Fields of Governance

Among the fields of research special emphasis is given to

• Culture and governance
• Gender and critical governance studies
• Higher education governance
• Life-science governance
• System transformation and democratization
• Welfare state and social policy

Culture and governance (Andreas Pribersky)

The relevance of culture both as an object of governance and as an explanatory variable for differences in the workings and the effectiveness of governance regimes has only recently been widely acknowledged. "Culture matters" for the process of democratization as well as for the stability of democracies (Ellis/Thompson 1997, Harrsison/Huntington 2000): this statement - issued from different theoretical and methodological backgrounds - represents the actual state of the discussion in the analysis of international as well as of domestic politics (Schwelling 2004).

Global politics, especially after the period of worldwide confrontation between ideological blocs, has to and does increasingly take into account the importance of national and/or supranational regions and patterns of political culture that function as a frame of reference for the representation of politics and for policy making processes as well. Evidence of this is provided by the enlargement process of the EU - where political culture is part of the screening-procedure leading to full membership and by the highly debated issue of forced democratisation, where the experiences recently made in the European Balkans and the Near East informed the discussion about the lack of nation building processes.

Political cultures are part of the beliefs and values represented in a society and play a decisive role in domestic (and European) politics: The regulation of minority rights or - to mention examples from different fields - political decisions in the field of bio-politics depend to a large degree on the systems of belief that occupy a dominant position in a society. Therefore, including the cultural dimension in the analysis of problems and perspectives of politics and policy-making is an indispensable element of a comprehensive approach to governance.

Gender and critical governance studies (Birgit Sauer)

The gendered analysis of policies, political processes, and institutions has a long tradition in political science. The aim of these studies is to analyze the gendered structure of polities and democracies, the role of political activism (women's movements) and forms of constructing and de-constructing gender difference by and through policies. The analysis of the gendered nature of welfare states, for instance, is based on institutional approaches as well as in the regime typologies (Orloff 1993, Skocpol 1992, Sauer 2001). The main focus of these studies has been to critically assess the outcome of welfare state policies and institutionalized gender differences. Moreover, the analysis focuses on the study of gendered institutions and their impact on gendered ways of policy-making and decisions.

Another strand of gender sensitive policy analysis is the comparative analysis of gender policy (Mazur 2002). The RNGS project has developed the approach of state feminism (Stetson/Mazur 1995, Mazur 2001, Stetson 2001, Outshoorn, 2004 Lovenduski 2005, Sauer/Haussman 2007, Outshoorn/Kantola forthcoming). Comparative state feminism asks for the conditions of success and failure of women's movements to influence and change policy processes and policy content in western democracies. The qualitative approach of comparative gender policy analysis assumes that women's policy machineries are very important allies to successfully put civil society claims on the political agenda.

Another more recent strand of studies is located in the debates on democracy and difference (Phillips). Empirical analysis is conducted on how gender difference intersects with other social, cultural, ethnic and religious differences. How do liberal democracies approach these differences (Sauer 2007)? Which new forms of regulating inequality on the grounds of intersecting differences do exist in western democracies? Which roles do discursive strategies of framing play in these new forms of governance (Sauer/Tertinegg/Hrzeniak, forthcoming)? Critical governance studies are based on a concept of state, which on one hand focuses on neo-Gramscian conceptualization of state and civil society and on the other on Foucault's concept of governmentality (Sauer 2004).

Future research an dissertations on governance and gender should focus on the (comparative) study of "governing intersecting differences", of new forms of democratic decision making in the field of gender policy, gender mainstreaming and anti-discrimination law in the European Union, on theories of governing gender and intersectionality.

Higher education governance (Josef Melchior/Peter Gerlich)

Higher education has been a laboratory for various governance arrangements for decades. Since the 1980s we are witnessing a radical change in the relationship between the state, the market and the universities. While from the 60ies on, the state had begun to interfere with the universities in an increasingly detailed manner, the lack of financial resources and appropriate output and doubts concerning the quality of studies, the excellence of research and the effectiveness of the transfer of knowledge from the universities to society and the economy led to the search for new modes of governance of the university sector (Tierney, W.G. 2004). Instead of regulating the input of universities, new output oriented instruments were devised that promised to enhance the autonomy and the performance of the universities at the same time (Neave, G./F.A. Van Vught 1991). Research focused on the exploration and explanation of these long term trends and the various modernization patterns that characterize different national paths of higher education policy and development (Melchior, J. 1993;  Bessenyei, I./J. Melchior 1996); the evaluation of the diversification of the system of higher education in Austria (Gerlich 1993; Fischer, R./J. Melchior 1995); and the assessment of recent reform efforts (Melchior, J. 2004b;  2005b).

Future research and dissertations on higher education governance should focus on the comparative study of the changing relationship between the state, the market and higher education in different national, economic, and cultural contexts; the role of Europeanization and internationalization of higher education systems on policy convergence or divergence between countries; the consequences of changing funding and output oriented steering mechanisms on established networks and policy communities; and on the role of ideas and best practice models for the governance of higher education institutions.

Life-science governance (Herbert Gottweis)

During the last decades the life sciences have become a core field of contemporary governance (Gottweis 2005 b). Many expectations and hopes are connected with biotechnology, bio-medicine, molecular biology and genomics as paving the way for the economic and social development and well being of the future. World-wide, governments, universities, and industries invest heavily in the life sciences under the assumption that new industries might develop, new modes of health care (Bunton/Petersen 2005) might take shape, or that questions relating to securing food supplies might be addressed more efficiently than in the past (Clarke et al 2002; Krimsky 1991). It is articulated in a broad variety of fields ranging from pharmacogenomics and the idea of personalized medicine to the development of genetically modified plants. In short, the life sciences have become an important instrument for governance (Rose 2001). Research and development in the life sciences seems to help address major challenges for governance, such as economic growth or the maintenance of public health. Governance through advances in the life sciences has become a key feature of today's industrialized countries (Brown/Webster 2004).

At the same time, there are many social, ethical, legal, economic, and regulatory issues that surround the introduction and utilization of the science and technologies of modern biology. Until recently, politics, science as well as the educational system could rely on the trust and confidence that people collectively stored in or derived from the social institutions. Today, in a variety of fields from politics to science we witness an erosion of social trust (Putnam 1993). Many failures of classical-modernist government have created a widespread awareness of the ubiquity of the unintended, sometimes negative consequences of large scale rationalized planning, big science and the limits to centralized, hierarchical regulation as the dominant mode of collective problem solving (Flyvbjerg et al 2003). Today there is deep unease among citizens about the possibilities of effective and responsible state power. There is also a widespread feeling of uncertainty (Gottweis 2005a; Jasanoff 1994).

Trust, be it in politics or in science, cannot be any longer assumed in particular where life sciences and the application of their achievements are concerned. The successful introduction of new technologies or approaches from genetically modified food to stem cell research now requires explicit or implicit informed consent from major stakeholders and publics (Hajer/Wagenaar 2003). In short, the governance of life sciences has become a key issue for the future development of the life sciences and connected high-tech industries. Thus, life-science governance will be a field of study within the Vienna School of Governance. It will bring major topics of contemporary political debate into focus, ranging from public health, to genetic engineering and innovation policy.

Possible dissertations projects could include research on the regulation of nanotechnology, comparative health policy, emerging global regimes of regulation in tissue and biobank research, or emerging end-of-life policies in a comparative perspective. The work in this area of the school of governance will also be closely linked to the newly established Life-Science-Governance research platform. According to the development plan of the University of Vienna this research platform was set up in collaboration between the faculty of social science and the faculty of life-sciences.

System transformation and democratization (Rüdiger Frank/Dieter Segert/Weigelin-Schwiedrzik)

System transformation and democratization are key questions for the stabilization and integration of former authoritarian and/or communist countries in the (far) east and the west. At the end of state socialism, the former authoritarian political systems entered a state of crisis and were temporarily or lastingly replaced by democratic political systems. Governing these complex processes has given rise to many questions yielding new insights into the conditions of integrated system change.

An independent phenomenon is the reaction and adaptation of the former authoritarian political elites to the new democratic conditions (Segert 1999; Grzymala-Busse 2002; Bozóki/Ishiyama 2002). The question of cultural preconditions for the functioning of democratic institutions is another important field of inquiry. A relatively new area of research focuses on the connection between regime change and state weakness (Bunce 2004).

Future research and dissertations should focus on the comparison of the formation processes of party elites in CEE; party politics and political stability in CEE-transition countries; common and different features of Post-Socialism in Central and Eastern Europe and East Asia.

Welfare state and social policy (Gerda Falkner/Sieglinde Rosenberger)

Due to a variety of reasons such as Europeanization of politics, social change in societies, diversity and migration the typical welfare states have been undergoing severe transitions for some years. Research within the field noticed that both the social security of citizens might be at stake as well as social cohesion in general. Therefore, to enhance trust, loyalty and social solidarity is becoming a challenge for policy making at the national level.

In some cases the retrenchment of welfare states (including gender equality measures) is accompanied by social policies for the needy and by advanced political rhetoric fostering family life. Particularly, intense debates on family policies call for serving as an engine for social solidarity in a world of increasing individualism and fragmentation (Rosenberger 2005). Furthermore, at the European level anti-discrimination activities gain relatively in relevance (for instance, compared to social policies). The process of redefining the core parameters along which welfare policies are made increasingly happens within networks and in an interactive manner, including governmental and non-governmental actors (Buchinger/Rosenberger 2001).

Questions to be addressed are: Who are the governmental and non-governmental actors contributing to the transformation of welfare states? Which groups in terms of origin, class, gender get involved in the reconstruction of social solidarity and social security? What is the relationship among social partners, state actors and private actors?

There is hence a close link to the issue described above as "network theories of governance" involving corporatist arrangements as well as policy networks. Additionally, there is an important debate among academics as much as practitioners on new modes of governance, which is particularly vivid in this field on the EU level.

During the 1990s, the style of EU social policy has changed as the "method of open co-ordination" (OMC) has been introduced. The OMC is based on voluntary co-operation of the national governments and includes recommendations, benchmarking processes and reporting procedures. It is in fact too early to say, but there are indicators that the shift towards open co-ordination represents an additional activity of EU social policy which will not become the only instrument despite being the nowadays most widely noted and discussed one (Falkner et al. 2005). In any case, this means that EU social policy now employs a wider toolbox of instruments than in earlier phases, but at the same time is active in more specific areas.