 |
 |
FYI NB for any questions, please DO NOT REPLY to my email, but contact directly the issue editors on their emails Paola Rivetti ([log in to unmask]) and/or Francesco Cavatorta ([log in to unmask]) M. -- *The Converge of Governance. A Comparative Examination of Policies and Policy-Making Beyond Authoritarianism and Democracy* Editors: Paola Rivetti (Dublin City University, Ireland) and Francesco Cavatorta (Université Laval, Québec, Canada) *Description* Over the last three decades, scholars of comparative politics have been preoccupied with assessing the transformation of authoritarian regimes into democratic systems (O'Donnell, Schmitter, Whitehead 1987; Linz, Stepan 1996; Bunce 2000; Kaldor, Vejvoda 2002) or, alternatively, with examining the mechanisms sustaining authoritarian resilience and stability (Albrecht, Schlumberger 2004; Dimitrov 2013; Hess 2013). These examinations, while providing significant insights into the workings of authoritarian governance and transitions to democracy, have reinforced a binary representation of regime types, whereby it is (seemingly) easy to distinguish between democratic and authoritarian systems. From a theoretical vantage point democracy and authoritarianism have indeed different attributes when it comes to accountability, free and fair political competition and transparent arrangements for the peaceful transfer of power. In addition, democratic systems have a detailed and non-arbitrary legal framework protecting individual rights or, at the very least, possess fair procedures through which such rights can be further extended. Thus, mainstream comparative studies have devoted considerable efforts to examine the distinction between democratic and authoritarian regimes with significant political consequences on the way in which decision-makers and policy experts think about the promotion of democracy for instance. Building on theoretical critiques of the sharp distinction between authoritarian and democratic structures of government as well as policy-making (Carothers 2002), this special issue shifts the focus of analysis to governance dynamics with the objective of problematizing precisely such distinction. We follow the recent scholarship of Area Studies/Middle East Studies (Dabène, Geisser, Massardier 2008; Camau, Massardier 2009; Cavatorta 2010; Teti, Mura 2013) that has called for a comparative engagement with governance systems across the world, highlighting how similar governance dynamics might characterize nominally different political regimes. The common thread of the special issue is the hypothesis that what we call the convergence of governance waters down the theoretically distinctive traits of authoritarian and democratic systems. Specifically the contributors to this special issue examine in detail how this convergence might occur and why. A number of studies have already highlighted the practical existence of these converging governance dynamics. On the one side, established democracies might be becoming less ‘democratic’ because they undermine their own democratic structures through illiberal policies such as widespread surveillance (Bennett, Haggerty 2014), delegate their decision-making processes to unelected enclaves of co-opted experts and special interests (Vibert 2007; Wedel 2009) and, finally, restrict the space for open political dissent through anti-protest legislation, anti-radicalization efforts and a protracted state of emergency (Tsoukala 2006). On the other side, authoritarian regimes ‘upgrade’ and adopt *ad hoc* liberal institutions (Heydemann 2007; Levitsky, Way 2010; Lust, Ndegwa 2010) to provide a veneer of popular legitimacy to the arbitrary nature of governance. In addition, they adhere formally to the ‘good governance’ mantra as imposed by the IMF, the EU and other international organizations through widespread privatization and the selective opening-up of the policy-making process (Carapico 2009; Hout 2002; Mercer 2003). The convergence of governance dynamics and reforms seems also to ‘create’ similar living conditions for societies and individuals across borders, subjecting them to similar constraints irrespective of the regime they live under. Privatization, outsourcing, the shrinking role of the state in providing social welfare and the subsequent creation of new ‘quasi-markets’ for such social provisions have caused the weakening of collective rights for workers, the deterioration of social protection, the pauperisation of the middle class and the rise of unaccountable elites (see Achcar 2013; Hanieh 2013 for the MENA region; Vibert 2011; Piketty 2014; Standing 2011 for Europe and North America). It is therefore not surprising that the response to such convergence has been broadly similar across political systems. The rallying cry of protesters opposing such measures resonates