Advertisement

Conclusion: A New Trinity of Governance?

  • Jonathan JosephEmail author
  • J. Allister McGregor
Chapter
Part of the Building a Sustainable Political Economy: SPERI Research & Policy book series (SPERIRP)

Abstract

The book highlights how wellbeing, resilience and sustainability come together in both policy making and public consciousness to promote a particular form of governance. While noting some of the confusion, ambiguity and contradiction present in how policy-makers take up these concepts, our main point has been to point out their connectedness, particularly as they have emerged ‘after the crisis’ as neoliberalism tries to recalibrate. We strongly associate these ideas with forms of governance that see themselves as responding to crisis and as advocating the need for rethinking and renewal. These ideas are thus connected to the dynamic wider social, political and economic context and the changing global political environment. There is often a conscious embrace of paradox, in particular through an obsession with better governing while also raising doubt and uncertainty about our ability to intervene. The new trinity provides a means whereby these doubts are being worked into the mechanisms of governance, while not interrupting the process of getting on with actual governing. This is the central paradox of the new trinity: that the three ideas have a certain critical element inherent in them that questions the rationalism, calculation and science on which government intervention has been founded, while at the same time exploring new ways that rationalism, calculation, science can be deployed to reinforce the governance systems that they raise their concerns about. We argue that the radical implications of the trinity are being compromised by this relationship to existing mechanisms of governance and call for a more systemic and genuinely transformative approach to the central issues of our time.

Keywords

Wellbeing Resilience Sustainability Governance Social transformation Systems 

References

  1. Bache, I., & Reardon, L. (2016). The Politics and Policy of Wellbeing: Understanding the Rise and Significance of a New Agenda. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bavinck, M., & Gupta, J. (2014). Editorial Overview: Legal Pluralism, Governance and Aquatic Resources. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 11, v–vi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Best, J. (2007). Why the Economy Is Often the Exception to Politics as Usual. Theory, Culture and Society, 24(4), 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2016). Governmentality after Neoliberalism. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brand, F. S., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Commission on Human Security. (2003). Human Security Now. New York: CHS.Google Scholar
  8. Cornia, G. A., Jolly, R., & Stewart, F. (1987). Adjustment with Human Face. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davies, W. (2017). The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Deacon, B. (2016). Assessing the SDGs from the Point of View of Global Social Governance. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 32(2), 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deneulin, S., & McGregor, J. A. (2010). The Capability Approach and the Politics of a Social Conception of Wellbeing. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(4), 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DFID. (2011). Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M., & Ney, S. (1998). Missing Persons: A Critique of the Social Sciences. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2012). EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, P. (2002). Collective Capabilities, Culture and Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, B., & Reid, J. (2014). Resilient Life: The Art of Living Dangerously. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gore, C. (1997). Irreducibly Social Goods and the Informational Basis of Sen’s Capability Approach. Journal of International Development, 9(2), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haldrup, S. V., & Rosn, F. (2013). Developing Resilience: A Retreat from Grand Planning, Resilience. International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 1(2), 130–145.Google Scholar
  19. Helne, T., & Hirvilammi, T. (2015). Wellbeing and Sustainability: A Relational Approach. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. High Representative (HR/VP). (2016, June). Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe: A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Available Online at http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf. Last accessed 14 April 2019.
  21. Joseph, J. (2018). Varieties of Resilience: Studies in Governmentality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landell-Mills, P., & Serageldin, I. (1991). Governance and the External Factor. Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics (pp. 303–320). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  23. MacGinty, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2013). The Local Turn in Peace Building: A Critical Agenda for Peace. Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 763–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGregor, J. A. (2018). Reconciling Universal Frameworks and Local Realities in Understanding and Measuring Wellbeing (Chapter 9). In I. Bache & K. Scott (Eds.), The Politics of Wellbeing: Theory, Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing Economic Life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Öniş, Z., & Şenses, F. (2005). Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus. Development and Change, 36(2), 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peck, J. (2010). Zombie Neoliberalism and the Ambidextrous State. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polanyi, K. (1957). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sandel, M. (2012). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of the Market. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  30. Stewart, F. (2005). Groups and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  32. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Stiglitz Commission. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission+report. Accessed 17 December 2018.
  33. Thomas, C. (2001). Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the Links. Third World Quarterly, 22(2), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. UN. (2000). Millennium Declaration. A/RES/55/2. New York: United Nations General Assembly.Google Scholar
  35. UN. (2005). World Summit Outcome: Responsibility to Protect. A/RES/60/1. New York: United Nations General Assembly.Google Scholar
  36. UN. (2015). The Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Sociology, Politics and International StudiesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations