新的治理规则如何发展?监管辩证法与强制性慈善业绩报告

D. Mcconville, C. Cordery
{"title":"新的治理规则如何发展?监管辩证法与强制性慈善业绩报告","authors":"D. Mcconville, C. Cordery","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3728801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly New Governance approaches are evident in public administration, in contrast to the New Public Management (NPM) approach and reforms of last century. In focusing on competition and outcomes, regulation under NPM has been a tool to manage self-interested decision-makers, and is beset by conflict. Kane’s model of regulatory dialectics could be applied to this approach. New Governance (variously known as New Public Governance, Public Value Governance) takes a process approach, aimed at problem solving and co-creating public good. It blurs traditional regulatory boundaries, and yet, the concern is that, when developing mandatory regulation, power imbalances may still occur and that the process approach may severely delay successful outcomes. We propose a New Governance-orientated model of regulatory dialectics. Here, the use of formal organisations, routine processes and informal dialogues facilitates repeated interactions, identifying more ‘soft’ than ‘hard’ responses by regulators and regulates. This less adversarial and more partnered process leads to greater engagement in regulatory development which impacts significantly on the regulation that results, and has the potential to improve acceptance of (and compliance with) mandatory regulation.","PeriodicalId":170831,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Can New Governance Regulation Develop? Regulatory Dialectics and Mandatory Charity Performance Reporting\",\"authors\":\"D. Mcconville, C. Cordery\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3728801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Increasingly New Governance approaches are evident in public administration, in contrast to the New Public Management (NPM) approach and reforms of last century. In focusing on competition and outcomes, regulation under NPM has been a tool to manage self-interested decision-makers, and is beset by conflict. Kane’s model of regulatory dialectics could be applied to this approach. New Governance (variously known as New Public Governance, Public Value Governance) takes a process approach, aimed at problem solving and co-creating public good. It blurs traditional regulatory boundaries, and yet, the concern is that, when developing mandatory regulation, power imbalances may still occur and that the process approach may severely delay successful outcomes. We propose a New Governance-orientated model of regulatory dialectics. Here, the use of formal organisations, routine processes and informal dialogues facilitates repeated interactions, identifying more ‘soft’ than ‘hard’ responses by regulators and regulates. This less adversarial and more partnered process leads to greater engagement in regulatory development which impacts significantly on the regulation that results, and has the potential to improve acceptance of (and compliance with) mandatory regulation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3728801\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3728801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与上世纪的新公共管理(NPM)方法和改革相比,新治理方法在公共行政中越来越明显。在关注竞争和结果方面,国家预防机制下的监管一直是管理自利决策者的工具,并受到冲突的困扰。凯恩的调节辩证法模型可以应用于这种方法。新治理(又称新公共治理、公共价值治理)采用过程方法,旨在解决问题和共同创造公共产品。它模糊了传统的监管界限,然而,令人担忧的是,在制定强制性监管时,权力失衡仍可能发生,而过程方法可能严重拖延成功的结果。我们提出了一个以“新治理”为导向的监管辩证法模型。在这里,正式组织、常规流程和非正式对话的使用促进了重复的互动,确定了监管机构和被监管机构的“软”反应多于“硬”反应。这种较少的对抗性和更多的合作过程导致更多的参与监管发展,这对结果的监管产生重大影响,并有可能提高对强制性监管的接受(和遵守)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Can New Governance Regulation Develop? Regulatory Dialectics and Mandatory Charity Performance Reporting
Increasingly New Governance approaches are evident in public administration, in contrast to the New Public Management (NPM) approach and reforms of last century. In focusing on competition and outcomes, regulation under NPM has been a tool to manage self-interested decision-makers, and is beset by conflict. Kane’s model of regulatory dialectics could be applied to this approach. New Governance (variously known as New Public Governance, Public Value Governance) takes a process approach, aimed at problem solving and co-creating public good. It blurs traditional regulatory boundaries, and yet, the concern is that, when developing mandatory regulation, power imbalances may still occur and that the process approach may severely delay successful outcomes. We propose a New Governance-orientated model of regulatory dialectics. Here, the use of formal organisations, routine processes and informal dialogues facilitates repeated interactions, identifying more ‘soft’ than ‘hard’ responses by regulators and regulates. This less adversarial and more partnered process leads to greater engagement in regulatory development which impacts significantly on the regulation that results, and has the potential to improve acceptance of (and compliance with) mandatory regulation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Violent Conflict and the Strength of Civil Society A Model of Embedded Autonomy and Asymmetric Information Endogenous Networks and Legislative Activity Judicial Independence: Why Does De Facto Diverge from De Jure? Does Ethnic Diversity Always Undermine Pro-Social Behavior? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1