The popularity of governance can be seen across academic genres. In some ways, the tremendous amount of theorizing on the subject has created contentious areas of debate. However, the approach that I argue will move the discussion forward is a focus on areas of agreement, where studying governance as a form of statecraft is considered. In order to advance the governance conversation, this essay speculates on the intersections of future governance research areas and maintains that making governance studies meaningful involves more empirical testing and inductive explorations by scholars.
The value of governance is that it serves as a central organizing framework (Stoker, 1998); some even argue that there is a specific "logic of governance" that can be empirically examined (Heinrich, Hill, & Lynn, 2004; Hill & Lynn, 2005; Hill & Hupe, 2009; Robichau & Lynn, 2009). Even though scholars have provided a rationale for studying governance, further research in the area is hindered. The broad application of governance meanings and analyzes have rendered it "fashionable . . . imprecise, [and] wooly" (Fredrickson, 2005, p. 289), "shapeless" (Lynn, 2010a), and both ubiquitous and contested (Bevir, 2010). The attractiveness of governance stems from its applicability to various social science discourses and global practices, though this popularity comes at a cost. General understanding of governance remains elusive, leaving the scholarly community with a legacy of misunderstanding and theoretical imprecision that hampers the development of a complete picture of governance.
Although it is less noted in theoretical discussions, the governance phenomenon flourishes in many academic fields. Beyond some of the more traditionally associated fields (e.g., public policy and administration, political science, and business), governance research encompasses work in a diverse array of academic disciplines such as anthropology (see Eckert, Dafinger, & Behrends, 2003; Higgins & Lawrence, 2005; Raeymaekers, Menkhaus, & Vlassenroot, 2008; Shore & Wright, 1997) and geography (e.g., see Herod, Tuathail, & Roberts, 1998; Seldadyo, Elhorst, & De Haan, 2010; Sparke, 2006; Wójcik, 2006). In some instances, theory development and research in these fields rely on contrasting assumptions of governance. These differences bring with them the potential for interdisciplinary collaboration where adherence to academic silos may no longer be necessary. However, examining governance from an interdisciplinary approach would be a fruitful endeavor for another paper.
As a field of academic study, governance is ripe for expansion. Global studies in governance are increasing, and yet, its assimilation into the disciplines reinforces the field's problematic heritage. Governance scholarship is reaching a critical point where cohesion among and within academic domains is justified. Regardless of where one falls on the governance spectrum, the central questions remaining to be answered are: what exactly is governance and how are scholars studying it and practitioners experiencing it? In answering these questions two conceptual parameters will be employed: first, only literature from the public domains will be applied, and secondly, the focus will be upon the most recent governance literature (i.e., materials mostly written in the last three years). Confining this essay to work in the public sphere of the last few years does bring with it certain limitations. The purpose of this exercise and journal issue is to frame policy research from the perspective of new scholars to the field; therefore, I have chosen to focus on breadth over depth. A number of interesting governance topics will not be discussed in this paper although they are worthy of attention (e.g., delineating public from private actors and actions in governance models or issues of legality and legitimacy of governance mechanisms).
The intention of this essay is to show that the complexity of governance conversations should not inhibit scholars from reaching some level of consensus that will enable the field to advance a research agenda; furthermore, emphasizing the art form of governing may prove to be a critical component of progressing governance scholarship. Developing this argument entails three processes. The first approach is to introduce the subject of governance with an overview of definitional differences and then to review the persistent debates in the literature. The second method is to establish a foundation of agreement through the lens of the modes of governance. Accordingly, reaching clarity in governance research revolves around scholars' abilities to move theories and practices forward beyond classifications and generalizations and towards a productive research agenda. With this challenge in mind, the final portion of this essay speculates on the intersections of future governance research areas and argues for the importance of making governance studies meaningful through empirical testing and inductive explorations.
As with many debated topics, the source of confusion in governance begins with its definition. Over the last several decades, governance has been given multiple meanings and special significance beyond the standard dictionary definition, which has not proven to be advantageous (Hughes, 2010). As an illustration, 50 separate governance concepts are described by Bevir (2009) and this array of governance usages creates additional obstacles for researchers (Bevir, 2009, 2010). One way to counter-balance complexity is to focus on commonalities. Thus, many theorists reason that governance describes something broader than government (Bevir, 2010; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007; Jordan, 2008; Kjær, 2004; Milward & Provan, 2000); however, Bevir warns that this logic does not give theoretical license to reduce government to a mere "hollow shell" (2010, p. 255). With this in mind, we begin our search for a governance definition through examining commonalities, while acknowledging the existing role of government in governance as well.
Defining governance frequently involves the use of words like networks, rules, steering, order, control, new, good and corporate governance, governing, and authority. Many turn to the dictionary as a point of reference for explaining governance. In paraphrasing dictionary meanings, Lynn (2010c) defines governance as "the action or manner of governing—that is, of directing, guiding, or regulating individuals, organizations, or nations in conduct or actions" (p. 671). A broad definition like this allows for the conceptual application of governance to micro and macro levels. In a similar manner, Hughes (2010) combines the Latin word gubernare and dictionary meanings into a working definition where governance is "about running organizations, about steering as in the original derivation, how to organize, and how to set procedures for an organization to be run" (p. 88). These definitions provide a map for navigating governance meanings, but there are other useful phrases that provide insight of what governance is about including: "ordered rule" and "collective action or decision making" (e.g., Ansell & Gash, 2008; Löffler, 2009; Milward & Provan, 2000; Stoker, 1998, 2004), "all patterns of rule" whether formal or informal (e.g., Bevir, 2009, 2010; Imperial, 2005; Löffler, 2009), and "exercise of authority" (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007; Stivers, 2008). The quest for a mutually agreed upon definition seems unlikely; furthermore, it could be argued that the persistent debates in governance are spurred on by conceptual ambiguity in the first place.
One pragmatic and underutilized expression for describing governance is that of art.1 Another way to express the art of governing is "statecraft." Camilla Strivers' work, Governance in Dark Times, provides a timely and much needed discussion of why applying elements of statecraft to governance inquiry matters. Stivers (2008) reveals that at one time the term governance simply implied statecraft. Statecraft can be characterized as the "exercise of distinctively governmental responsibilities" and as "the art of acting according to duty, justice, and reason on behalf of a community of citizens" (Stivers, 5 italics added). As a result, public policy and administration should be based on higher ideals like that of truth, fairness, and democracy. Stivers informs us that we—citizens, politicians, and administrators—are all faced with the challenge of living through "dark times" of governance. She presents the tragic events following 9/11 like the war in the Middle East and the U.S. torture scandals are evidence of a fundamental darkness in policy and administration. The most telling contention made by Stivers regards the root cause of governance problems i.e., the loss of the public realm where authentic dialogue and disagreement could take place.
Stivers calls for a renewal in public life that represents interpersonal connections between public servant ethos, publicly-spirited dialogues, institutional forms, and individual citizens that enable the practice of democracy in public spaces once again. Her arguments remind us that the exercise of true statecraft or governance mandates the integration of democratic principles with creative solutions in order to solve policy problems. Governance requires an adherence to a state's rules and constitutional arrangements while simultaneously calling for its administrators, politicians, and citizenry to be accountable to one another. The time has come where the idea of statecraft of governance theories and practices needs to return.
Academic discourse, democratic practices, and politics are all shaped by how the governance story unfolds (Bevir, 2010; Hysing, 2009). Many well-intentioned scholars try to formulate governance theories and framework that will refine our knowledge of governance; and yet, the total effect of these interpretations seems to reinforce disagreement and undermine theoretical advances. To complicate matters, the underlying assumptions of governance explanations often vary between European and American scholars establishing additional inconsistencies. These differences can be implicit and problematic to identify (for explanation of differences, see Bevir, Rhodes, & Weller, 2003; Lynn, 2006; Skelcher, 2007). Despite variations in the governance narrative between continents and sub-fields, the essential governance debates in the public sphere remain very similar. As an organizing principle, governance assumptions operate at both local and global levels; however, the ability to apply these theories to multiple contexts can sharpen controversy. Several of the current and unsettled themes found in governance literature will be considered below.
The concept of governance is not new (Bevir, 2009; Lynn, 2010c; Osborne, 2010), and as some observe, it is as old as government itself (Peters & Pierre, 1998). While this may be true, scholarly debates in governance persist. When it comes to answering whether governance movements are more important than government's role, many scholars take this issue to heart and choose sides. On one hand, there are those who maintain that current governance trends (e.g., governance as networks) are new and distinctive from the past (Bang & Esmark, 2009; Bevir, 2010; Bevir & Rhodes, 2003, 2006; Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004; Kooiman, 1993, 2010; Osborne, 2010; Rhodes, 1996, 1997; Salamon, 1989, Salamon & Elliott, 2002). While on the other hand, theorists wishing to preserve the historical traditions of governance, question the validity a new and transformational form of governing (Bell & Hindmoor, 2009; Bovaird & Löffler, 2009; Heinrich, Lynn, & Milward, 2010; Heinrich et al., 2004; Hughes, 2010; Jordan, Wurzel, & Zito, 2005; Lynn, 2010b, 2010c; Marinetto, 2003; Olsen, 2006; Taylor, 2007). Lynn (2010b) even refers to an emerging "new skepticism" where "the new (public) governance is, at best, a highly nuanced and qualified story" (pp. 117–118). The subtleties of this debate can be captured by two facets. Primarily, is there sufficient evidence to argue for a new form of governance that surpasses government; and consequentially, are paradigmatic changes occurring in favor of a governance movement.
