中介自我治理:三种不同治理模式下的可信度

Rotem Medzini, D. Levi‐Faur
{"title":"中介自我治理:三种不同治理模式下的可信度","authors":"Rotem Medzini, D. Levi‐Faur","doi":"10.1080/13876988.2022.2155516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes the emergence of new forms of regulatory intermediation in three different modes of governance. It compares the emergence of the European data protection and Facebook’s content moderation regimes and raises three questions: How did self-regulation in the European data protection and Facebook’s content moderation regimes evolve over time? What are the similarities and differences in the design of these regimes? And what are the strengths and weaknesses of these regimes in promoting credible self-regulation? To answer these questions, the article process-traces the development of the two regimes and shows how intermediaries and intermediation are used in order to systematically and progressively increase credible governance via market, network, and hierarchical modes of governance. By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of these three modes of governance, it is concluded that they can be used as blueprints for designing hybrid modes of enhanced self-regulation. In this way, the article introduces ways to capture and study new technologies of regulation that facilitate, manage, and improve the credibility of self-regulation in complex polycentric governance regimes, and well beyond.","PeriodicalId":15486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"323 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-Governance via Intermediaries: Credibility in Three Different Modes of Governance\",\"authors\":\"Rotem Medzini, D. Levi‐Faur\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876988.2022.2155516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article analyzes the emergence of new forms of regulatory intermediation in three different modes of governance. It compares the emergence of the European data protection and Facebook’s content moderation regimes and raises three questions: How did self-regulation in the European data protection and Facebook’s content moderation regimes evolve over time? What are the similarities and differences in the design of these regimes? And what are the strengths and weaknesses of these regimes in promoting credible self-regulation? To answer these questions, the article process-traces the development of the two regimes and shows how intermediaries and intermediation are used in order to systematically and progressively increase credible governance via market, network, and hierarchical modes of governance. By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of these three modes of governance, it is concluded that they can be used as blueprints for designing hybrid modes of enhanced self-regulation. In this way, the article introduces ways to capture and study new technologies of regulation that facilitate, manage, and improve the credibility of self-regulation in complex polycentric governance regimes, and well beyond.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"323 - 345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2155516\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2155516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文分析了三种不同治理模式下监管中介新形式的出现。它比较了欧洲数据保护和Facebook内容审核制度的出现,并提出了三个问题:欧洲数据保护和Facebook内容审核制度中的自我监管是如何随着时间的推移而演变的?这些制度在设计上有什么异同?在促进可信的自我监管方面,这些制度的优缺点是什么?为了回答这些问题,本文追溯了这两种制度的发展过程,并展示了如何利用中介机构和中介机构,以便通过市场、网络和分层治理模式系统地、逐步地增加可信的治理。通过分析这三种治理模式的优缺点,得出结论,它们可以作为设计增强自我监管的混合模式的蓝图。通过这种方式,本文介绍了获取和研究监管新技术的方法,这些技术可以在复杂的多中心治理制度中促进、管理和提高自我监管的可信度。
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
Self-Governance via Intermediaries: Credibility in Three Different Modes of Governance
Abstract This article analyzes the emergence of new forms of regulatory intermediation in three different modes of governance. It compares the emergence of the European data protection and Facebook’s content moderation regimes and raises three questions: How did self-regulation in the European data protection and Facebook’s content moderation regimes evolve over time? What are the similarities and differences in the design of these regimes? And what are the strengths and weaknesses of these regimes in promoting credible self-regulation? To answer these questions, the article process-traces the development of the two regimes and shows how intermediaries and intermediation are used in order to systematically and progressively increase credible governance via market, network, and hierarchical modes of governance. By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of these three modes of governance, it is concluded that they can be used as blueprints for designing hybrid modes of enhanced self-regulation. In this way, the article introduces ways to capture and study new technologies of regulation that facilitate, manage, and improve the credibility of self-regulation in complex polycentric governance regimes, and well beyond.
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
Lending Overlap in Europe’s Financial Architecture: A Comparative Analysis Comparing Policy Feedback Effects in Federal Systems: The Case of Provincial Indigenous Consultation Policies in Canada Tackling the Digital Divide? A Comparative Policy Analysis of International Organizations’ Varying Approaches to the Digitalization of Education Qualitative Comparative Policy Studies: An Introduction from the Special Section Editors An Indicator-Based Approach to Comparative Policy Analysis: Measuring Regional Governance of Migrant Integration
×
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