Over the past decade, Social Impact Investing (SII) has garnered increasing attention among public policy makers as a solution for multigenerational, complex, intractable social and environmental problems, or as some advocates like to say, ‘wicked’ problems. The growing interest in SII aligns with the expansion, since the 1980s, of a set of public sector reforms that make use of new public policy instruments to achieve public objectives. Neoliberal economists and New Public Management (NPM) theorists have long argued for these reforms to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government bureaucracies. These reforms have led to a paradigm shift that Lester M. Salamon has labeled ‘New Governance’, characterized by public policies that make use of market mechanisms, partnerships with new actors, networks and flexible rules. Public administration scholars have suggested focusing on public policy instruments instead of the traditional focus on programs and institutions to gain an understanding of the dynamics of the ‘New Governance’ paradigm and to address important questions that go beyond the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency. This dissertation draws on Lester M. Salamon’s framework for analyzing public policy instruments combined with a conceptual framework developed by the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). The thesis uses this framework to assess the SII market by examining three cases of Canadian federal public policy instruments designed and implemented to achieve socio-economic objectives. These policy instruments provide either a cash transfer or a tax incentive to create investment funds mandated to invest with a purpose of making a return and achieving a positive social outcome. The dissertation employs a qualitative research approach and case study method to explore questions of equity and effectiveness to produce findings and recommendations useful to pubic administration scholars who focus their research on public policy instruments and to public policy makers who are considering policy options for structuring and growing the SII market. Data was collected through an extensive document review and 19 semistructured interviews. A dimensional analysis, SII analysis and discourse analysis of the data were undertaken. The researcher made the choice of undertaking a discourse analysis in order to fill a gap in the public policy instrument literature and inform the debate on SII. This dissertation contributes to the body of knowledge on public policy instruments and SII by presenting the results of a comparative analysis of three public policy instruments that created investment funds mandated to produce socio-economic outcomes.

The aim of the thesis is the assessment of developments in the approach towards the "European" strategy Health 2020 by Czech political players while using methods of critical discourse analysis and the assessment of the development of the Health 2020 agenda during the period 2010-2012 in the context of previous activities of the World Health Organization. The approach of the Czech health care political players to the strategy had been assessed on the basis of governmental programmatic statements since 1998, the National Reform Program of Czech Republic 2011 and interviews with participants in the Czech health policy and Czech health care. The approach of Czech health policy towards the Health 2020 strategy had been evaluated as extremely problematic. The course of creation and discussion of Health 2020 in 2012 had become a critical barrier for the Czech Ministry of Health. As a result, no wider awareness of this strategy exists in Czech health policy, neither does exist a Czech translation of this strategy. Lastly, the goals of Czech health policy do not reflect in a single point of the goals of the Health 2020 strategy.

No description available.

2001年美國遭受921恐怖攻擊，國際貿易由著重自由化、便捷化轉而強調貿易安全，高科技貨品進出口行政管制係悠關國際貿易及供應鏈安全，益受各國關注，世界主要國家更透過國際合作強化出口管制，如世界海關組織（WCO）所倡議之「全球貿易安全與便捷之標準架構」（Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade，SAFE）即為顯例。 全球化趨勢下，我國高科技貨品進出口行政管制不再是國內事務，須配合相關國際管制組織之規範實施相關管制作業，善盡地球村一份子之責任，才可避免受到國際制裁或抵制，影響我國貿易利益。 再者，處後現代時期，新保守主義興起，政府管理新思潮（如新公共管理、新治理）風起雲湧之際，各國進行政府再造工程，建構「小而能」之政府，惟國家任務雜，人民對政府之需求不斷增加，政府人力及預算有限情況下，「公協協力」、「合作國家」理念所倡導，引進私部門資源協助執行行政任務，乃成必須之選擇。本論文爰以行政法學之「合作國家」理念，析論我國高科技貨品進出口行政管制法制並提出評論與建言。 / After 921 in 2001, international trade had shifted its importance to trade security from emphasizing on trade facility. The export control of high-technology commodities involving security of global trade and supply chain, has been worldwidely raised concerns. Many countries have strengthened cooperation on export control of high-tech commodities through relevant international arrangements, for instance, “Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate global trade” initiated by the World Customs Organization. In globalization paradox, the export control of high-tech commodities is not only subjected to the national rule, but shall be also to comply with the relevant international regulations. Otherwise, it would be boycotted by other nations and cause damage to its trade benefits. Moreover, with neo-conservatism and emerging movement in public administration, which called “New Public Management” or “New Governance”, Governments have seek to reform in order to better meet citizens’ needs by limitation of manpower and budget. Consequently, the concept and resolutions of “Public Private Partnership” or “Cooperative State” in public administration and public law become the best option to response above mentioned conditions. In conclusion, this study attempted to analyze the legal framework of Taiwan export control of high-tech commodities with the concept of Cooperative State and tried to make suggestions and submit feasible resolutions for export control institution.

