{"title":"Governing communal diversity as good governance","authors":"A. Koos, Kenneth Keulman","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study asks whether existing standards of good governance have incorporated ideals and measures to manage communal diversity. The context is an intellectual landscape in which the efficacy of heterogeneity policies has typically been compared through their impact on the likelihood of violent conflict. Alternate approaches would fine‐tune the outcome variable and/or enlist new independent variables. The Ethnic Power Relations project provided measures of the groups' co‐determination position (egip, excl) and measures of empowerment through self‐governing start to follow suit, such as improved indicators of territorial autonomies, decentralization, and language use rights. We also crafted a measure of functional autonomies, based on the ENTA Network's case‐study collection. With the exception of territorial autonomies, all existing measures of policies that accommodate the difference tend to improve the group's relationships with other groups and with the country as a whole. They also correlate well with the general good governance indicators.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":" 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study asks whether existing standards of good governance have incorporated ideals and measures to manage communal diversity. The context is an intellectual landscape in which the efficacy of heterogeneity policies has typically been compared through their impact on the likelihood of violent conflict. Alternate approaches would fine‐tune the outcome variable and/or enlist new independent variables. The Ethnic Power Relations project provided measures of the groups' co‐determination position (egip, excl) and measures of empowerment through self‐governing start to follow suit, such as improved indicators of territorial autonomies, decentralization, and language use rights. We also crafted a measure of functional autonomies, based on the ENTA Network's case‐study collection. With the exception of territorial autonomies, all existing measures of policies that accommodate the difference tend to improve the group's relationships with other groups and with the country as a whole. They also correlate well with the general good governance indicators.
本研究提出的问题是,现有的善治标准是否包含了管理社区多样性的理想和措施。在这一背景下,人们通常通过异质性政策对暴力冲突可能性的影响来比较这些政策的有效性。其他方法会对结果变量进行微调和/或采用新的独立变量。民族权力关系项目提供了群体共同决定地位(egip,excl)的衡量标准,以及通过自治开始赋权的衡量标准,如领土自治、权力下放和语言使用权的改进指标。我们还以 ENTA 网络收集的案例研究为基础,制定了功能自治的衡量标准。除地域自治外,所有现有的照顾差异的政策措施都倾向于改善该群体与其他群体以及与整个国家的关系。它们与一般善治指标也有很好的相关性。
期刊介绍:
World Affairs is a quarterly international affairs journal published by Heldref Publications. World Affairs, which, in one form or another, has been published since 1837, was re-launched in January 2008 as an entirely new publication. World Affairs is a small journal that argues the big ideas behind U.S. foreign policy. The journal celebrates and encourages heterodoxy and open debate. Recognizing that miscalculation and hubris are not beyond our capacity, we wish more than anything else to debate and clarify what America faces on the world stage and how it ought to respond. We hope you will join us in an occasionally unruly, seldom dull, and always edifying conversation. If ideas truly do have consequences, readers of World Affairs will be well prepared.