across continents (Della Porta, Mattoni 2014; Hatem 2012), and so do the repressive and policing strategies democratic and authoritarian regimes adopt as countermeasures (Fernandez, Starr, Scholl 2011). Academic freedom is also under attack not only in authoritarian countries that jail researchers, as in the case of Homa Hoodfar in Iran, or kill them, as in the case of Giulio Regeni in Egypt, but also in the case of Western democracies such as Italy or the US where researchers can be detained for their ethnographic work on radical protest movements or fired for their opinions, as the case of Steven Salaita demonstrates. This is not to suggest that the convergence between systems is achieved, but it is important to highlight how they have at times similar outcomes, indicating that broader forces are at play and it is precisely on uncovering such forces that the special issue pays attention to. Convergence also increasingly defines subjects according to similar standards. Poverty alleviation programmes, for instance, are similar across political systems in their approach to ‘the poor’ and in the policy recommendations they suggest, usually centred on schemes of ‘activation’ and on a strategy of ‘inclusive neoliberalism’, as highlighted by Klak et al. (2011) in the case of Eastern Caribbean farmers and Sylvia Bergh (2012) in the case of Morocco. As Janine Wedel et al. (2005) observe, the study of policy requires attention to both ends of the policy-making chain: on the one end, the makers, implementers, the genealogy and discourses of policies; on the other end, the recipients of those policies. As Chris Shore and Susan Wright (1997) demonstrate, public policy is not a neutral domain where institutions and policy-makers ‘solve’ issues present in society. On the contrary, policy-making and policy-makers participate in creating the recipient of their action and assistance, thus revealing diverse sets of standardized answers. As mentioned, significant differences between political systems remain despite increasing convergence and the special issue therefore also is interested in contributions that might highlight them. Neoliberal reforms and policies do not appear on a blank canvas, but merge and interact with pre-existing environments and situated patterns of governance (Streeck, Thelen 2005; Mahoney, Thelen 2010) in which multiple institutional logics and ideas compete. This implies that the logic of uniformity and convergence may not dominate in processes where competition, confrontation, coordination and shifting alliances of ideas, practices and actors exist. In conclusion, the special issue seeks to illustrate and explain how and why convergence might occur across political systems and policy domains without neglecting the possibility of weak – or absent – convergence. *Case Studies and Anticipated Contributions* We are seeking contributions discussing the convergence of governance in any region and country of the world through comparative analyses. Thus, each article is intended to compare one or more ‘authoritarian’ country with one or more democratic one, i.e. multiple case studies. Among the topics of interests are : · Labour market reforms and policies · Anti-terror legislation · The neoliberal university · The policy-making of privatization · The management of natural disasters · The politics of big events (Olympiads, G8) · Electoral dynamics and party politics · The role of NGOs · The management of public utilities (water, forests, energy) · The shrinking space for opposing, dissenting, and protesting · Media reforms · The control of legitimate force · The management of migration and the movement of people · Anti-corruption policies · The paradigms of peace-making and post-conflict reconstruction · The politics of administrative, political and territorial decentralization · The politics of citizenship · Gender and Queer Politics · The poor, the deviant and/or the unemployed Papers can examine shared patterns of governance and focus empirically on: the actors taking part in the policy-making process, their interests and agendas; actors’ interactions during the policy-making process; the similarity and differences in the way policy-makers address specific issues and construct ‘subjects’ such as ‘the terrorist’ and ‘the poor’; the converging/diverging and/or the intended/ unintended outcomes of the process. Papers should also include a theoretical dimension to provide a potential explanation(s) as to how and why convergence occurs – or does not occur. *Deadlines and Proposals* Paper proposals can be submitted *by November 30, 2016* to Paola Rivetti ( [log in to unmask]) and/or Francesco Cavatorta ( [log in to unmask]) Proposals should be 1,000-1,500 word long and detail the content of the paper. The proposals will be examined in detail and 9 will be selected. -- M.