Geo-governance

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the context of governance, geo-governance describes those negotiation and coordination contexts that relate to a local unit below the nation-state level. The focus of interest is on (1) how individuals and public, private and informal institutions organize their common affairs at the local level, (2) how they deal with their different interests and, if necessary, balance them, and (3) how the different ones Actors and organizations are involved in the ongoing process of negotiation.

overview

The geo-governance approach must be viewed in relation to other approaches that emphasize different scales.

On the one hand, geo-governance can be understood as the further development of ideas about geopolitics . While geopolitics is based on the nation-state as the main consideration, geo-governance focuses on the local level. In order to make this continuity visible, some authors refer to the nation-state level as the “ dominant system of geo-governance ” as the dominant system of geo-governance.

On the other hand, geo-governance should counteract the possible consequences of global governance . De-territorialization is seen as fundamental, the emergence of which is traced back to neoliberal efforts to open up the markets as well as to approaches to sustainable development . Both approaches formulate globally valid principles that must be implemented by regional units, disregarding local peculiarities and target formulation, if regions want to be considered internationally.

Geo-governance as a form of liberalization

In the context of economically liberal ideas, geo-governance is seen as a control mechanism for learning regions. Here, however, learning does not primarily mean an increase in knowledge or competence, but rather permanent adaptation to constantly changing environments. This learning achievement requires the actors not only to adapt the means to achieve their goals, but also to constantly rethink the goals themselves. The only yardstick for evaluating this achievement is to maintain or increase efficiency. The prerequisite for learning regions is the lowest possible state (statutory) regulation. The social cohesion that is still necessary should be ensured by trust and “ a greater use of informal moral contracts based on shared values ”, ie an increased use of informal moral contracts based on shared values . These prerequisites ultimately lead to a focus on regions on the scale of cities or urban districts.

Geo-governance as a form of participatory democracy

In the context of the discussion about strengthening participatory democracy, geo-governance is seen as a means of averting the negative effects of liberalization, especially in the social field. The aim here is " spatial durability ", a kind of local sustainability. It should be achieved through the participation of the population in the decisions of the local administration. We do not think of formal or informal institutionalized interests, but of individual citizens with their respective interests. Such participation requires extensive information to be provided to those involved and the creation of discussion forums. The results of the discussions that develop must be integrated into the final decisions, if only in the form of showing why some ideas cannot be implemented. An empirical study in France and Switzerland has shown that this form of geo-governance has to be viewed as a failure because the ultimate decision-making power still rests with the local state.

Geo-governance as part of representative democracy

In German-speaking countries in particular, geo-governance is also understood as a form in which science exerts influence on politics. The aim here is to transfer scientific knowledge directly into politics via administrative experts. This approach differs fundamentally from the two previous concepts of geo-governance, as it relates exclusively to actors in the state apparatus and ascribes an unusually high value to expert knowledge for governance approaches. So far, there has been little reflection on the fact that current scientific expert knowledge regularly moves in the context of scientific uncertainty. In addition, in this approach, the prefix “Geo” does not mean spatial units, but the geosciences. This focus leads to an implicit geodeterministic understanding of politics that is alien to the other two approaches. Such an understanding must be countered by the fact that scientific progress often creates new social problems (for example in the form of questions of justice) that have to be solved in a social context, rather than being able to solve social problems itself.

literature

  • Bernhard Butzin: Networks, Creative Milieus and Learning Region: Perspectives for Regional Development Planning ? In: Journal of Economic Geography. 3-4, 2000, pp. 149-166.
  • Carolyn Gallaher, Carl T. Dahlman, Mary Gilmartin, Alison Mountz, Peter Shirlow: Key Concepts in Political Geography. Sage, Los Angeles / London / New Delhi / Singapore / Washington DC 2009, ISBN 978-1-4129-4672-8 .
  • Pascal Gauchon, Jean-Marc Huissoud: Les 100 mots de la geopolitique. Presses Universitaire de France, Paris 2008, ISBN 978-2-13-058192-5 .
  • Michelle Masson-Vincent: Governance and Geography. Explaining the Importance of Regional Planning to Citiziens, Stakeholders in their Living Space. In: Boletín de la AGE 46, 2008, pp. 77-95.
  • Martha C. Nussbaum: Frontiers of Justice. Disability, nationality. Species membership. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, London 2006, ISBN 0-674-02410-9 .
  • Gilles Paquet: The New Geo-Governance. A baroque approach. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa 2005, ISBN 0-7766-0594-1 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ M. Masson-Vincent: Governance and Geography. Explaining the Importance of Regional Planning to Citiziens, Stakeholders in their Living Space. In: Boletín de la AGE 46 (2008), p. 86.
  2. ^ G. Paquet: The New Geo-Governance. A baroque approach. Ottawa 2005, p. 3.
  3. ↑ P. Gauchon, J.-M. Huissoud: Les 100 mots de la geopolitique. Paris 2008, p. 3.
  4. ^ G. Paquet: The New Geo-Governance. A baroque approach. Ottawa 2005, p. 1.
  5. ↑ P. Shirlow: Governance. In: C. Gallaher, CT Dahlman, M. Gilmartin, A. Mountz, P. Shirlow: Key Concepts in Political Geography. Los Angeles / London / New Delhi / Singapore / Washington DC 2009, p. 47.
  6. ↑ B. Butzin: Networks, Creative Milieus and Learning Region: Perspectives for Regional Development Planning ? In: Journal of Economic Geography. 3-4 (2000), pp. 155ff.
  7. ^ G. Paquet: The New Geo-Governance. A baroque approach. Ottawa 2005, p. 44.
  8. ↑ M. Masson-Vincent: Governance and Geography. Explaining the Importance of Regional Planning to Citiziens, Stakeholders in their Living Space. In: Boletín de la AGE 46 (2008), p. 86.
  9. ↑ M. Masson-Vincent: Governance and Geography. Explaining the Importance of Regional Planning to Citiziens, Stakeholders in their Living Space. In: Boletín de la AGE 46 (2008), p. 88.
  10. ↑ geogovernance.de
  11. ↑ earth-in-progress.de
  12. ↑ M. Masson-Vincent: Governance and Geography. Explaining the Importance of Regional Planning to Citiziens, Stakeholders in their Living Space. In: Boletín de la AGE 46 (2008), p. 94.
  13. ↑ Martha C. Nussbaum: Frontiers of Justice. Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge MA, London 2006, pp. 181f.