{"title":"Analyzing Global Governance Failure: A Philosophical Framework","authors":"J. Dixon, Rhys Dogan","doi":"10.1080/13876980308412701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to make a contribution to theory development by explicating the competing approaches (explanatory frameworks and research methods) that can be used in the analysis of episodes of global governance failures—undesirable events (such as war, or incidents of international terrorism) and behaviors (such as rogue political leaders accumulating weapons of mass destruction or supporting international terrorist groups) that are a consequence of the ineffectiveness of a global governance process. It does so by constructing a methodological taxonomy, which enables the identification of the competing philosophical methodologies that underpin contending perspectives on the causation of, and solutions to, episodes of global governance failures, by reference to contesting understandings of what knowledge is (an epistemological issue) and what exists that is capable of giving rise to consequences (an ontological issue). It then identifies the epistemological and ontological challenges facing policy analysts seeking to analyze and address global governance failure. Meeting these challenges requires the adoption of a methodology that draws insights from the epistemological and ontological syntheses that have emerged within contemporary social theory.","PeriodicalId":47229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":"209-226"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13876980308412701","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980308412701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
This article seeks to make a contribution to theory development by explicating the competing approaches (explanatory frameworks and research methods) that can be used in the analysis of episodes of global governance failures—undesirable events (such as war, or incidents of international terrorism) and behaviors (such as rogue political leaders accumulating weapons of mass destruction or supporting international terrorist groups) that are a consequence of the ineffectiveness of a global governance process. It does so by constructing a methodological taxonomy, which enables the identification of the competing philosophical methodologies that underpin contending perspectives on the causation of, and solutions to, episodes of global governance failures, by reference to contesting understandings of what knowledge is (an epistemological issue) and what exists that is capable of giving rise to consequences (an ontological issue). It then identifies the epistemological and ontological challenges facing policy analysts seeking to analyze and address global governance failure. Meeting these challenges requires the adoption of a methodology that draws insights from the epistemological and ontological syntheses that have emerged within contemporary social theory.