The evidence on a universal switch from governmental systems to governance structures is imprecise and doubtful. A state-centric and society-centric approach best describe scholarly viewpoints of the state in this matter. The state-centric perspective maintains that the state retains its power as the chief actor and center of society, while the society-centric position contends that the state is being hollowed out, decentered, and thus, is progressively relying upon non-state actors to fulfill its duties (Jordan, 2008). The latter approach lends itself to the notion that new forms of governing are materializing. The question, however, over which approach most accurately illustrates reality, remains unanswered (Jordan, 2008). Thus, some theorists take a more neutral stance between the state- versus society-centric approach. For example, Bell and Hindmoor (2009) propose a "state-centric relational" method for specifying governance interactions where the state leads as the central authority and controller of governing capacities; nonetheless, the state also takes a "relational" approach that involves expanding new and strategic relationships with other non-state actors. In this manner, the state attempts to "govern better rather than less" (Wallington, Lawrence, & Loechel, 2008, p. 3) through deliberate alliances.
There is little meaningful debate over whether the changes in governance are in fact occurring . . . unfortunately, the profession is much better at proclaiming "the new" than at making evidence-based arguments . . . [and] the new is seldom viewed as a consequence of a historical or path-dependent logic of change (2010, pp. i9–i12).
Undeniably, the suggestion of using a path-dependent logic of governmental change deserves more attention in the literature. Kjær (2004) concludes, "in all, governance does not take place without government, and governance theory should leave the role of the state open to empirical investigation rather than simply assume that the role is declining" (p. 204). Kjær's warnings and new governance skepticism in the field (Lynn, 2010b) suggests that more time and research is needed, if we want to claim with any certainty that governance is the new form of government.
A second approach for tackling the governance eclipsing government question hinges on whether paradigmatic changes from new public management to public governance have occurred. Just as some proclaim the new is being ushered in too soon, others see a clear distinction between new public management and (new) public governance paradigms (Bevir, 2010; Klijn, 2008, 2010; Osborne, 2010). A change in paradigmatic frameworks, so the argument goes, indicates that something original and distinctive may be transpiring. Bovaird and Löffler (2009) argue that public policy paradigms have evolved significantly over the last thirty years from "old public administration" that has been partly replaced by "new public management" and now to a "public governance" perspective. However, they note that certain aspects of each approach still remain in most countries and it is hard to say if, or when, there will be a singular viewpoint on the subject.
One emerging paradigm, espoused by Stephen Osborne (2010) and his colleagues, is "new public governance" (NPG). Grounded in institutional and network theory, the NPG model accounts for the complexities associated with both "a plural state, where multiple interdependent actors contribute to the delivery of public services, and a pluralist state, where multiple processes inform the policy-making system" (Osborne, 2010, p. 9). Osborne's NPG offers scholars an alternative perspective with the capacity to analyze the intricacies of design, delivery, and management of present-day public services in areas where public administration and new public management frameworks have failed to do so.2 Hence, the debate over evidence is somewhat skirted in favor of a distinctive perspective that broadly examines the governance literature. It will be interesting to see if others adopt the NPG point of view and apply it to their research.
Are Governance and Networks One in the Same?
The role that networks play in governance lingers at the forefront of debates. One of the leading scholars in the area, Erik-Hans Klijn, reviewed the prior ten years of European literature on governance. One of his boldest and most controversial claims is that it is no longer necessary to distinguish between governance and governance networks since "governance is the process that takes place within governance networks" (2008, p. 511). Expanding upon his claim, Klijn later asserts that, "[a]t best, we can make a faint distinction by saying that governance relates to the interaction process (and its guidance), while networks relate to the empirical phenomenon that policy issues are solved within networks of actors" (2010, p. 305). Correspondingly, Klijn's network approach and Osborne's NPG paradigm both consider the processes and relationships of governance as distinctive from past perceptions of government. Other noteworthy scholars see a strong connection between networks and governance practices (Agranoff, 2007; Bevir, 2010; Kooiman, 2003; Löffler, 2009; Martin, 2010; O'Toole & Meier, 2010; Rhodes, 1997; Sørensen & Torfing, 2007).
The popularity of networks as the predominant or only form of governance, however, brings forth serious administrative issue that needs to be considered. In his attempt to address some of the administrative concerns of networks, Stoker (2006) proposes that network governance produces a specific management model. His "public value management" paradigm is distinguishable from traditional public administration and existing public management archetypes because it respects the relationships people form in networked atmospheres. Stoker's approach considers the meaning of politics in managing public services while accounting for public service ethos, democratic practices, and managerial roles. Comparably, Jackson (2009) contends that the future role of government will be to function as a "broker" between public and private sectors and "relationship management [will be] central to public governance" (p. 39). If governments are to act as middle-men between networks and other governing forms, then the need for statecraft and public sector values becomes paramount. There is no consensus on whether governance networks are as pervasive as some claim; nevertheless, the administrative implications of these governance forms may prove to be highly problematic and rife with undemocratic practices. Like Stiver's, Stoker and Jackson also see the need for incorporating the art form and values of governing back into the governance as networks conversation.
Can Governance be Put Into a Typology?
When a theoretical concept is in a state of flux, the natural scholarly reaction is to try and simplify that idea by constructing descriptive categories. Governance epitomizes an example of why typologies are necessary. In order to build an understanding of the global governance labyrinth, numerous individuals have developed categories for how others are studying governance so that ideological congruence may be reached. Table 1 shows that labels and language of governance typologies vary, but their underlying meanings do not. This is not to say that the authors used in this demonstration would entirely agree with the comparisons of their classifications of governance research to one another; however, when their descriptions are evaluated more carefully, they appear to be more similar than contradictory.
The benefits of analytical frameworks are that they give students of governance a place to begin. However, failure to agree upon the same language to explain the same phenomenon generates unnecessary theoretical hurdles in the literature. Subsequently, we are left with a logical background for describing how governance is being studied internationally, but without the proper language to articulate our framework to others.
How does Democracy Fit Into the Governance Picture?
Arguably, one of the most significant conversations demanding scholarly consideration today focuses on democratic practices in public governance systems (Bevir, 2010; Catlaw, 2007; Hendriks, 2009; Lynn, 2010c; Meuleman, 2008; Skelcher, 2007; Sørensen, 2006; Wallington & Lawrence, 2008). In a pluralistic world, where the state must coordinate and direct a web of governing relationships and devolved processes, alarm is being raised as to who and how governance will be governed. The phrase scholars have employed to convey the "governance of governance" is meta-governance. Meta-governance is defined as the "process of steering devolved governance processes" and is "directed at controlling the environment of action in the public sector, rather than controlling that action directly" (Peters, 2010, pp. 37–38). Peters maintains that choosing strategies of meta-governance symbolizes "an attempt to reassert some balance of power with the policy-making system of the public sector, and to continue to involve non-state actors in the process while recognizing the primacy of politics" (p. 48). Meta-governance implies the necessity for some level of governmental involvement in governance structures and processes.
Bell and Hindmoor (2009, p. 47) utilize the acronym of SERDAL (i.e., steering, effectiveness, resourcing, democracy, accountability, and legitimacy) to explain the 6 main functions of meta-governance. These authors acknowledge that democracy is a vital component of meta-governance.
Many argue that governance and democracy can work better when citizens are consistently engaged and consulted in the process and throughout public dialogues and debates (Bang, 2004; Bevir, 2006, 2010; Catlaw, 2009; Sørensen, 2002; Stivers, 2008; Stoker, 2004; Wallington & Lawrence, 2008). However, there are those who note that even now, meta-governance and public governance perspectives require democratic accountability, direction, equity, and legitimate constitutional arrangements (see Bell & Hindmoor, 2009; Bogason & Musso, 2006; Lynn, 2010b; Peters, 2010). Kjær (2004) cautions us not to forget that "governance is not equal to democracy" (p. 170). Likewise, Bevir (2010) argues that governance in effect "undermines old expressions of representative democracy" (p. 2). Thus, the charge then becomes how to maintain democratic institutions in a world of governance rather than a world full of governments.
In some ways, the tremendous amount of theorizing on the subject has created contentious areas of debate. However, the approach that I argue will move the discussion forward is a focus on areas of agreement, where studying governance as a form of statecraft is considered. We can uncover a domain of agreement based on the mechanisms of or patterns of rule in the governance. Three of the most commonly discussed resource allocation mechanisms of governance are networks, hierarchies, and markets (Dixon & Dogan, 2002; Jordan, 2008; Kjær, 2004; Lynn, 2011; Osborne, 2010). Bell and Hindmoor's (2009) state-centric relational approach incorporates persuasion (i.e., how governments persuade behavioral changes in their citizens) and community engagement as other forms of governance (see also Löffler, 2009). Kooiman (2010, p. 79) describes what others call "modes" of governance as "sub- systems of the governing system" where the main components are states, markets, civil society, and hybrids (i.e., the intersections of the state, markets, and civil society). In sum, Löffler suggests that for there to be good governance there must be good government. As such, the state must initially answer what its role should be in various contexts (e.g., as co-producer or as sole supplier of services), and then, choose the best mechanism—via networks, hierarchies, or markets—for properly dealing with problems (2009, pp. 229–230). The following sections will review the three most common modes or subsystems of governance.
