metagovernance and network governance

global governance or world governance is the political interaction of transnational actors aimed at solving problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power of enforcing compliance. The modern question of world governance exists in the context of globalization. In response to the acceleration of interdependence on a worldwide scale, both between human societies and between humankind and the biosphere, world governance designates regulations intended for the global scale.

---

Metagovernance is widely defined as the "governing of governing". It represents the established ethical principles, or 'norms', that shape and steer the entire governing process. It is important to note that there are no clearly defined settings within which metagoverning takes place, or particular persons who are responsible for it. While some[who?] believe metagoverning to be the role of the state which is assumed to want to steer actors in a particular direction, it can "potentially be exercised by any resourceful actor" who wishes to influence the governing process. Examples of this include the publishing of codes of conduct at the highest level of international government, and media focus on specific issues at the socio-cultural level. Despite their different sources, both seek to establish values in such a way that they become accepted 'norms'. The fact that 'norms' can be established at any level and can then be used to shape the governance process as whole, means metagovernance is part of the both the input and the output of the governing system.

---

Network governance (also called "network organization", "networks forms of organization", "interfirm networks", "organization networks"," flexible specialization", "network-centric organisation" and "quasi-firms") is "interfirm coordination that is characterized by organic or informal social system, in contrast to bureaucratic structures within firms and formal contractual relationships between them. The concepts of privatization, public private partnership, and contracting are defined in this context.

Network governance constitutes a "distinct form of coordinating economic activity" (p. 301) which contrasts and competes with markets and hierarchies. As such, governance networks distinguish themselves from the hierarchical control of the state and the competitive regulation of the market in at least three ways:

In terms of the relationship between the actors, governance networks can be described as a "pluricentric governance system" as opposed to the "unicentric system of state rule and the multicentric system of market competition" (p. 151). In contrast to state rule and competitive market regulation, governance networks involve a large number of interdependent actors who interact in order to produce public purpose.

In terms of decision making, governance networks are based on negotiation rationality as opposed to the substantial rationality that governs state rule and the procedural rationality that governs market competition (p. 46)

Compliance is ensured through trust and political obligation which, over time, becomes sustained by self-constituted rules and norms.

As a concept, Network Governance explains increased efficiency and reduced agency problems for organizations existing in highly turbulent environments. On the one hand, the efficiency is enhanced through distributed knowledge acquisition and decentralised problem solving; on the other, the effectiveness is improved through the emergence of collective solutions to global problems in different self-regulated sectors of activity. Due to the rapid pace of modern society and competitive pressures from globalization, network governance has gained prominence and development among sociological theorists.

Network governance first depends on the comprehension of the short and long term global business risks. It’s based on the definition of the IT key objectives and their influence on the network. It includes the negotiation of the satisfaction criteria for the business lines and integrates processes for the measurement and improvement of the global efficiency and end user satisfaction. Beyond that, it allows the constitution and piloting of internal teams and external partners as well as the setting up of a control system enabling to validate the performance of the whole. Finally, it ensures permanent communication at all the various management levels.

In the public sector, network governance is not universally accepted as a positive development by all public administration scholars. Some doubt its ability to adequately perform as a democratic governance structure while others view it as phenomenon that promotes efficient and effective delivery of public goods and services.

---

Private Governance Private Governance occurs when non-governmental entities, including private organizations, dispute resolution organizations, or other third party groups, make rules and/or standards which have a binding effect on the "quality of life and opportunities of the larger public." Simply put, private—not public—entities are making public policy. The term "public policy" should not be exclusively associated with policy that is made by government. Public policy may be created by either the private sector or the public sector. If one wishes to refer only to public policy that is made by government, the best term to use is "governmental policy," which eliminates the ambiguity regarding the agent of the policymaking.


Private Governance as Public Policy: A Paradigmatic Shift*

---

Governance Networks, MetaGovernance and Democracy

---

"Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies." (U.N. Human Development Report, 1999, page 34.)

""Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand." Gustave Speth (former member of Clinton's Transition team and Executive Director of UN Development Program)


I don't recall that I have said — and I don't think that I really feel — that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood — or even that it would be desirable — to have a single government elected by the people of the world.
David Rockefeller In an interview with Benjamin Fulford (13 November 2007)

mike lewis wrote:

Network governance ....

Compliance is ensured through trust and political obligation which, over time, becomes sustained by self-constituted rules and norms.

This is precisely where we are headed... a network archtitecture that--by it's very design--creates boundaries and rules that are internalized by the public, and therefore obeyed without objection or without even noticing. Ultimately, any set of boundaries can be installed.

This is precisely what I wish to show in the "From Marx to a Networked Society" blog post, which is still in dev - sorry. Anyway, here's that video that I posted in that thread without explanation... you can see that this academic speaker touches on this internalization phenomenom when discussion Google and it's business practices.

C1 wrote:

This is precisely where we are headed... a network archtitecture that--by it's very design--creates boundaries and rules that are internalized by the public, and therefore obeyed without objection or without even noticing. Ultimately, any set of boundaries can be installed.

And that is the utopian dream of communism, is it not? To "engineer the human soul" to a state of perfect accommodating and conformable "sociality".