Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (23)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Review (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Postprint (1)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (1)
- Climate Change Conference (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Durban 2011 (1)
- Entwicklungspolitik (1)
- European Union (1)
- Global South (1)
- International (1)
- Klima (1)
- Klimakonferenz (1)
This paper focuses on some of the factors explaining recent trends in decentralisation, and some areas where decentralisation has had a positive impact, including bringing citizens into public affairs, improving sub-national public administration, and stimulating local economic development. It concludes by exploring the dangers and the implications for governments of differing capabilities starting out on the decentralisation path. More specifically, the paper stresses the underlying incentive structures within states in reform. It suggests a country-specific discussion of both vertical and horizontal incentive structures in decentralisation, as well as clear-cut accountability within a public sector in change. While vertical incentive structures mean defined rules for intergovernmental relationships, horizontal incentive structures mean defined rules between local governments, their citizens and the local private sector. Both sets of incentives need to be reformed jointly to stimulate better results from decentralisation and for better performance of local government. Neglecting one of them, could harm development. Above all, politics and processes are key to understanding, and eventually, managing decentralisation effectively.
Since the 1980s, central governments have decentralized forestry to local governments in many countries of the Global South. More recently, REDD+ has started to impact forest policy-making in these countries by providing incentives to ensure a national-level approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Höhne et al. analyze to what extent central governments have rebuilt capacity at the national level, imposed regulations from above, and interfered in forest management by local governments for advancing REDD+. Using the examples of Brazil and Indonesia, the chapter illustrates that while REDD+ has not initiated a large-scale recentralization in the forestry sector, it has supported the reinforcement and pooling of REDD+ related competences at the central government level.
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.
Despite new challenges like climate change and digitalization, global and regional organizations recently went through turbulent times due to a lack of support from several of their member states. Next to this crisis of multilateralism, the COVID-19 pandemic now seems to question the added value of international organizations for addressing global governance issues more specifically. This article analyses this double challenge that several organizations are facing and compares their ways of managing the crisis by looking at their institutional and political context, their governance structure, and their behaviour during the pandemic until June 2020. More specifically, it will explain the different and fragmented responses of the World Health Organization, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. With the aim of understanding the old and new problems that these international organizations are trying to solve, this article argues that the level of autonomy vis-a-vis the member states is crucial for understanding the politics of crisis management. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> As intergovernmental bodies, international organizations require authorization by their member states. Since they also need funding for their operations, different degrees of autonomy also matter for reacting to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for international organizations is limited, though through proactive and bold initiatives, they can seize the opportunity of the crisis and partly overcome institutional and political constraints.