governance has been subjected to constant drives for reform. The dis-tinction between governance as an analytical concept and governance asoperational processes helps to separate the form from the practice ofauthority in the management of a country’s economic and socialresources. It is in this exercise that the capacity of governments to design,formulate, and implement policies is tested.
Globalization, too, exists in various conditions in today’s society andhas influenced governance in many ways. The effects of globalization,especially on public administration, require rethinking some publicadministration tenets and extending current administrative knowledgeand skills into areas somewhat neglected before. Despite the apparentamorphousness of the concept of globalization, it is possible to sharpenthe focus a little more by identifying some basic elements that left theirmarks on public administration. This should help in defining conditionsfor the existence of more effective systems of governance. It is our hopethis symposium of Governance in the Global Context is a meaningfulcontribution to the search for better understanding of these crucial issues.
REFERENCES
1. Michalski, W.; Miller, R.; Stevens, B. Power in the global knowledgeeconomy and society. In Governance in the 21st Century; OECD, Sec-retary General, Ed.: Paris, 2001; 7.
2. Rosell, S.A. Renewing Governance; Oxford University Press:Ontario, Canada, 1999; 1.
3. Ahrens, J. Governance and Economic Development; Edward Elgar:Northampton, MA, 2002; 119.
4. Ibid.5. See, for example, Ahrens, J., op cit; Hyden, G. Operationalizing gov-
ernance for sustainable development. In Governance and DevelopingCountries. Jreisat. J.E., Ed.; Brill: Boston and Leiden, the Nether-lands, 2002; Jain, R.B. Globalization, liberalization, and/humansecurity in India: challenges for governance. In Governance and Devel-oping Countries. Jreisat, J.E., Ed. 2002; OECD, Secretary-General. Ed.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1025
Governance in the 21st Century; OECD: Paris, 2001; OECD. Trust inGovernment: Ethics Measures in OECD Countries; OECD: Paris,2000; Jreisat, J.E. Governance and developing countries. Journal ofDeveloping Societies. 2001, XVII, (2) 1-12; Nye, J.S. Jr.; Donahue,J.D., Eds. Governance in a Globalizing World; Brookings InstitutionPress: Washington DC, 2000; Rosell, S.A.1999. op cit.
6. Werlin, H.H. Poor nations, rich nations: a theory of governance.Public Administration Review 2003, 63 (3), 329–342 at 332.
7. Rosell, Renewing Governance, op cit., ix.8. Brinkerhoff, D.W.; Brinkerhoff, J.M.. Governance Reforms and
Failed States: Challenges and Implications. International Review ofAdministrative Sciences. 2002, 68 (4) 511–531 at 511.
9. Ahrens, 2002. op cit., 119.10. Brinkerhoff; Brinkerhoff. 2002. op cit. 511.11. Ahrens, 2002, op cit. 119.12. Ahrens, 2002, op cit. 131.13. Chapman, R.A. ed. Ethics in Public Service for the New Millennium.
Ashgate Publishing: Burlington, VT, 2000: 217–231 at 221.14. Hyden, G. 2002, op. cit.15. Choudhury, E; Ahmed, S. The shifting meaning of governance: public
accountability of third sector organizations in an emergent globalregime. International Journal of Public Administration. 2002, 25 (4),561–588 at 561.
16. Rosell, Renewing Governance, op cit, ix.17. Cocker, D.A. Development Ethics and Globalization. Philosophy &
Public Policy Quarterly 2002, 22 (4), 15.18. Falk, R. Globalization, democracy, and human rights. Public address
at the University of South Florida, January 27, 2004.19. Stockmayer, A. Review Essay: “Governance in a Globalizing
World.” International Public Management Journal 2003, 6, 241–250,at 241.