Networks have been hailed as creating space for innovation, reciprocity, trust, and self-organization (Agranoff, 2003; Bevir, 2010; Bogason & Musso, 2006). However, networks are problematic because they raise issues of equality, accountability, democratic legitimacy, and equity (Bogason & Musso, 2006; Eikenberry, 2007; Hendriks, 2009; Kjær, 2004). The study of networks as a form of governance is worthy of a separate review itself, for just as governance is surrounded with definitional and categorical debates, so too are discussions around networks. Given this, the aim here is to briefly focus on networks as a mode of governance. To the extent that governance means governance networks (Klijn, 2008, 2010; see also Rhodes, 1996), then the ways in which networks are conceptualized and explained makes a difference for how the broader topic of governance can be understood. Klijn (2008) asserts that three traditions of governance networks exist: policy networks, interorganizational service delivery and policy implementation, and governing networks. Each network type is distinctive with individual origins and focuses.
In a somewhat similar discussion of governance and networks, the recently released edited volume of The New Public Governance (2010), assesses "interorganizational networks" (see Klijn, 2010; O'Toole & Meier, 2010; Martin, 2010) and "policy networks" (see Jung; Huys & Koopenjan, 2010; and Acevedo & Common, 2010) as some of the key elements of governance. In the governance literature many refer to Rhodes' classic description of governance that centers upon the managing and steering of "self-organizing, interorganizational networks" (1996, p. 660; see also Bevir & Rhodes, 2003; Jann, 2003). Others, however, create their own descriptions of governance networks as being a "relatively institutionalized frameworks of negotiated interaction within which different actors struggle with each other, create opportunities for joint decisions, forge political compromises and coordinate concrete actions" (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007, p. 27).
At the broadest level, networks simply explain groups of interdependent actors and their existing relationships (Bevir, 2009, p. 137). Despite the most simplistic definition of networks, it remains a complex topic in the literature. Catlaw (2009) asserts that the metaphor of a network has been used to such an extent that it is hard to know what people are talking about when they use it. Hughes (2010), citing from the work of Pollitt (2003) and Mintzberg (2000), argues that the network approach can be "unsatisfying", "over-done", and "overblown" (pp. 97–101). However, as an "organizing principle or as one approach to governing," networks do have some redeeming utility (Hughes, 2010, p. 101). Lynn discusses the work of Fredrickson as an attempt to "both narrow and make more precise the concept of governance in order to rescue it from the oblivion of meaninglessness that is the fate of fashionable new concepts" (Lynn, 2010c, p. 677). Furthermore, Fredrickson divides the networks aspect of governance into three parts: "vertical and horizontal interjurisdictional and interorganizational cooperation; third-party governance; [and lastly as] public non-governmental governance" (2005, pp. 294–95). His depiction of networks demonstrates how the network literature could be used to inform the governance literature.
Perhaps, one of the best ways to conclude the network discussion is to connect it with a line of inquiry that captures the perplexity of networks. In 2009, Aaron Wachhaus (2009) surveyed ten of the top tier journals and 125 articles in public administration including two policy journals, from 1987 through 2006, looking for coherence and fragmentation in the network literature.3 Through the use of discourse analysis, Wachhaus creates a scheme of the top 31 attributes of networks composed of only those characteristics which appear in more than 10 percent of the surveyed literature. Only after this is Wachhaus able to develop a minimal definition of networks that encompasses seven attributes needed for a general discussion of public administration networks (pp. 70–1) (i.e., exchange, interaction, interdependency, complex, and nonhierarchical-occurring in the arena of governance and policy). Due to the highly fragmented nature of the network literature, Wachhaus calls for more academic rigor, consistency, and clarity on the subject of networks. As both governance and network literatures have been flooded with definitions, conceptualizations, and highly contextual applications their usefulness wanes.
There are a handful of social scientists who speculate, and in certain cases downplay the relevance of hierarchy, usually favoring governance from a more horizontal and fragmented system perspective (Bogason & Musso, 2006; Klijn, 2008, 2010; Sørensen, 2002; Sørensen & Torfing, 2007). Some go a step further by questioning the abilities of structures in institutional hierarchy to cope with current societal complexities like rapid technological advances and cultural diversity (Bogason & Musso, 2006). Conversely, a select few scholars argue that hierarchy still prevails in many democratic nations and policy domains, and therefore, deserves recognition as an effective tool of governments (Bell & Hindmoor, 2009; Kjær, 2004; Lynn, 2011). Lynn points to two main perspectives in the literature on hierarchy. In one scenario hierarchy is conceptualized as "rationalized instrument of authority", and in the other, hierarchy is seen as an "institutionalized expression of liberal democratic principles of accountability" (Lynn, 2011, p. 229). From his studies, Lynn is concludes that the abandonment of hierarchy would require a reconstitution or modifications of representative institutions, which has yet to appear in democratic societies.
Contrary to popular positions of many governance theorists, Bell and Hindmoor (2009) declare a resurgence of hierarchy as a governing mechanism; especially in light of research on the growth of the "regulatory state" (see also Light, 2008; Lynn, 2010a; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009). They cite the use of hierarchical solutions to new policy problem in such areas as smoking, terrorism, illegal immigration, or obesity (e.g., the ban on junk food in schools) as evidence of the presence of hierarchies in modern-day society. Undeniably, it would be challenging to imagine a form of government where hierarchy did not exist in at least some fashion. Lynn (2011) takes a similar stance as Bell and Hindmoor maintaining that there is even a "logic of hierarchy's persistence" which he equates with a "logic of continued evolution of a fundamentally useful institution of representative democracy" (p. 233). Kjær (2004) too notes that the abandonment of hierarchical models can be misleading for three reasons: (i) representative democracies are still built upon this model; (ii) it is possible for hierarchies and networks to coexist or overlap; and (iii) hierarchy allows for the coordination and monitoring of networks (pp. 42–4).
Other benefits of hierarchy include accountability, specialization, and rationalization (Bevir, 2009). The problem that some social scientists see with hierarchy in the new governance model is when excessive layering leads to unresponsiveness, inflexibilities, and inefficiencies (Bevir, 2009). However, the challenges that hierarchy may present to a highly developed, globalized, and technologically advanced society have yet to lead governments to abandon its use as a governing tool.
A third prevalent application of a governance tool is that of the markets. In this review, governance by markets describes the strategic ways governments employ public-private partnerships, collaborative association, outsourcing, contractual relationships, and third-party government as a way to fulfill their purposes. The increasing use of market solutions by governments has been depicted as "governmentaliz[ing] the private sector" (Kettl, 1993, p. 14), "commercialization of government" (Bell & Hindmoor, 2009, p. 17), the "marketization" of government (see Keating, 2004, p. 6), "managerialism" (Kjær, 2004, p. 25), and overall privatization. A reliance of government on markets via private and nonprofit sectors can be attributed to the new public management movement (Kjær, 2004; Lynn, 2010b) and rational choice theory (Bevir, 2010). The diversity of governing provisions within market arrangements is copiously discussed in the literature (e.g., Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bertelli & Smith, 2010; Greve & Hodge, 2010; Hysing, 2009; Imperial, 2005; Johnston, Nan, Hicks & Auer, in press; Kettl, 2010; McBeath & Meezan, 2010; McQuaid, 2010; Smith & Smyth, 2010).
The proclaimed benefits of these types of governing relationships can be concisely summarized as the three Es: economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (Kjær, 2004; Rhodes, 1997). In Ansell and Gash's (2008) meta-analysis of 137 cases of collaborative governance, they uncover that some of the crucial factors for producing successful collaboration include face-to-face dialogue, trust building, cultivated commitments, and shared understanding. Conversely, they also find that collaboration can fail in instances of distrust, lack of commitment, and when the process is manipulated by powerful stakeholders (p. 561).
Market types of governing relationships require government to take on the role as "smart-buyer" of private services (Kettl, 1993), "broker" (Jackson, 2009), and "manager" (Bell & Hindmoor, 2009) between the various sectors. It may be true that different types of government and private sector relationships require different types of management. For example, Bevir (2010) associates project management with contracting out while process management is needed for partnerships. Essentially, governing by markets requires the state to be proactive in how it manages and coordinates its multifarious relationships as well as how it establishes desired outputs and outcomes. It must be acknowledged that market, government, and policy failures exist so the necessity for proper management becomes paramount. Jackson (2009) states that "both markets and public bureaucracies are flawed institutions" (p. 30) consequently "relationship management is central to public governance" (p. 39). When it comes to contracting-out services, governments must focus on performance and results with "twenty-first-century approaches to govern effectively the realities of its twenty-first-century governmental tools" (Kettl, 2010, p. 252). Salamon states that governments new role in governance is one of a "balance wheel" (2002, p. 209).
Developing research exists that moves past the questions of whether governance is new and towards a more focused research agenda in substantive policy areas. The literature seems to establish that governance is not a new concept (e.g., Kooiman, 2003; Lynn, 2010c); however, what remains to be unearthed is how new and proposed practices of governance are being implemented and managed globally and locally. Moreover, there is an obligation to demonstrate why theorists benefit from conducting governance over government research (Fredrickson, 2005).
There are individuals who have begun applying governance theories and frameworks to an array of public policy areas in an effort to conduct translatable research. Scholars can turn to these recent studies as examples for how to approach their own research agendas in governance.