Cette recherche doctorale part de l’hypothèse générale selon laquelle la méthode communautaire classique serait concurrencée dans les faits par de nouveaux instruments juridiques qui, loin de constituer des initiatives isolées, participent d’un modèle alternatif de gouvernance communautaire qui la transforme en profondeur. <p><p>Afin d’identifier les caractéristiques, les contours et les nouvelles formes de normativités de ce modèle alternatif, cette recherche a adopté une approche pragmatique de l’étude droit et étudie empiriquement et systématiquement six politiques publiques européennes :la stratégie européenne pour l’emploi (SEE) et la Méthode Ouverte de Coordination (MOC), le programme européen REACH; la politique européenne de l’eau; la politique comptable européenne; la politique de régulation des services financiers; et la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique et le marché européen du carbone. Ces politiques publiques sont étudiées au moyen d’une approche par les instruments d’action publique qui s’inspire de la démarche et des recherches effectuées par Michel Foucault sur la « gouvernementalité ». <p><p>Cette analyse nous aura permis de démontrer que la transformation de la méthode communautaire classique se constate à au moins trois niveaux. Au niveau des acteurs, on assiste à un renforcement de la place des acteurs privés et de la société civile dans les politiques publiques étudiées. La transformation de l’action publique européenne réside également dans l’utilisation abondante de nouveaux instruments d’action publique - plus techniques que politiques et plus incitatifs que contraignants (du type benchmarking) - qui impliquent systématiquement une collaboration entre acteurs publics et privés à différents niveaux du processus décisionnel (coproduction normative). Enfin le mode de sanction est devenu une « contrainte par l’image » reposant sur la figure du « mauvais élève de la classe » véhiculée principalement par des publications de classements basées sur une classification des bonnes pratiques. Corrélativement, cette transformation se constate également dans les phases d’élaboration, d’exécution et de contrôle du droit de l’Union européenne. <p><p>Une fois les caractéristiques et les contours de ce modèle alternatif dessinés sur base des politiques publiques étudiées, cette recherche s’est ensuite tournée vers une présentation des discours (politiques et juridiques) et écoles de pensées (Law and Economics / New Public Management / Démocratie délibérative / Expérimentalisme démocratique) permettant de justifier son existence et, par là, de fonder sa légitimité. Enfin, si ce nouveau modèle peut prétendre à une certaine légitimité ou nécessité et s’il n’apparaît pas envisageable de revenir en arrière, sa non-concordance avec le traité est problématique. En effet, ce modèle pose une série de questions relatives au manque de contrôle sur l’activité des institutions de l’Union et à la sauvegarde de l’ordre juridique constitutionnel européen. Plus précisément, l’étude de la question de la protection juridictionnelle effective et du respect du principe de l’équilibre des pouvoirs permet d’identifier un certains nombre d’écueils et de proposer des suggestions d’amélioration pragmatique du modèle décisionnel européen au regard des nouveaux instruments juridiques de la gouvernance européenne.<p><p><p>The starting point of my doctoral research is that the Classic Community Method, as described in the Lisbon Treaty, does not enable one to understand the manner in which law is currently produced in the European Union. I claim that the Community Method is in fact challenged and transformed by new legal instruments that, far from being isolated initiatives, are part of an alternative model of governance.<p><p>My research adopts a programmatic approach as to identify the features, contours and new forms of normativity of this alternative model. It studies empirically and systematically six European public policies through “an approach by instruments” inspired in the writings of Michel Foucault on "governmentality”.<p><p>This analysis shows that the transformation of the Classic Community method occurs at least at three levels. First, there is a strengthening of the role of private actors and civil society in policy making. Second, the transformation of European public action also lies in the abundant use of new policy instruments - rather technical and political incentives than binding rules (benchmarking) - that involve a systematic collaboration between public and private actors at different levels of decision-making (co-regulation). Third, control and sanctions rely greatly on a “constrained by image” system based primarily on publications of rankings and classifications of good practices.<p><p>After I present the features and contours of this alternative model, my research analyzes the political and legal discourses, as well as the schools of thought (Law and Economics / New Public Management / Deliberative Democracy / Democratic Experimentalism), that justify its existence and, therefore, its legitimacy.<p>Finally, my doctoral work rises the question about the lack of control over these regulatory activities and brings to light the safeguards that should be taken by the European Court of Justice to respect European Union’s Constitutional law<p> / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished