Chapter 1 introduces governance as a legal issue, ultimately grounded in the philosophy of right, a branch of philosophy. Early legal theorists such as Hugo Grotius sketched versions of what is today called governance, and there is today a line of demarcation drawn between liberal economies of the Anglo-American type, and continental and Scandinavian embedded economies wherein the state is recognized as a major agent influencing the economic system. The chapter discusses the differences between John Locke’s liberal view of, e.g., ownership rights, and George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy of right, developed 14 decades later. Whereas Locke emphasizes a “minimal theory” of ownership rights, serving as the foundation for liberalism, Hegel too recognizes ownership as a fundamental right but locates ownership rights within the realm of the state. Consequently, the intellectual roots of liberal economies and embedded economies share certain assumptions but also diverge regarding assumptions about the role of the state. The second half of the chapter examines the creation of the Berle–Means firm, a key legal vehicle in the liberal economy and in its governance.
Browse by title
This chapter introduces the concept of governance as a key term when examining the current economic situation, including growing economic inequality. In order to understand such an economic and social phenomenon, analytical terms that bridge public companies, state-controlled agencies, and transnational regulators need to be introduced. The chapter introduces and critically discusses key terms in the governance literature, including corporate governance, transnational governance, and related terms such as accountability.
Edmund C. Stazyk and H. George Frederickson
Since its inception, the aim of this Handbook has been three-fold. We have sought, first and foremost, to assemble a unique collection of chapters that offers our readers a broad yet comprehensive scholarly overview of US public administration theory and practice—to be sure, a daunting task. United States public administration is vast in its domains, covering considerable intellectual terrain. For example, Dimock and colleagues have characterized merely the study of public administration in the following manner. [P]ublic administration examines every aspect of government’s efforts to discharge the laws and to give effect to public policy; as a process, it is all the steps taken between the time an enforcement agency assumes a jurisdiction and the last brick is placed (but includes also the agency’s participation, if any, in the formulation of the programme in the first place); and, as a vocation, it is organizing and directing the activities of others in a public agency. (Dimock et al. 1958, pp. 11–12)
This chapter discusses methodological approaches developed in order to study human rights law integration and fragmentation from a users’ perspective. To study human rights norms in an integrated way, three methodologies are presented and compared: relational and inclusive case law analysis, rewriting (quasi-)judicial decisions from an integrated perspective on human rights norms, and analysing interactions between different branches of human rights law and general human rights law. In order to arrive at an inclusive approach to rights holders, two methodologies are put forward, namely relational and inclusive case law analysis, and a case-based approach to human rights violations. Thereinafter, the chapter analyses some methodological refinements made in the study of users’ perspectives. The study of human rights law as an integrated whole from a users’ perspective seems characterised by three common features: cross-thinking (understood as thinking across established boundaries both within human rights law and between disciplines), a focus on impact and effectiveness, and an inclination towards collaborative research. Finally, the relevance of adopting an integrated approach and/or a users’ perspective beyond human rights law is argued for and illustrated.