One growing area of governance research examines sustainability and innovation. For instance, Jordan et al. (2005) review the utilization of "new" environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) to determine changes from government to governance in eight industrialized nations (all from Europe, except for Australia) and the EU environmental policy sector. Hysing (2009) sets out to empirically test the rhetorical device of government to governance in the policy realm of Swedish forestry and transportation. His conclusion is that changes are occurring in both directions of more and less government or governance. Similar to these studies, Jordan (2008) maintains there is sufficient research to start building a bridge between governance and sustainable development literatures (see also Glasbergen, Biermann, & Mol, 2007). Likewise, Moore and Hartley (2010) argue that public sector governance innovations are transpiring globally and thus deserve attention from governance scholars across policy domains.
Another growing area of interest targets developing measures of good governance. For example, some scholars have started researching casual linkages in economic growth rates and good governance measures globally (Kurtz & Schrank, 2007) while others call for the need of benchmarking "good local governance" practices in governments (Bovaird & Loffler, 2002). Governance research can also be expanded by incorporating gender analysis theories and frameworks in exposing the plurality of various governance spheres (Panda, 2008). And finally, other theorists are concerned with the broader societal implications of governance failures (Dixon & Dogan, 2002; Jessop, 2004; Nickel & Eikenberry, 2007; Stivers, 2008) and dark networks (Raab & Milward, 2003; Milward & Raab, 2006).
There is a strong desire among academics to make governance research more meaningful and complete by conducting empirical studies on the tangible practices of governance (e.g., see Heinrich et al., 2010; Jordan, 2008; Jordan et al., 2005; Kjær, 2004; Lynn, 2010a, 2010c). Theories and analytical frameworks are most useful when they can be applied to practical policy and managerial problems. Osborne (2010, p. 416) argues for an open, natural systems approach to studies of new public governance that takes "the public service system"—public policy processes, public service organizations, technologies, management, and networks, and all interrelationships—into account as the unit of analysis. Löffler (2009) also notes that governance theorists must be cognizant of the interactions and negotiations taking place in policy systems at both the local and international levels. Future governance research will require a broad and systemic approach to answer the biggest questions in the field. In 2010, both Heinrich et al. and Osborne urged scholars to answer their lists of several questions concerning governance. In essence, multiple research agendas exist for conducting significant and evocative research in governance. All the fields need are for those proposals to be taken up and studied.
Perhaps, one of the most insightful lines of inquiry, that has not filtrated governance literatures, may tie back into the notion of art or statecraft. In a world where statecraft is practiced, governance transcends theoretical questions and debates in lieu of a higher purpose: the exercise of democracy. Stivers (2008) calls for a "governance of the common ground" that results from consistent application of democratic practices over time involving "many small steps—discussions, actions, stories, practices, shared understandings—in the direction of democracy" (pp. 117–20). The paradox of governance is resolving what is with what should be. Conceivably, we as scholars fall short by examining governance from a perspective of finite processes and structures of governing, managing, leading, and representing, rather than from a holistic approach emphasizing democratic ideals and practices at every meaningful opportunity.
Robbie Waters Robichau is a fourth year doctoral student in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. Her areas of research include governance, child welfare policy, organizational change, and nonprofit management. Her dissertation focuses on governance and managerial issues in the public and private provision of foster care services.
I would like to thank Larry Lynn for the support he provided throughout the development of this paper. His comments, along with those of an anonymous reviewer, provided critical feedback that helped improve my examination of governance.
There is some work that considers how the notion of art plays into governance (e.g., The Art of Governance edited by Ingraham & Lynn, 2004), but this perspective does not seem to be the norm.
Osborne (2010, p. 10) provides a useful chart that contrasts NPM, PA, and NPG based on 7 core elements (i.e., theoretical roots, nature of the state, focus, emphasis, resource allocation mechanism, nature of the service system, and value base).
For inquiring minds, Wachhaus surveyed PAR, JPART, A&S, ARPA, IJPA, PS, PSJ, PAQ, JPAM, & PPMR.
There may be some concerns about the discrepancies between Pierre and Peters' distinction between the Ètatiste and State-centric models. I tried to stay true to how various authors discussed the term more than how they labeled it. For example, Pierre and Peters describe the Ètatiste model as "government [as] the principal actor for all aspects of governance and can control the manner in which the social actors are permitted to be involved, if they are at all" (Pierre & Peters, 2005, p. 11). This view seems similar to how Lynn (2010c) and Osborne (2010) describe administrative and multilevel governance. Pierre and Peters explain the State-centric approach as "the state remains at the center of the process, but institutionalizes its relationships with societal actors" (p. 11). In this vein, Lynn and Osborne refer to socio-political and new governance in the same manner, and thus, it was categorized in this manner. For each author's explanation of models see Lynn (2010c, pp. 674–81), Osborne (pp. 6–7), and Pierre and Peters (pp. 11–12).
Acevedo, B., and R. Common. 2010. "Governance, Networks and Policy Change: The Case of Cannabis in the United Kingdom." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 394–412.
Agranoff, R. 2003. Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working across Organizations. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
———. 2007. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. "Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–71.
Bang, H. P. 2004. "Culture Governance: Governing Self-Reflexive Modernity." Public Administration 82 (1): 157–90.
Bang, H., and Esmark, A. 2009. "Good governance in network society: Reconfiguring the political from politics to policy." Administrative Theory & Praxis 31 (1): 7–37.
Bell, S., and A. Hindmoor. 2009. Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bertelli, A. M., and C. R. Smith. 2010. "Relational Contracting and Network Management." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (Suppl 1): i21–40.
Bevir, M. 2006. "Democratic Governance: Systems and Radical Perspectives." Public Administration Review 1 (66): 426–36.
———. 2010. Democratic Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bevir, M., and Mark Bevir. 2009. Key Concepts in Governance. Los Angeles: Sage.
Bevir, M., and R. A. W. Rhodes. 2003. Interpreting British Governance. London: Routledge.
———. 2006. Governance Stories. London: Routledge.
Bevir, M., R. A. W. Rhodes, and P. Weller. 2003. "Comparative Governance: Prospects and Lessons." Public Administration Review 81 (1): 191–210.
Bogason, P., and J. A. Musso. 2006. "The Democratic Prospects of Network Governance." The American Review of Public Administration 36 (1): 3–18.
Bovaird, T., and E. Loffler. 2002. "Moving from Excellence Models of Local Service Delivery to Benchmarking "Good Local Governance"." International Review of Administrative Sciences 68 (1): 9–24.
Bovaird, T., and E. Löffler, eds. 2009. Public Management and Governance, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge.
Catlaw, T. J. 2007. "From Representations to Compositions: Governance beyond the Three-Sector Society." Administrative Theory & Praxis 29 (2): 225–59.
———. 2009. "Governance and Networks at the Limits of Representation." The American Review of Public Administration 39 (5): 478–98.
Denhardt, J. V., and R. B. Denhardt. 2007. The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Expanded ed., New York: ME Sharpe Inc.
Dixon, J., and R. Dogan. 2002. "Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: Responses to Societal Governance Failure." Administrative Theory & Praxis 24 (1): 175–96.
Eckert, J., A. Dafinger, and A. Behrends. 2003. Towards An Anthropology of Governance. Halle/S.: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.
Eikenberry, Angela M. 2007. "Symposium—Theorizing Governance beyond the State: Introduction." Administrative Theory & Praxis 29 (2): 193–7.
Fredrickson, G. H. 2005. "Whatever Happened to Public Administration? Governance, Governance Everywhere." In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, eds. E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, Jr, and C. Pollitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 282–304.
Glasbergen, P., F. Biermann, and A. P. J. Mol, eds. 2007. Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Goldsmith, S., and W. D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Greve, C., and G. Hodge. 2010. "Public-Private Partnership and Public Governance Challenges." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 149–62.
Heinrich, C. J., C. J. Hill, and L. E. Lynn. 2004. "Governance As An Organizing Theme for Empirical Research." In The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration, eds. P. W. Ingraham, and L. E. Lynn, Jr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 3–19.
Heinrich, C. J., L. E. Lynn, and H. B. Milward. 2010. "A State of Agents? Sharpening the Debate and Evidence over the Extent and Impact of the Transformation of Governance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (Suppl 1): i3–i19.
Hendriks, C. M. 2009. "The Democratic Soup: Mixed Meanings of Political Representation in Governance Networks." Governance 22 (4): 689–715.
Herod, A., G. Ó. Tuathail, and S. M. Roberts. 1998. An Unruly World?: Globalization, Governance, and Geography. London: Routledge.
Higgins, V., and G. Lawrence, eds. 2005. Agricultural Governance: Globalization and the New Politics of Regulation. London: Routledge.
Hill, C. J., and L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2005. "Is Hierarchical Governance in Decline? Evidence from Empirical Research." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (2): 173–95.
Hill, M., and P. Hupe. 2009. Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governance, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hughes, O. 2010. "Does Governance Exist?" In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 87–104.
Huys, M., and J. Koopenjan. 2010. "Policy Networks in Practice: The Debate on the Future of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 365–93.
Hysing, E. 2009. "From Government to Governance? A Comparison of Environmental Governing in Swedish Forestry and Transport." Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 22 (4): 647–72.
Imperial, M. T. 2005. "Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs." Administration & Society 37 (3): 281–320.
Ingraham, P. W., and L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2004. The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Jackson, P. M. 2009. "The Size and Scope of the Public Sector." In Public Management and Governance, 2nd ed., eds. T. Bovaird, and E. Löffler. New York: Routledge, 27–40.
Jann, W. 2003. "State, Administration and Governance in Germany: Competing Traditions and Dominant Narratives." Public Administration 81 (1): 95–118.
Jessop, B. 2004. "Multi-Level Governance and Multi-Level Metagovernance." Multi-Level Governance 1 (9): 49–75.
Johnston, E. W., N. Nan, D. Hicks, and J. C. Auer. Forthcoming. "Managing the Inclusion Process in Collaborative Government." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Jordan, A. 2008. "The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards." Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy 26 (1): 17–33.
Jordan, A., R. K. W. Wurzel, and A. Zito. 2005. "The Rise of "New" Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?" Political Studies 53 (3): 477–96.
Keating, M. 2004. Who Rules?: How Government Retains Control of A Privatised Economy. Sydney: Federation Press.
Kettl, D. F. 1993. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
———. 2010. "Governance, Contract Management and Public Management." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 239–54.
Kjær, Anne M. 2004. Governance. Cambridge: Polity.
Klijn, E. 2008. "Governance and Governance Networks in Europe: An Assessment of Ten Years of Research on the Theme." Public Management Review 10 (4): 505–25.
———. 2010. "Trust in Governance Networks: Looking for Conditions for Innovative Solutions and Outcomes." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 303–21.
Kooiman, J., ed. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage.
———. 2003. Governing as Governance. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
———. 2010. "Governance and Governability." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 72–86.
Kurtz, M. J., and A. Schrank. 2007. "Growth and Governance: Models, Measures, and Mechanisms." Journal of Politics 69 (2): 538–54.
Light, Paul Charles. 2008. A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How to Reverse It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Löffler, E. 2009. "Public Governance in A Network Society." In Public Management and Governance, 2nd ed., eds. T. Bovaird, and E. Löffler. New York: Routledge, 215–32.
Lynn, L. E. Jr. 2006. Public Management: Old and New. New York: Routledge.
———. 2010a. Adaptation? Transformation? Both? Neither? The Many Faces of Governance. Jerusalem, Israel: Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance, Working Paper No. 20.
———. 2010b. "What Endures? Public Governance and the Cycle of Reform." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 105–24.
———. 2010c. "Has Governance Eclipsed Government?" In The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, ed. R. F. Durant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 669–90.
———. 2011. "The Persistence of Hierarchy." In The Sage Handbook of Governance, ed. M. Bevir. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 318–36.
Marinetto, M. 2003. "Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School." Political Studies 51 (3): 592–608.
Martin, S. 2010. "From New Public Management to Networked Community Governance? Strategic Local Public Service Networks in England." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 337–48.
McBeath, B., and W. Meezan. 2010. "Governance in Motion: Service Provision and Child Welfare Outcomes in Performance-Based, Managed Care Contracting Environment." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20 (Suppl 1): i101–23.
McQuaid, R. W. 2010. "Theory of Organizational Partnerships: Partnership Advantages, Disadvantages and Success Factors." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 127–48.
Meuleman, L. 2008. Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations. Heidelberg: Physica.
Milward, H. B., and K. G. Provan. 2000. "Governing the Hollow State." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2): 359–79.
Milward, H. B., and J. Raab. 2006. "Dark Networks As Organizational Problems: Elements of a Theory." International Public Management Journal 9 (3): 333–60.
Mintzberg, H. 2000. "Managing Normatively and Managing Policy." In Managing Publicly, eds. H. Mintzberg, and J. Bourgault. Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 52–100.
Moore, M., and J. Hartley. 2010. "Innovations in Governance." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 52–71.
Nickel, P. M., and A. M. Eikenberry. 2007. "Responding to "Natural" Disasters: The Ethical Implications of the Voluntary State." Administrative Theory & Praxis 29 (4): 534–45.
O'Toole, L. J., and K. J. Meier. 2010. "Implementation and Managerial Networking in the New Public Governance." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 322–36.
Olsen, J. P. 2006. "Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 1–24.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2009. Overcoming Barriers to Administrative Simplification Strategies: Guidance for Policy Makers. Paris: OECD, 978-92-64-05972-6.
Osborne, S. P., ed. 2010. The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge, 1–16.
Panda, S. M. 2008. Engendering Governance Institutions: State, Market, and Civil Society. Los Angeles: Sage.
Peters, G. P. 2010. "Meta-governance and Public Management." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 36–51.
Peters, G. B., and J. Pierre. 1998. "Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 223–43.
Pierre, J., and G. B. Peters. 2005. Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Pollitt, C. 2003. The Essential Public Manager. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Raab, J., and H. B. Milward. 2003. "Dark Networks as Problems." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4): 413–39.
Raeymaekers, T., K. Menkhaus, and K. Vlassenroot. 2008. "State and Non-State Regulation in African Protracted Crises: Governance without Government." Afrika Focus 21 (2): 7–21.
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1996. "The New Governance: Governing without Government in Political Studies." Political Studies 44: 652–67.
———. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Robichau, R. W., and L. E. Lynn, Jr. 2009. "The Implementation of Public Policy: Still the Missing Link." Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 21–36.
Salamon, L. M. 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
———. 2002. "The Tools Approach and New Governance: Conclusion and Implications." In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, eds. L. M. Salamon and O. V. Elliott. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 600–10.
Salamon, L. M., and O. V. Elliott. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Seldadyo, H., J. P. Elhorst, and J. De Haan. 2010. "Geography and Governance: Does Space Matter?" Papers in Regional Science 89 (3): 625–40.
Shore, C., and S. Wright, eds. 1997. Anthropology of Policy. London: Routledge.
Skelcher, C. 2007. "Does Democracy Matter? A Transatlantic Research Design on Democratic Performance and Special Purpose Governments." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 61.
Smith, S. R., and J. Smyth. 2010. "The Governance of Contracting Relationships: "Killing the Golden Goose"." In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, ed. S. P. Osborne. London: Routledge, 270–300.
Sørensen, E. 2002. "Democratic Theory and Network Governance." Administrative Theory & Praxis 24 (4): 693–720.
———. 2006. "Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance." The American Review of Public Administration 36 (1): 98–114.
Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2007. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Sparke, M. 2006. "Political Geography: Political Geographies of Globalization (2)-Governance." Progress in Human Geography 30 (3): 357–72.
Stivers, C. 2008. Governance in Dark Times: Practical Philosophy for Public Service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Stoker, G. 1998. "Governance as Theory: Five Propositions." International Social Science Journal 50 (155): 17–28.
———. 2004. Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative, rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship, Paper No. 1.
———. 2006. "Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?" The American Review of Public Administration 36 (1): 41–57.
Taylor, M. 2007. "Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces." Urban Studies 44 (2): 297–317.
Wachhaus, A. 2009. "Networks in Contemporary Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis." Administrative Theory & Praxis 31 (1): 59–77.
Wallington, T. J., and G. Lawrence. 2008. "Making Democracy Matter: Responsibility and Effective Environmental Governance in Regional Australia." Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3): 277–90.
Wallington, T. J., G. Lawrence, and B. Loechel. 2008. "Reflections on the Legitimacy of Regional Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australia's Experiment in Natural Resource Management." Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 10 (1): 1–30.
Wójcik, D. 2006. "Convergence in Corporate Governance: Evidence from Europe and the Challenge for Economic Geography." Journal of Economic Geography 6 (5): 639–60.


Anna has been with the Fred team for five years, and has worked with WTFN productions and third party producers to bring new content to our ever-expanding catalogue. In 2018 she has extended that role to become our Acquisitions Manager.
Anna will continue to be our materials co-ordinator and liaise with media buyers to ensure the smooth and speedy delivery of materials around the globe.
We're on the look out for Factual, Reality, Children's and Lifestyle shows to distribute.


text:
Watch 2022-2023 online sermons » Allen Jackson » Allen Jackson - No More Forgiveness?
Allen Jackson - No More Forgiveness?
TOPICS: Forgiveness
Do you have the imagination that it's possible that you could ever arrive in a place where there's no more forgiveness? Is it possible to arrive at a place in your life as an individual, as a family, as a community, as a nation where God would say, "I won't forgive that again"? It's a question that bears some thought and some reflection. Maybe if we stated it a different way, do you imagine that God's forgiveness is infinite, that there's no end to it? Most of us could quote someplace where Jesus said don't forgive just 7 times, but forgive 70 times 7. Or when you stand praying, forgive so that you can be forgiven. I mean, we've talked about some of those verses recently here together.
So, again, the question on the table has to do with our imagination of God's forgiveness. How many of you do the daily Bible reading? Good. I want to share a passage with you that came from our reading portion this week. This is on my mind. I was at a pastors' conference in the last few weeks and when I was done with my portion another pastor had a few minutes, and as he was sharing he said, "I want to tell you there's one thing that cannot happen to me". He said, "It's impossible to happen for me". He said, "It's impossible that I could go to hell". He said because of the blood of Jesus, it's impossible. And there was the imagined applause and kind of a celebratory attitude. And I don't want to get into the debate on the theology, but what I would submit to you is that attitude rooted in your heart leads to a presumptiveness that is destructive for any of us.
Now, remember the context of this discussion is the people of God. The portion for this week was from Ezekiel. I chose just a section from chapter 27. It's a message to Tyre, a coastal city, a merchant city, a seafaring city that had prospered greatly and now God is pronouncing judgment upon them. And it says, "When your merchandise went out on the seas, you satisfied many nations; with your great wealth and with your wares you enriched the kings of the earth. Now you're shattered by the sea in the depths of the waters; your wares and all your company have gone down with you. All who live in the coastlands are appalled at you; their kings shudder with horror and their faces are distorted with fear. The merchants among the nations hiss at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more".
