Suchergebnisse

While having gained relevance in Anglo‐Saxon scholarly and political debates, risk‐based regulation seems to be a stranger to continental European settings. The more fragmented and often corporatist forms of decision making in countries such as Germany have been identified as key obstacles to a risk‐based rationalization of policy interventions. Based on an in‐depth case study of German work safety policies, this article nuances this account theoretically and empirically. It argues, firstly, that current risk‐based regulation studies suffer from a systemic bias toward the competition‐oriented forms of regulation so widely spread in the Anglo‐Saxon world. They thereby misread the dynamics and rationalities of alternative regulatory approaches elsewhere in Europe. Secondly, as our policy analysis shows, this is especially true of corporatist and self‐regulatory forms of policymaking, which characterize the case of German work safety. Rather than impeding the adoption of risk‐based regulation, corporatist arrangements bear distinct structural features that render risk tools attractive. This finding goes beyond the scope of contemporary risk‐based regulation scholarship. Unlike claimed for the Anglo‐Saxon context, hopes of efficiency and effectiveness are not boosters for risk‐based approaches in corporatist work safety policy arrangements. Instead, risk tools serve the structural need to sustain trust relationships, rationalize consensus finding, and promote solidarity within self‐regulatory settings. We conclude that a corporatist type of risk‐based regulation needs to complement the existing competition‐based type to account for the spatial, functional, and ideological diversity of empirical cases of risk‐based regulation. We also propose the first advances toward such a new research agenda, highlighting most importantly the necessity to trace the emergence and dynamics of specific types of risk‐based regulation in research frameworks which can surmount national essentialism.

This article examines how the EU regulates the rights of migrants as a matter of regional-level governance, and with what implications. To expose the differential logics behind the governance of migrant statuses by the EU, we compare the regulation of 12 legal categories of migrants, across three dimensions of rights: civil, economic, and social. We find that while asylum seekers are unequivocally subject to the most conditional regulation of rights, at the other end of the hierarchy, EU citizens' rights are subject to caveats and ambiguity. The allocation of diverse statuses to migrants privileges different kinds of rights for different categories of migrants, and does not construct clear hierarchies of rights or statuses. This complex stratification of migrant rights highlights the important role of EU-level regulation in generating a migrant rights regime, with substantive implications for migrants entering and living in the European Union.Spanish
Este artículo examina cómo la Unión Europea (EU) regula los derechos de los migrantes como una cuestión de gobernanza a nivel regional, y sus consecuencias. Para exponer las lógicas diferenciales detrás de la gobernabilidad de los estatus migratorios de la UE, los autores comparan la regulación de doce categorías legales de migrantes, a través de tres dimensiones de derechos: civiles, económicos y sociales. Un notable hallazgo es que mientras los solicitantes de asilo son inequívocamente sujetos a la regulación más condicional de sus derechos, en el otro extremo de la jerarquía, el estatus de los derechos de los ciudadanos de la UE está supeditado a advertencias y ambigüedad. Para otras categorías de migrantes reguladas por la UE no se observaron jerarquías claras en ninguna de las dimensiones de los derechos, y la asignación de diversos estatutos a los inmigrantes es tal que instituye una compleja estratificación que privilegia diferentes tipos de derechos para las diferentes categorías de migrantes. La emergente estratificación compleja de los derechos de los migrantes en la gobernanza europea, tiene implicaciones más amplias para los derechos de los migrantes dada su articulación con la normatividad coexistente de los Estados miembros. French
Cet article examine comment l'UE réglemente les droits des migrants à l'échelle régionale et ce que cela implique. Afin d'exposer les logiques différentielles qui se situent derrière la gouvernance des statuts des migrants par l'UE, nous souhaitons ici comparer la réglementation de douze catégories légales de migrants, à travers trois dimensions des droits de l'homme: civils, économiques et sociaux. Nous constatons que les demandeurs d'asile sont sans conteste soumis à la réglementation la plus conditionnelle des droits l'homme tandis que, de l'autre côté de l'échelle, les droits de l'homme des citoyens de l'UE font l'objet de circonspection et d'ambiguïté. Pour ce qui est des autres catégories de migrants réglementées par l'UE, on n'observe de hiérarchies précises dans aucune des dimensions des droits de l'homme et la répartition des divers statuts de migrants représente une stratification complexe dans laquelle sont privilégiés les différents types de droits pour les différentes catégories de migrants. Cette stratification complexe des droits des migrants souligne le rôle important que joue la gouvernance de l'Union européenne dans la conception d'un régime des droits des migrants et les implications significatives qu'elle a sur les migrants qui entrent et vivent dans l'Union Européenne.

"This timely Handbook explores the relationship between public policy and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across a broad range of geographical, technical, political and policy contexts. It contributes to critical AI studies, focusing on the intersection of the norms, discourses, policies, practices, and regulation that shape AI in the public sector. Expert authors in the field discuss the creation and use of AI technologies and how public authorities respond to their development, by bringing together emerging scholarly debates about AI technologies with longer-standing insights on public administration, policy, regulation and governance. Contributions in the Handbook mobilise diverse perspectives to critically examine techno-solutionist approaches to public policy and AI, dissect the politico-economic interests underlying AI promotion, and analyse implications for sustainable development, fairness, and equality. Ultimately, this Handbook questions whether regulatory concepts such as ethical, trustworthy, or accountable AI safeguard a democratic future or contribute to a problematic de-politicisation of the public sector. The Handbook on Public Policy and Artificial Intelligence is a crucial resource for students and scholars of public policy and administration, political economy, political science, sociology, law, regulation and governance, computer science and technology studies. It is also beneficial to policy practitioners, civil society actors, and regulators working with AI technologies."--