Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (20) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (20) (remove)
Language
- English (20) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (20)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (20) (remove)
Introduction
(2019)
Conclusion
(2019)
Emmanuel Kant asked three important questions which will always be with us: What can we know? What should we do? What may we hope for? These three key existentialist questions are, of course, also relevant for a reflection on the future of Public Administration: What can we know, as researchers in the field of Public Administration, about our object of public administration? What should we do as researchers and teachers to make sure we remain part of a solution and to guarantee that we are ahead of reality and its future problems? What kind of improvement (or not) may we hope for a public sector in an increasingly complex society? This chapter tries to explore some possible answers to these three important questions for our field of Public Administration. The background is our common project about ‘European Perspectives for Public Administration’ (EPPA), which we hope to establish as a continuous dialogue and discourse in the context of European Public Administration and the ‘European Group for Public Administration’ (EGPA).
Focusing on forest policy and urban climate politics in Brazil and Indonesia, the primary objective of this chapter is to identify domestic pioneers and leaders who, compared to other sectors, governmental levels or jurisdictions within the same nation-state, move ‘ahead of the troops’ (Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017: 2-3). The chapter focuses especially on the role of multilevel governance in bringing about pioneership and leadership and on the different types of that have emerged. It also explores whether and, if so, to what extent domestic pioneers and leaders attract followers and whether there are signs of sustained domestic leadership. The chapter identifies the actors that constitute pioneers and leaders and assesses the processes which lead to their emergence. The chapter authors take up Wurzel et al.’s (2019) call to open up the black box of the nation-state. But instead of stressing the role of non-state actors, the chapter authors focus on vertical interactions among different governmental levels within nation states. The main argument put forward is that international and transnational processes, incentives, and ideas often trigger the development of domestic pioneership and leadership. Such processes, however, cannot be understood properly if domestic politics and dynamics across governmental levels within the nation-state are not taken into account.
Introduction
(2018)
The rise of populism has promoted a broad, vivid and flourishing debate in the social sciences that seems to have arisen even in the face of the ties between right-wing populism and the extreme right. The social sciences are struggling with how properly to conceptualise and theorise populism as a social and political phenomenon. Incongruity or asynchrony of events in factual history and their being conceptualised is obviously critical with regard to the problems that arise with defining and conceptualising populism. The plurality of usages, applications and meanings of populism thus only shows how, in a vivid debate, scholars can observe a contest for coming to terms with a concept that remains in flux and that needs to be continually revised given rapidly changing social conditions. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.