Resources

Abstract

Adaptive governance focuses our attention on the relationships between science and management, whereby the so-called ‘gaps’ between these groups are seen to hinder effective adaptive responses to biophysical change. Yet the relationships between science and governance, knowledge and action, remain under theorized in discussions of adaptive governance, which largely focuses on abstract design principles or preferred institutional arrangements. In contrast, the metaphor of co-production highlights the social and political processes through which science, policy, and practice co-evolve. Co-production is invoked as a normative goal (Mitchell et al., 2004) and analytical lens (Jasanoff, 2004a,b), both of which provide useful insight into the processes underpinning adaptive governance. This paper builds on and integrates these disparate views to reconceptualize adaptive governance as a process of co-production. I outline an alternative conceptual framing, ‘co-productive governance’, that articulates the context, knowledge, process, and vision of governance.

Abstract

Well-being is of vital importance for individuals as well as society at large. UNs Sustainability Goal #17, ‘Partnership for the Goals’, support co-creation and co-production as necessary approaches to reach public values such as citizenship, social justice, and well-being. However, co-creation and co- production is not enough. It is necessary to address who participates in co-creation, how they participate, and how participation affects outcomes. Inclusive participation in everyday life, public services, and democracy is crucial to achieve active citizenship and well-being for all. This chapter will discuss how voices of citizens in marginalized and vulnerable life situations needs to be included and recognized in democracy and public sector practices as well as in decision-making processes. The chapter suggests how public sector organisations can promote active citizenship, valued social roles, and well-being through participation in co-creation of public values, placing well-being for all and social justice at the forefront of public value co-creation.

Zhaohui Wang & Hong Zhao (2021) Relational governance in rhetoric and reality: explanations and problems of China’s Belt and Road Initiative from the relational perspective.

Globalizations, 18:4, 650-666

DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1832838

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1832838

How recognizing the importance of human relationships could revolutionize the role of the state.

The purpose of this collection is to begin to fill this political space by introducing the idea of the ‘relational state’ – a new intellectual and political perspective on statecraft and the public services. It explores how the ideas underpinning the relational state could help to reframe centre-left goals and provide a guide to policy and action ... the clear focus is on what sort of governing model is best suited to the needs and spirit of the country.

Note

In this theory note, I address two new approaches in international relations theory gaining adherents and producing in sightful applications: practice theory and relationalism. Practice theory draws attention to everyday logics in world politics. It stresses how international actors are driven less by abstract notions of the national interest, identities, or preferences than by context-dependent practical imperatives. Relationalism rejects the idea that entities—like states and international organizations—are the basic units of world politics. It replaces them with a focus on ongoing processes. Noting similarities in their arguments to those advanced by early constructivists, I argue that, taken together, practice theory and relationalism represent the New Constructivism in International Relations (IR). A practice–relational turn became necessary because the meaning of constructivism narrowed over time, becoming tied to a specific scientific ontology focusing on the role of identity, norms, and culture in world politics. This ontology unduly narrowed constructivism’s theoretical lenses, which practice theory and relationalism productively reopen.

Note

In this chapter, we present an overview of a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding called Relational Ecosystem for Peace (REP). It aims to facilitate the creation of a culture of peace in any social environment, adopting the following UN definition for a culture of peace: a set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviours and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations. Underlying causes of conflicts such as wounds, trauma, and suffering as well as ignorance and intolerance, are addressed in the REP approach at both the personal and collective levels. All of which may be the result of generations of transmitted dysfunctions and misinformation. Through the REP approach, people become aware of what breeds violence, in themselves as well as in the world, and learn how it can be prevented and transformed through a series of dialogical values, attitudes, and behaviours. From an interdisciplinary approach that includes the notion of well-being linked to the health sciences, positive peace in conflict transformation within the social sciences, and spirituality in the humanities, the REP approach suggests how to choose radical respect consciously, as opposed to radical violence.

Note

Aims: Contemporary approaches to pursuing public value and the vision of health and wellbeing for all have evolved notably in the past few decades, with distinct approaches termed ‘co-creation’ and ‘health promotion’ gaining traction.

This article explores a critique of ongoing paradigmatic shifts in public health and the public sector, focusing on crossfertilisation between co-creation and the promotion of health and wellbeing. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s claims for social justice through redistribution, recognition and representation to achieve participatory parity, we discuss a need for transformative change to achieve societal goals of creating health and wellbeing for all, leaving no one behind.

Conclusions: Health promotion and co-creation converge in a quest for active citizenship through participation, as well as embracing a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. However, inequity in such processes, as well as health and wellbeing outcomes, are still persistent and contradictory to health promotion aims. This article argues that radically attending to human relationships and our dependency on other humans as a ‘collective’ need to be placed at the core of future-forming social construction of public and democratic institutions to allow the ongoing cross-fertilisation between health promotion and co-creation to work. Responding to this calls for transformation, the article presents a framework for developing a relational approach to welfare. The framework advocates for ‘relational welfare’, which captures the intersection of the welfare state, democracy and human relationships attending to social justice, capabilities and health and wellbeing for all as key public values in societal development.

Keywords: Health promotion, co-creation, health equity, human rights, social justice, participatory parity, relational welfare, public value, sustainable development