Spaces of governance

The spatial dimension of governance regimes and arrangements is of particular importance because they have different characteristics in different areas of the world and because they emerge at different levels of aggregation (local, national, regional and global). ViGo puts particular emphasis on two regions where there is particular dynamism in the interaction of the different levels of governance:

• Europe and
• East Asia.

European governance (Peter Gerlich/Gerda Falkner/Josef Melchior/Andreas Pribersky/Dieter Segert)

Since the 1990s the concept of European governance has become a central focus of research about the working and functioning of the European Union. It has become commonplace to describe the policy-making process in the EU as fragmented and differentiated (for an overview see Wallace, Wallace et al. 2005). The discovery of regularities in the governance of the EU has led to the elaboration of the concepts of multi-level and supranational governance (Scharpf, F.W. 1997;  2001;  Bache, I. 2004) which is closely linked with the notion of network governance (see above).

A very recent strand of research on European governance focuses on the so-called new modes of governance which are associated with (more or less) voluntaristic cooperation schemes like the open method of coordination and the delegation of governing tasks to independent agencies (Borras, S./K. Jacobsson 2004;  Gehring, T. 2004) (see also the chapter on the Welfare state and social policy above). The study of the Europeanization of domestic politics represents another focus of governance studies. It is primarily concerned with the impact of European integration on the political structures and processes of national political systems (Melchior, J. 1998;  Falkner, G. 1999;  Falkner, G./W.C. Muller/M. Eder et al. 1999;  Falkner, G. 2000;  Melchior, J. 2002;  Featherstone, K./C.M. Radaelli 2003;  Kohler-Koch, B. 2003;  Falkner, G./S. Leiber 2004;  Gerlich, P. 2005a;  2005b;  Melchior, J. 2005a).

The dynamic character of European governance is underlined by an ongoing process of framing and re-framing of the rules of the game. A key question of research and institutional design is how to reconcile the need for flexibility, adaptability, the capacity to act and the effectiveness and efficiency of community action with the need for (national) autonomy and (democratic) legitimacy (Kohler-Koch, B. 2000). How such reframing occurs and how the ongoing process of institutional reform and the constitutionalization of the EU can be explained and assessed is a research question of utmost importance (Melchior, J. 1998;  1999b;  Karlhofer, F./J. Melchior/H. Sickinger 2001;  Falkner, G. 2002;  Melchior, J. 2005c).

A matter of increasing practical and academic interest concerns the forms and effects of governance change in a comparative perspective (Gerlich, P./H. Neisser 1994; Gerlich 2002a; 2002b). The main focus is on Central Europe (pragmatically defined as Austria and her neighboring countries) but developments in selected other European countries as well as in the United States are also taken into account (Gerlich, P. 1997; Gerlich, P./K. Glaser 1998; Gerlich, P. 2002c). The attempt is made to distinguish between theories, strategies and styles of governance and to analyze the often paradoxical connections between change in governance arrangements and system performance. A related concern focuses on constitutional reform policies and particularly the interaction of these policies within the multilevel space of the European Union (Gerlich 2005).

Future research and dissertations should analyze the role of the new modes of governance and the assessment of its impact; the differential effects of Europeanization on national politics and the content of policies across countries and policy areas with a particular focus on the comparison between Western and Eastern Member states; and on the development and changing framework of European governance and its implications for legitimacy, democracy and justice.

Governance in East Asia (Rüdiger Frank/Susanne Weigelin-Schwiedrzik)

In the People's Republic of China (PRC), research on questions of governance or 'good governance' (shanzhi/zhili) is focused on forms of cooperation between state and society. Except for dealing with questions of local government and local elections in the countryside, most researchers discuss organizations like the trade unions, the youth league and the women's association as platforms for developing special forms of state-society cooperation in the form of good governance (Yu Keping 2005. Qiu Zeji 1998). The research on governance issues is therefore part of the discussion on transition problems concerning the role of the Communist Party of China (CCP) vis à vis its former 'transmission belts'. It is in this context that the concept of civil society is being invoked and related to the notion of 'good governance' (Chamberlain 1995, Pilz 1996).

Outside the PRC, research on governance issues has so far mostly been focused on the newly introduced elections at the grassroots level of China's rural society (Kelliher 1997). The introduction of local elections has not advanced good government in the Chinese countryside. Instead the governance crisis in the rural areas remains unresolved (Pei 2001, 2002).

 Research related to the question of governance in Vienna started out from answering the question why the CCP Central Government allowed for local elections to take place in the countryside while inhibiting all forms of civil society in the urban areas. By applying the theory of the distance between state and society, developed on the basis of historical research by Yves Chevrier (Chevrier 1995), Weigelin-Schwiedrzik applies a cultural approach to this question stressing the continuity of center-periphery relationships over different forms of government since the late Qing dynasty (Weigelin-Schwiedrzik 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004). The sheer vastness of the country made it impossible for governmental institutions to reach down to the very grassroots level of society in the rural areas. It is this distance between state and society both in geographical as well as symbolic terms that compels the new leadership in the PRC to discuss forms of governance which help overcoming this distance and at the same time do not lead to governmental expenses that drive the government into budget problems (Shue 1988, Zheng 1997).

That is why research on governance issues has so far been focused on the question of the taxation system in the PRC (Hauff 2002), the development of local autonomy in the context of rural industrialization, the development of a system of social welfare (especially health care) as well as on questions of internal migration (Weigelin-Schwiedrzik and Hauff 1999).

Future research and dissertations on governance issues should be focused on relating more closely to debates among researchers in the PRC and integrating their ideas into the research on the development and future role of the Chinese Youth League; the calling off of the so called 'Hukou'-System of household registration and the development of new forms of governance of internal migration; and the reshaping of the Communist cadre-system into a system of civil services.

Korea traditionally had a highly centralized state administration - unlike Japan, but very much resembling the Chinese model. The government was characterized by the merit-based self-perception of the bureaucrats to be responsible for virtually all important aspects of life in the society. Neo-Confucian scholars for centuries debated the question of good governance and thereby created a high level of awareness for this field in both Koreas as of today (Paik 1990).

In South Korea, after the success of the state-led policies of the 1960s and 1970s, corporate governance became a central issue as the state faced increasing difficulties to keep the big conglomerates, or chaebòl, under control (Frank 1998b). This discussion took a highly public nature since the early 1990s and reached a climax around the crisis years of 1997/1998 (Frank 1998a). Other economic or economy-related issues of governance that received broad attention were privatization, corruption/collusion, and fair competition (Frank 2001a, 2001b). Transcending the boundaries of economics and politics were themes such as regulatory reform (Frank 2003a) and foreign trade policy (Frank 2004a).

Increasingly since the early 1980s, administrative reform has been regarded as a major field of governance in South Korea (see Jung 1999). In the mid-1990s, the hitherto mainly economics-dominated debate about governance received new inputs in the context of increasing pressure for a reform of the political system, including the switch from the presidential to a parliamentary model. The adverse political effects of regionalism and the short-lived nature of political parties (Frank und Koellner 1999) created a governance vacuum that was filled by NGOs, growing both in number and relevance in the last decade (Cheung 2003) and catalyzed by the emergence of the internet as a major means of communication and exchange. The concept of e-governance has been officially and enthusiastically embraced by the Korean central and local governments. In the last years, an increasing focus on understanding governance as part of regional and global efforts can be witnessed, with South Korea being very active in the context of the OECD, APEC, ASEAN etc. (see Frank 2002; Ito and Krueger 2004).

In North Korea, the establishment of a socialist system after 1945 was accompanied by the search for an adequate mode of governance that would correspond with the country's traditions and the ambitions of the leader Kim Il-sung (Frank 2005b). As a result, combining Soviet, Chinese and Korean elements, a highly nationalist system of running the economy and the society called chuch'e was created, with self-reliance but also flexibility at its core and maintaining national independence (not social welfare) as the highest goal (Koo 1992). The leaders tend to micro-manage important and less important projects through personal so called 'on the spot guidance'. Three pillars of power - party, state, and military - compete for influence (Frank 2005b). In particular since the mid-1980s as a reaction to the Chinese reforms and even more so since the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe, there is a debate about adjustment of the system of governance to new challenges (Frank 2003b).

In recent years, there have been substantial developments departing from established methods and even creating new fields of governance, such as the balancing of a private and a state economy (Frank 2005a). With its attempts at reforming the economic governance structure combining existing models, North Korea is a highly interesting case from an academic perspective. Furthermore, the development of a nuclear program and the strong involvement of the United States and China in the resolution of this issue make North Korea the hot spot of crucial developments in international relations.

Future research and dissertations should focus on the economic, political and social transformation in China, the role of the state, and the applicability of this model to other cases such as North Korea; the role of the state in region-specific education in China, Japan, and Korea; and the institutional foundation of modernization in Japan considering the proactive role of the state in a comparative perspective with South Korea.