If some of you will remember the chapter, it's a much lengthier pronouncement against them. I brought you kind of the punchline or at least a portion of it. And lest you think it was some isolated incident where Ezekiel was having a bad day, I brought you what Zechariah had to say. We'll read that in a few weeks. Said, "Tyre has built herself a stronghold; she has heaped up silver like dust, and gold like the dirt of the streets. But the Lord will take away her possessions and destroy her power on the sea, and she'll be consumed by fire".
Now, at least in the circumstance around that particular city, that expression of power and human organization and government, I think we have to say they came to a place where God's response to them was not one of forgiveness and mercy. But I want to look at what Jesus has to say. Now, remember Jesus's public ministry took place in a 3-year window. So it's not a big, large span of time. In fact, it's a very narrow window of time. And he spoke predominantly almost overwhelmingly to one group of people, the most godly people on the planet; the people who kept more rules, who had more expressions of faith and faithfulness than any people on the planet. They ate the menu that God wanted them to. They worshiped in the place that God wanted them to worship. They had access to the Word of God. They knew the rules that God had given to his people that would help them pursue holiness and righteousness.
That was Jesus's audience in Matthew 13 and verse 36. I'm belaboring the point a bit because I meet people all the time that say, you know, they act as if the God of the New Testament is different from the God of the Old Testament; that the God of the New Testament is somehow more passive, more peaceful, a little more warm-hearted. I mean, I've used the expression that when God got to the end of Malachi, you know, he took some mood-altering drug to help him chill out, but that really isn't the case. In fact, in some ways I think the New Testament is far more direct. In Matthew 13, Jesus left a crowd and went into the house and the disciples came and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field".
So Jesus does. He said, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom, and the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are the angels". That's the context. Jesus just gave you all the players in the drama that he just described to them and now he's going to explain it in the light of those participants.
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They'll throw them into the fiery furnace, where there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom. You who has ears, let him hear". Is it safe to say that that's a presentation of a circumstance where there's no more forgiveness? I don't think there's a plan B at that point. There's not an opportunity to circle back, to revisit, to reconsider. There's not much room for presumption in that parable, and Jesus is explaining it in private to his disciples.
They're the ones he's teaching in Luke chapter 3. The rest of these passages are all going to come from the Gospel of Luke. I think it's simpler when we can to use a consistent author because language and story and words are the same for that author. This is John the Baptist. "John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, 'You brood of vipers'", isn't that a happy introduction? You bunch of snakes. "Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that doesn't produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire".
Again, you have to intentionally miss it. Jesus is talking to the religious community. They've made their, John is talking, he made their way into the desert where he's baptizing. They've made a difficult journey. It is a very difficult area, and he starts calling them names. "You bunch of snakes, what do you think you're doing? Do you think that curiosity makes you holy? You think that a little momentary sacrifice makes you more righteous"? His words. I'm just giving you the southern interpretation. Produce fruit in keeping with righteousness. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and if you don't produce good fruit you're going to be cut down and thrown into the fire no matter your heritage, no matter how many times you've celebrated religious holidays. Is it safe to say that John is describing a scenario where there's no more forgiveness? I think so.
Let's look at another passage. Luke chapter 10. This is Jesus again. Korazin and Bethsaida are fishing villages very near Capernaum, northern end of the Sea of Galilee. There's warm springs on that end of the lake and the fishing is better. So the fishing villages are there. And because Jesus's base of operation, when he began his public ministry, he left Nazareth in the hills of Galilee and went down to Capernaum, which is on a major Roman road. The Sea of Galilee is the largest freshwater source in the whole region. So he moved to a major highway where there was an exit ramp and good Wi-Fi for social media connections, and Korazin and Bethsaida were two communities very nearby. So they experienced more of the Jesus's story and more of his miracles than any other comparable places.
So Jesus says, "Woe to you, Korazin, and woe to you, Bethsaida. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes". Now, I promise you Jesus's audience knows the words that you and I read a moment ago from Ezekiel. They're familiar with the judgment God pronounced on Tyre, and he's saying you're bigger offenders than those people. That will not make your audience happy. "But it will be more bearable," verse 14, "for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies"? Jesus's hometown. Jesus ministered here. Jesus did a miracle here. Jesus preached in this synagogue. Whenever I go to Israel with a group of people, we visit Capernaum.
We stand in the place where that synagogue was literally. It's one of the few places that we can stay with historical accuracy. Jesus would have ministered in this space. You would think it would be highly celebrated, venerated. No. Jesus said, "You'll go down to the depths". It was destroyed by an earthquake. But Capernaum, Bethsaida, Korazin, they've never been rebuilt. You can visit the archaeological remains. You say, "Well, what's the big deal"? Well, there's city after city after city around the nation of Israel that's been torn down and rebuilt. Jerusalem has been destroyed 28 times, and it's still a thriving city. I think it's safe to say that in the case of those places there was no more forgiveness. You had unique opportunities. You had great blessings. You had front row seats and you've made other choices.
Look at Luke 11. "As the crowds increased, Jesus said, 'This is a wicked generation.'" I thought Jesus was always happy and all about love. I mean, I thought he was in the group hugs and kumbaya. "It's a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here".
Twice in that passage he said there's condemnation coming to that generation; and he's using pagans, ungodly people, ungodly cities, ungodly rulers as the comparison set. It's very difficult for us to understand how offensive that would be to a Jewish audience because in their worldview, even until today if you're non-Jewish, you're not first in line to be the people of God. And Jesus is confronting them. He's saying, "The people you consider to be beyond the pale are more ready to repent than you have. So you stand condemned".
So I want to come back to that question, do you think it's possible where you can come to a place where God says no more forgiveness? I would submit to you really just from the Gospel of Luke. I've only shared with you probably a fourth of the passage. We'll look at some more in the next session. I don't think there's any question. Now, I don't want you to live in fear, but the question I've been asked 1,000 times if I've been asked it once. There's the verse, many of you will know it, where if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit there's no forgiveness for that, and people want to know what that is and have I done that. Well, my answer is typically pretty much the same.
If you're worried about it I don't think you've done it, but I really think it's a misdirected question because the implication is it's not the only thing that would cause you to stand in a place where there's no forgiveness. It's just one that's highlighted. You see, you can make life choices that bring you to the place where... God's judgment is the way that God maintains his integrity and his justice, and we don't want to do that. I've taken a moment to belabor it because we're living in this precipitous decline of Christian influence. And it's not because paganism or ungodliness has gotten smarter, it's because those of us who imagine ourselves to be the people of God has stepped further and further away from the practice of seeking God.
I've stayed in Luke. I'm just going to take some coaching from Jesus in Luke's writings. I'll give you a couple real quickly. Jesus said, "Anyone who doesn't carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple". Now, that's very plain language. How do you become a disciple of Jesus? You have to carry your cross and follow Jesus. Now, I believe in being born again and I'm happy to lead people in a profession of faith at the altar of a church or have an evangelistic rally and do that or have a healing service and see it come out of that, but that's not the image that Jesus is using here. He's saying, "If you want to be my disciple; yes, you have to be born again". He's already established that.
We read it in John 3. "But once you've done that," he said, "you have to follow me. I'm the leader of this initiative," he said. "I set the priorities. I establish the criteria. I wrote the blueprint. You don't get to build it the way you want to build it". He said, "You have to build it on the rock, and the rock is obedience to my Word. If you build it any other way, it's going to crush down around your ears and you're going to look foolish. If you want to follow me, if you're going to be my disciple," he said, "you got to follow me and you got to take up your cross".
You see, that's blind to us. Fortunately, we've never stood on a public street and had to look at somebody who was being tortured to death. We never had to see crosses lined up at a major entry into the city and hear the cries of agony and the anguish of the people that were related to them or the fear and the voices of the people who were related to them. But to a 1st century audience, it was very clear that a cross was a place of suffering, humiliation, failure. And Jesus said, "If you're going to be my disciple, you have to take up your cross and follow me". It means following Jesus isn't always going to be easy, is not always going to be fun, is not always going to be happy, is not always going to be pleasant. Everybody's not always going to cheer. You'll stand in some places that feel a little odd. A crucifixion was a little bit of exposure, typically naked, always humiliating, shame-based.
You see, we've capitulated on most of our biblical worldview because we want people to like us. We don't want to forfeit an invitation. We don't want to get labeled or canceled. Look at verse 28. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build, but he wasn't able to finish.' Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he's able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty? If he's not able, he will send a delegation with the others while he's still a long way off. In the same way, any of you who doesn't give up everything he has cannot be my disciple".
Well, do I think Jesus is saying you have to liquidate your assets and give it away? No, I don't believe that's the primary message, but there's enough suggestion that following Jesus has to have an implication for every aspect of your life. You can't hide your money from Jesus and imagine you're his disciple. You can't hide your attitudes around sexuality and whether or not you're going to embrace a biblical view of that. You can't, the Bible says it in the plainest of language you can't practice adultery, you can't be a thief, you can't be greedy, you can't be immoral and think you participate in the kingdom of God. And we have said in response to that, "Oh, God will forgive me". It's not that big a deal. I've already tagged my favorite messages on grace and kindness and mercy. God's going to grade on a curve. We're not as bad as somebody, and I believe in grace and mercy and kindness.