20. Keohane, R.; Nye, J.S., Jr. Introduction. In Governance; Nye;Donahue. Eds. 2000. op cit, 5.
21. Falk, R. Predatory Globalization: A Critique; Polity Press: Cambridge,UK, 1999, 1.
22. Ibid., 2.23. Keohane, R.; Nye, J.S. 2000. op cit, 7.24. Michalski, W.; Miller, R.; Stevens, B. 2001. op cit, 8.25. Ibid, 8.26. Keohane and Nye Jr. 2000. op cit, 21.27. Multinational Monitor 2003, 24, 7&8 (July/August, p. 14). Based on
Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Bulletin, Spring 2003,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1026 Jreisat
Pub. 1136 (revised 6-03); UN Development Program, Human Devel-opment Report 2003 (250–253; 278–281).
28. Weissman, R. Grotesque inequality: corporate globalization and theglobal gap between rich and poor. Multinational Monitor 2003, 24,7&8 (July/August). 9.
29. Jreisat, J.E. Comparative Public Administration and Policy; WestviewPress: Boulder, CO, 2002, 8.
30. St. Petersburg Times. Socialists End Conference, Oppose U.S. Uni-lateralism. October 30, 2003, 13A.
31. Ibid.32. Keohane, R.; Nye, J.S. Jr. op cit, 8.33. Schulz, W.F., Executive Director of Amnesty International, USA,
points out that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is “theworld’s first permanent international court to prosecute genocide,war crimes and crimes against humanity, including widespread andsystematic torture.” A letter dated August 20, 2003, 3.
34. Prestowitz, C. Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure ofGood Intentions. New York: Basic Books, 2003. Review by J. Rossant,Business Week. 2003 (June 16), 22.
35. Ibid, 22.36. Falk, R. op cit, 1.37. Ibid, 1.38. Editorial. Multinational Monitor 2003, 24, 7&8 (July/August), 5. In
the meetings of WTO members in Doha (Qatar) 2001 and Cancun(Mexico) 2003, members from various developing countries, repre-senting more than half of the world’s population, including China,India, and Brazil, protested agricultural policies and subsidies in theindustrial countries that make competition by developing countriesvery difficult.
39. Ibid, 5.40. Steger, M.B. Globalization: A Very short Introduction; Oxford Uni-
versity Press: Oxford, UK, 2003, 1.41. Cocker, D.A. 2002. op cit, 15–16.42. Moskowitz, M. The Global Market Place; MacMillan Publishing:
New York, 1987.43. Rosell, S.A. 1999, op cit, 21.44. Falk, R. 1999, op cit.45. Rosell, S.A. 1999, op cit, 21.46. Falk, R.; Stauss, A. Toward a global parliament. The Nation 2003
(Sept. 22).47. Greider, W; Rapza, K. Lula raises the stakes. The Nation 2003, 277
(18), 11.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1027
48. Hyden, G., op cit, 17.49. Ibid, 18.50. Ibid.51. Welch, E.; Wong, W. Public administration in a global context:
bridging the gaps of theory and practice between Western and Non-Western Nations. Public Administration Review 1998. 58 (1): 40–50,at 45.
52. Thomas, V. Globalization: Implications for development learning.Public Administration and Development 1999, 19 (5); Kettl, D.F.The transformation of governance: globalization, devolution, andthe role of government. Public Administration Review 2000, 60 (6):488–497, 490.
53. Metcalfe, L.; Metcalfe, D. Tools of good governance: an assessmentof multiparty negotiation analysis. International Review of Admin-istrative sciences 2002. 68 (2): 267–286, at 267.
54. OECD. Secretary-General, Ed. 2001, 9–10.55. Kaboolian, L. The new public management: challenging the bound-
aries of the management vs. administration Debate. Public Adminis-tration Review 1998. 58 (3): 189–193; Pallot, J. Newer than new publicmanagement: financial management and collective strategizing inNew Zealand. Unpublished paper prepared for conference on TheNew Public Management in International Perspective, St. Gallen,Switzerland, July 11–13, 1996.
56. Jreisat, J.E. The new public management and reform. In Handbookof Public Management Practice and Reform, Liou, K.T., Ed; MarcelDekker: New York, 2001: 539–560.
57. Considine, M.; Lewis, J.M. Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise?Comparing models of governance in Australia, Britain, the Nether-lands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review 2003, 63 (2):131–140, at 133.
58. Kettle, D. The Global Revolution in Public Management: DrivingThemes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management1997. 16 (3): 446–462, at 446.
59. See Lynn, L.E. The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm. PublicAdministration Review 2001. 61 (2): 144–160; Riccucci, N.M. The “Old”Public Management Versus the “New” Public Management. PublicAdministration Review 2001. 61 (2): 172–175.
60. Northouse, P.G. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA, 2004.
61. Ibid, 36.62. United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administra-
tion and American Society for Public Administration. Benchmarking
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
1028 Jreisat
e-government: a global perspective. A Report. New York, May2002, 1.
63. Ibid.64. Ibid, 7.65. Lynn, L.E. The new public management: how to transform a theme
into a legacy. Public Administration Review 1998, 58 (3): 231–238, at233
66. Henderson, K. Reinventing comparative public administration:indigenous models of study and application. The International Journalof Public Sector Management 1995, 8 (4); Welch, E.; Wong, W. 1998.op cit; Jreisat, J.E. Comparative Public Administration and Policy2002; Westview, Boulder, CO.
67. Lynn, L.E. 1998. The New Public Mgmt., op cit, 233.68. Jreisat, J.E. Comparative public administration back in, prudently.
(Forthcoming); Public Administration Review.69. Rosell, S.A. 1999. Reinventing Governance, op cit, ix.70. Maor, M. 2000. A comparative perspective on executive develop-
ment: trends in 11 european countries. Public Administration 78, (1),135–152, (at 136).
71. Ibid, 137.72. Executive education gets global. Fortune 2003 (May 12), 180.73. Ibid.74. Dunham, R.S., Ed. A grass-roots revolt against information age
intruders. Business Week 2003, (August 4), 40.75. Ibid, 40.76. Applebaum, A. Parallel universes. St. Pete Times 2003 (July 27)
Op. Ed.77. Ibid.78. Ibid.79. Ibid.80. Rohr, J.A. Ethics, governance, and constitutions. In Ethics in Public
Service for the New Millennium, Chapman, R.A., Ed.; Ashgate Pub-lishing: Burlington, VT, 2000, 203.
81. OECD. Trust in Government: Ethics Measures in OECD Countries.OECD: Paris, 2000, 9.
82. Ibid, 11.83. Rosell, S.A., Renewing Governance, op cit, 8.84. Guido Bertucci, Director of the UN Division of Public Economics
and Public Administration. “Introduction, Anti-Corruption Sympo-sium 2001: The role of on-line procedures in promoting good gover-nance.” Seoul, 2003.
85. Ibid.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Governance in a Globalizing World 1029
86. Gilman, S.C.; Lewis, C.W. Public Service Ethics: Global Dialogue.Public Administration Review 1996, 56 (6): 517–524, at 517.
87. Rohr, J. Ethics, op cit, 215.88. Ibid.89. Jreisat, J.E. Governance and developing countries. Journal of Devel-
oping Societies 2001, XVII (2): 1–12, 1.90. Macridis, R.C.; Brown B.E., Eds. Comparative analysis: method
and concept. In Comparative Politics: Notes and Readings, 7th Ed;Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1990, 2–3.
91. Ahrens, 2002, op cit, 10.92. Ibid.93. Baaklini, A.I. Administration in developing countries and the demo-
cratic challenge. Journal of Developing Societies 2001, XVII (2): 57–70.94. Mavima, P.; Chackerian, R. Globalization vs. local institutional factors
in the implementation of Zimbabwe’s civil service reforms, 1991–1996. In Governance and Developing Countries. Jreisat, J.E., Ed.; Brill:Boston and Leiden, the Netherlands, 2002, 91–110.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aca
dem
ia D
e St
udii
Eco
nom
ice]
at 0
6:53
14
Dec
embe
r 20
11