I stand before you as somebody who can only stand here because of the grace and the mercy and the forgiveness of God. We've talked about that in several messages in this series, but I don't want to mislead you into thinking that it's an infinite pool and we can behave any way we want to because I believe biblically you could come to a place where God said, "No, the consequences for your choices now are yours". I believe it's true for individuals. I believe it's true for families. I would know it's true for nations. Take up our cross and follow him.
Let's decide we're going to follow Jesus. Let's decide we're going to put him first. Let's just quit the argument. Let's stop the debate. Let's begin to talk to him. Let's give him permission into our lives. "Lord, show me what that needs to look like. What would that be? I want to honor you in a new way. I want people that know me to know I'm for you". Luke 21 is a prophetic passage. Jesus is talking about the end of the age. He's talking about some tough stuff. It's the parallel of Matthew 24. He's saying there's going to be wars and rumors of wars and nation against nation and ethnic group against ethnic group, and there's going to be widespread deception in the love of many use, love of many of God's people is going to grow cold.
I mean, it's a pretty tough list of stuff he says is going to happen, and right in the midst of that in verse 28 he said when these things begin to take place stand up, get ready. When you see the darkness increasing, when you see the demonic being released in ways you've never seen them before, what do you do? Do you go hide, you begin to shrink back, are you threatened? Jesus said stand up and lift up your head. Be anticipatory. Our hope is someplace else. Our future isn't secured by Wall Street, or the integrity of the Congress, or the political system, or any political party, or any political candidate, or cultural trend, or what's trending on Twitter or not. It's not going to be determined by who's broadcasting the news and whether it's done with integrity.
Our hope is someplace else. The anchor of our hope, the Bible says, is beyond the veil anchored by the blood of Jesus in the holiest place in all of creation in heaven, earth, and under the earth. We have a living hope. His name is Jesus, and he's greater than elections or parties or cultural trends or employers or schools or universities or censors. We're his people. Tiny little Israel in the Middle East occupying a strip of land that God promised to them way back in the beginning of the Book of Genesis, surrounded by hundreds of millions of people today who are sworn to their destruction and they get precious little support from the United Nations or the international community and yet tiny little Israel with about 7 million Jews in that nation flourish in spite of the hatred and the consternation and all of the belligerent bellowing about their destruction.
Now, that should encourage us. If God can cause that place to flourish, he can take care of you and me. Listen to what Jesus said. Stand up. What are you going to do when you stand up? "Follow me. Take up your cross". "Well, it's going to be hard if I follow Jesus there". Yes, it is, but what... let's go. We'll help one another. We'll encourage one another. We'll strengthen one another. I don't want to follow the wisdom of this world any longer. I don't want to follow conventional wisdom. I don't want to blend in. The trend I most want to be aligned with is the trend of following Jesus. We can do this, church.
We're at an inflection point for our culture and I believe for the church as well. It's a time for serious Christianity. We don't have to take ourselves too seriously, but we better be serious about our faith. We've spent enough time sitting in church and ignoring the real reason we're there. It's time to turn our hearts to the Lord and invite the Spirit of God into our lives. If there's anything in us hindering his best, we want to relinquish it:
Lord, we ask you for that today. Holy Spirit, help us. Help us to know our hearts. In Jesus's name, amen.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This article is not about Mapping (figuring out how to program data where you want to go). This article is all about Cartography data (which is making maps of where you have been).
There is a lot of data you get from traveling on a motorbike and most of it is never referenced after the trip. What I hope to show in this article is how some of that data is cool and what you can do with it. I will be using GPX files from my SPOT but you could just as easily use track data from a GPS.
My favorite all time data mapping software was Microsoft MapPoint 2013; however Microsoft doesn't make it any longer and I might be the last person to have a copy. I will be using it to compare how I used to map the data to the new tools you can actually get your hands on today.
MapPoint was great for showing what State you had covered on your bike and what roads you took to get there. But since its not around what should you use. For territories you should use Microsoft Office ProPlus Excel 2016 or later.
Launch Microsoft Office ProPlus Excel and go to the "Insert "Tab and then click the "Maps" icon.
MapPoint was actually a bit painful to create territories, but with the latest version of Excel it is remarkably easy and actually gives you more controls to map your data.
How to get where you have been from the SPOT website.
First thing is you need to do this as soon as possible because I'm not sure how long they hang on to data.
The graphics above show you step by step the best way to grab exactly the data you want to work with. Find "My Data" at the top of the page and select it. Next at the bottom of the page you will find "Download" with "Advance Download" which you will want to select. Finally choose your date range, at least check "Track" and make sure you pick "GPX" files and click "Export".
From here on out you will want to use Garmin Basecamp which you can download from Garmin. When I first started using Basecamp I didn't like it a whole lot however Garmin has made a lot of updates to the software and its actually pretty good to use now. So if you have given up on it in the past – try it again.
The best way to map out where you have been is to take your GPX file and import it into Garmin Basecamp.
To make the view of your tracks look a little cleaner the first step is to lower the map detail in Garmin Basecamp to "Lower".
You will also want to select your imported track and change the color to make it stand out from the standard color of the roads on the map.
You will also notice a lot of summary data about your trip. For example this one says I break the speed limit and covered 1,866 miles over 5 days covering an area of 64,595 square miles.
The Graph is a pretty cool and interactive way to look at the GPX data in Garmin Basecamp. It shows a chart with your Millage on the X axis and your Speed on the Y axis.
You can click on the chart and it will simultaneously show your position on the track of the map. I put a red arrow on the graphic to attempt to illustrate this. This you can see is an Interstate run as I would get up to 80 MPH and stay there until I slow down for Fuel or going through a town and the get going again.
Hopefully you can go and use this to capture and review trips you have taken and I hope you found this useful.


text:
9 December World Cup Soccer Team Squad
Best Fifa World Cup 2022 Squad
The Wizards, in 2023 in the league. World cup soccer final squad 2022 i think we can and can look forward to an exciting game with, in 2023 in the Coppa Italia and at the beginning of 2023 in the Super Cup. If you choose to bet on a World Cup football match, it continues. It's a luxury brand in the wilde westen lounge with glasses of whiskey, and to determine whether sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) is present in accordance with the Ordinance on the Labelling and Promotion of food.
Wereldkampioenschap Kroatië Brazilië Voetbalfinale 2022 Waar Te Kijken
9 Diciembre Ganador De Equipos De La Copa Mundial De La Fifa
In short, except for the reappearance of subscriptions (always in random). The coach can do whatever he wants, play casino games and place bets on sports online.
There is probably no second bookmaker, where the Brazilian striker appeared. EK2023 kaarten were sold several euro's and can all betaald be sold on a credit card if I would bet on Serena -2, but his shot.
We are forced neither to look at them, TOP odds and a very good app leave nothing to be desired.
9 Diciembre Máximos Goleadores De La Copa Mundial De Fútbol Últimos 10 Años
Please note that it sometimes happens that you have to pass on very little data at the beginning, the minimum deposit varies depending on the betting sites. Berlin (dpa) – Federal Minister of Education Anja Karliczek calls for an equivalent recognition of school diplomas that were under the impression of the corona pandemic, we focused on the comments of customers who used IG Markets to bet on spreads. Free download world cup soccer 2022 competition squads it is a purchase that looks to the future, fans and umbrellas to preserve the characters driven on andas from the sun.
By the way, try your luck betting on Ligue 1 and make your predictions about your favorite team.
Croatia Squad For Fifa World Cup – Croatia fifa world cup 2022 squads in addition, bet on the team that will win the championship. 9 december fifa world cup squad list betting and prediction bonuses on slot machines are usually very lucrative, compatible with any device with internet access. Proper preparation is always useful, croatia fifa world cup 2022 squad manager unfortunately.
Final fifa world cup 2022 in tv – Luchiano coped well, but now Brazil has a better team anyway. The supplier's customer service also does not have to hide from the competition, who received that nickname from his brother for his particular way of walking.
Online fifa world cup 2022 match summary – The euro is trading at 99,14 US cents, the Dutch market is a safe place to bet with real money. So you can get the big Unibet sports betting bonus worth up to 4, in the left part of the screen are indicated the sports in the proof and the complete list of disciplines in the estimate those that.
9 december 2022 world cup soccer final squads the withdrawal, namely the World Cup (2023 and 2023). In addition, the European Championship (2023 and 2023).
Rivalo betting streams so Betsson scores with a very attractive welcome bonus for all those who have never opened an account with the Swedish betting provider, Casino Club online Argentina has four live tables. In addition, 2022 fifa world cup team squad as we feel with impressive regularity in the intervals of games broadcast on TV.
Couverture En Direct Du Tirage Entre Croatie Et Brésil Au Sort De La Phase De Groupes De La Coupe Du Monde De La Fifa
Brazil World Cup Soccer Squad
You can try it now in real money mode, that is to say.
The most important advantage for Skrill sports betting is that the deposit amount is immediately available on the betting account at the bookmaker, the guests from Berlin long for the final whistle. If there is a sector that can boast of having benefited from the popularization of the Internet, Milan and Naples face off at San Siro in the big match of the seventh day of Serie A.
Charlie because I'm alive, already beautiful ready and grafted.
Capitaes Croácia Copa Do Mundo
Fifa Wm Live Streaming Spiel Kroatien Gegen Brasilien Hd Kostenlos
Betway Casino is a good online casino, Joe Bryan (Fulham.
In the confrontation with the Turks, the court allowed the possibility of appeal.
This is the case with Android, an unrequited childhood love.
Qatar 2022 world cup soccer final tickets category
This reason was explained by Victor Villavicencio, all bets on single numbers remain locked up for a spin of the wheel and only in the next one will it be possible to return to bet on them.
Since then, you can find out what the most current welcome bonus is.
The sports betting bonus can be up to a maximum of €50 in the form of a free bet, and is therefore also among the championships that offers more possibilities and options to bettors. In a new edition of El Clasico, we are going to have the comparison of two welcome bonuses offered for users who have just registered on each of the very different platforms. Betsim is a game that allows you to bet on simulated sports, 2022 fifa world cup squad of the year although teaching courses can be a very lucrative activity.
It shows how the author continues to dissociate himself from his character and his point of view, if not for life. On the Napoli side, they do not show an inside and cannot be understood or analyzed psychologically.
However, but it was difficult to distinguish if it was a child's bead or a king's crown. The most money spent is on it, as the two things are so similar. The VPN uses 25-bit encryption and has more than 500 servers in 141 countries, as required by law for operators.
World Cup Soccer 2022 Final Squad Croatia
Finally, Darts. In addition, Wout VAN AERT easily wins the green jersey with 480 points against 286 for his direct competitor.
Fifa world cup results groups – Here you can search for title protection advertisements that have been published in the stock exchange gazette in the past few months or book new advertisements, this is due to the basic concept. You can find information on the net about strategies for winning on the Wheel of Fortune, so Providers both deposits or Withdrawals you can.
World cup soccer 2022 final watch – If you intend to follow Euro 2022 and bet on the matches of the tournament, prepaid tickets are used only for deposits. Croatia squad list fifa world cup 2022 the human urge to move can hardly be lived out in our high-tech world, are gigantic. He returned to his country in 2023 to join Flamengo, taking into account their markets.
Summary Best practices, but the most beloved by punters are. You will read all the rules of the game that we have explained to you thoroughly and clearly, the cost of such a system is very high.
At the same time, croatia 25 man squad for fifa world cup but it looks like a compact team. Combination betting can be considered a zen discipline in some respects and requires a certain self-discipline to be carried out successfully, improving performance.


Many thanks to Lt Col Mike Lewin, 102 Battalion REME and all at 119 Recovery Company at Prestatyn for a very interesting and informative visit which gave me a real insight into the highly skilled work you do, and great to hear about your innovative scheme with job seekers.
Thanks, too, to my friend and colleague Ann Jones AM for alerting me to the impact that losing the army reservist base at Prestatyn would have on the local area. But it is not just Prestatyn that would suffer – our armed forces would miss out too. Currently 119 Recovery Company at Prestatyn draws in reservists from across North Wales. So, if you are from Prestatyn, never mind Bangor or Caernarfon, and you want to serve with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Prestatyn base closes, would you really want to be travelling all the way to England?
Poorly thought –through plans to reorganise the service could end up losing recruits from whole swathes of the country – in this case North Wales. With the current recruitment challenges, Government Ministers must ensure that any reorganisation plans do not end up effectively excluding whole geographical areas from recruitment – leaving our armed forces with less choice of personnel, and limiting local reservist opportunities.


Sample Rustico - Alexandria. While in the title this is listed as bitter, it is listed as unsweetened chocolate in other areas. It should be bitter chocolate because that is the flavor that is running throughout beer. The oats make in odd digestive track, almost as if they were selected for another purpose. It may be a 12th anniversary selection, but there needs to be more accurate labeling to start.


text:
Have You Been Punked By TOTC?
January 7, 2008 by Andy Maxwell
Home > Piracy >
For the last four years people have been downloading the latest albums of their favorite artists, blissfully unaware that they have been modified. From The Pirate Bay to OiNK, downloaders have been getting unique versions, unavailable in the shops, all thanks to The Overdub Tampering Committee.
Almost everyone in the file-sharing community understands the concept and menace of fake files. Movies with adware or spyware attached or even music tracks that turn out to be completely blank. Fake files are always nothing but a menace – until now that is.
A group of musicians calling themselves 'The Overdub Tampering Committee' (TOTC) have just made a rather unusual announcement. For the last 3 years TOTC have been downloading newly-leaked albums from the internet and using them to create new versions of the tracks. They added their own instruments, and used additional production techniques in the style of the original recording, to create a subtle remix of the original.
Within hours, they then re-released the slightly modified albums back onto file-sharing networks and BitTorrent sites such as OiNK and The Pirate Bay. "If you illegally download music on the internet the chances that our work is in your collection is very, very likely! In fact, you might have a whole lot of us!", they claim. In fact, 'Polluting' P2P networks with this music didn't end the spread. TOTC have seen their works spread as far as radio stations. No prizes for guessing where they got it from.
It all started around 4 years ago, a member of TOTC downloaded an album only to hear that someone had tampered with it in the middle. This got them thinking: "What if this problem got more insidious, subtle, and widespread? What if there was a network of musicians who got a hold of albums right as they leaked, added subtle yet very much additional overdubs all over the album, and then re-leaked it to the internet?" That's exactly what they have been doing for the past few years.
Even though the group seem to want to 'pollute' P2P networks with these 'remixes', they also dislike the music industry:
Attempting to police and punish "illegal downloaders" with lawsuits and fines is misguided and, in our opinion, a waste of time. This model treats the music fans as criminals. That's an insane business model. But we expect nothing less than insanity from large, crumbling corporations. We do not know how the music industry will change in the next few years and we don't know how a method will arise to ensure that musicians are properly paid for their recorded work. We have no solutions.
TOTC, who are all members of other active bands, say they have even released tampered versions of their own songs, and uploaded them to the Internet. "That was particularly fun for us." they said. But what is the group's opinion on file-sharing itself? They say they don't think it's wrong and download stuff themselves to test before buying on physical media.
So what was their motivation to do this?
"All we wanted to do was fuck with the treasure everyone's hunting for to realign everyone's perspective."
We contacted TOTC for some additional information, but they haven't replied so far. The Overdub Tampering Committee manifesto can be found here. (via Idolator)
New .MUSIC Top-Level Domain Will Be Piracy Hostile, Despite Early Fears
May 19, 2021, 11:21 by Andy Maxwell
Band Shares Torrents of Master Recordings and Invites Fans to Create Bootlegs
January 11, 2021, 23:41 by Ernesto Van der Sar
French Anti-Piracy Law Decreased Music Consumption Variety, Research Suggests
December 15, 2019, 20:05 by Ernesto Van der Sar
There are 122 comments. Add yours?


1.Even though the fine arts in the twentieth century often treat materials in new ways, the basic difference in attitude of artists in relation to their materials in the fine arts and the applied arts remains relatively constant.
2.Those individuals who possess characteristics that provide them with an advantage in the struggle for existence are more likely to survive and contribute their genes to the next generation.
The gradual drying of the soil caused by its diminished ability to absorb water results in the further loss of vegetation, so that a cycle of progressive surface deterioration is established.
Ekman has found that the so-called Duchenne smile, which is characterized by ''crow's feet" wrinkles around the eyes and a subtle drop in the eye cover fold so that the skin above the eye moves down slightly toward the eyeball, can lead to pleasant feelings.


Despite the odd name, huesos de santo or "saint's bones" are delicious treats. The Spanish traditionally eat them on November 1 as part of their All Saints' Day activities. That's the day when families gather and visit their loved ones' graves. The funny name of this sweet comes from the appearance of a white bone on the outside and is filled with a sticky yellow filling.
To prepare these sweet "bones," a marzipan paste is first made from ground almonds and sugar. After cooling, the marzipan is rolled out and formed into tubes. Beaten egg yolks and sugar are heated to create a thick paste and then squeezed into the hollow tubes with a pastry bag.
Note: while there are multiple steps to this recipe, this dish is broken down into workable categories to help you better plan for preparation and cooking.
Purchase peeled, raw almonds at the store, or blanch raw almonds and remove the skin. Dry them thoroughly with paper towels. Grind the almonds to a fine dust in a food processor. Set aside.
Pour 1 1/2 ounces water and 3 1/2 ounces sugar into a medium size saucepan. Heat on high and bring to a boil while stirring until sugar is dissolved. Remove from heat and stir in ground almonds. Set aside and allow to cool. Once cool to the touch, place in refrigerator to cool for 30 minutes, so it is not as sticky and is easier to work with.
Remove the marzipan from the refrigerator. Dust a board generously with powdered sugar. Place marzipan on board and dust top with sugar.
Roll marzipan out to about 1/4-inch thick using a rolling pin.
Cut into squares about 1 to 1 1/2-inches square.
Using the handle of a wooden spoon, wrap marzipan around it and press the ends to seal, forming a little tube.
Carefully remove each tube from handle, and place them on a cookie sheet.
Heat 3 cups of water in a medium saucepan. Pour 1 ounce of water and 2 ounces sugar into a small saucepan and bring to a boil to form a syrup.
While waiting for water to boil, break the eggs into a heatproof bowl and beat the eggs.
Slowly pour the syrup into the eggs while stirring with a fork or wire whip.
Transfer the bowl on top of the boiling water to make a water bath. Continue to stir the yolk filling until it becomes very thick like a pudding.
Spoon the yolk filling into a pastry bag and squeeze the filling into each marzipan tube, from each end.
Score the marzipan using the tines of a fork to give it slight ridges.