Web Push API .1 Introducción

Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. and Borgatti, S. (1997) ‘A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms’, Academy of

Management Review 22(4): 911–45.

Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E.H. and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (eds) (1997) Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for

the Public Sector. London: Sage.

Kjaer, A.M. (2004) Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Klijn, E-H. and Edelenbos, J. (2007) ‘Meta-governance as Network Management’, in E. Sørensen and J. Torfing, (eds), Theories of Democratic Network

Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan;

pp. 199–214.

Kooiman, J. (1993) ‘Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity’, in Kooiman, J. (ed.), Modern Governance: New

Government–Society Interactions. London: Sage,

pp. 35–48.

Kooiman, J. (2000) ‘Societal Governance: Levels, Models, and Orders of Social-Political Interaction’, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance: Authority,

Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University

Press; pp. 138–64.

Kooiman, J. (2002) ‘Activation in Governance’, in H. Bang, (ed.), Governance, Governmentality and

Democracy. Manchester: Manchester University

Press.

Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance. London: Sage.

Larmour, P. (1997) ‘Models of Governance and Public Administration’, International Political Science

Review 63(4): 383–94.

Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley.

Luhmann, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer

allgemeinen Theorie, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Lütz, S. (2006) Governance in der politischen Okonomie.

Struktur und Wandel des modernen Kapitalismus.

Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Malpas, J. and Wickham, G. (1995) ‘Governance and

Failure: On the Limits of Sociology’, Australian and

New Zealand Journal of Sociology 31(3): 37–50.

Mandelbrot, B. (1982) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Mayntz, R. (1993) ‘Governing Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comments on a Theoretical Paradigm’, in J. Kooiman, (ed.), Modern Governance:

New Government–Society Interactions. London:

Sage; pp. 9–20.

Mayntz, R. (1997) Soziale Dynamik und politische

Steuerung. Theoretische und methodologische Überlegungen. Frankfurt: Campus.

Mayntz, R. (2001) ‘Zur Selektivität der steuerungstheo- retischen Perspektive’, Köln: Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. http://www.mpi-fg-koeln. mpg.de/pu/workpap/wp01-2/wp01-2.html, accessed 27/09/2009.

Mayntz, R. (2003) ‘New Challenges to Governance Theory’, in H. Bang, (ed.), Governance as Social and

Political Communication. Manchester: Manchester

University Press; pp. 27–40.

Mayntz, R. (2004) ‘Governance Theory als fortentwick- elte Steuerungstheorie?’, Köln: Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. http://www. mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/publikation/workpap/wp04-1/ wp04-1.html, accessed 27/09/2009.

Mayntz, R. and Scharpf, F.W. (eds) (1995)

Gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt: Campus.

Meuleman, L. (2008) Public Management and the

Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations. Heidelburg:

Springer.

Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present.

Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Misztal, B. (1996) Trust in Modern Societies. The

Search for the Bases of Social Order. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nooteboom, B. (2002) Trust. Forms, Foundations,

Functions, Failures and Figures. Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar.

Offe, C. (1975a) Berufsbildungreform. Eine Fallstudie

über Reformpolitik, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Offe, C. (1975b) ‘The Theory of the Capitalist State and the Problem of Policy Formation’, in L.N. Lindberg, R. Alford, C. Crouch and C. Offe, (eds), Stress and

Contradiction in Modern Capitalism, Lexington:

D.C. Heath; pp. 125–44.

Peters, B.G. (2008) ‘The Two Futures of Governing: Decentering and Recentering Processes in Governing’, Vienna: Institut für Höhere Studien.

Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: the Collapse and

Revival of American Community. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Rorty, R. (1989) ‘Private Irony and Liberal Hope’, in

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press; pp. 73–95.

Scharpf, F.W. (1994) ‘Games Real Actors Could Play: Positive and Negative Co-ordination in Embedded Negotiations’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 6(1): 27–53.

Sørensen, E. (2006) ‘Metagovernance. The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic

5419-Bevir-Chap-08.indd 122

METAGOVERNANCE 123

Governance’, American Review of Public

Administration 36(1): 98–114.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. eds (2007) Theories of

Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic through Metagovernance’, Public Administration 87(2): 234–58.

Sørensen, E., Torfing, J. and Fotel, T. (2009) ‘Democratic Anchorage of Infrastructural Governance Networks: the Case of the Femern Belt Forum’, Planning Theory 8(3): 282–308.

Teubner, G. (1984) ‘Autopoiesis in Law and Society: A Rejoinder to Blankenburg’, Law and Society

Review 18(2): 291–301.

Teubner, G. (1985) ‘After Legal Instrumentalism? Strategic Models of Post-regulatory Law’,

International Journal of the Sociology of Law 12(4):

375–400.

van Bortel, G. and Mullins, D. (2009) ‘Critical Perspectives on Network Governance in Urban Regeneration, Community Involvement and Integration’, Journal of Housing and the Built

Environment 24: 203–19.

Wallis, J. and Dollery, B. (1999) Market Failure,

Government Failure, Leadership and Public Policy.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Willke, H. (1988) ‘Staatliche Intervention als Kontextsteuerung’, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift

für Gestezgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 3:

214–29.

5419-Bevir-Chap-08.indd 123

As an area of inquiry, state–society relations spans history from the emergence of states as a form of governance in medieval and early modern Europe (Ertman, 1997) to the alter- native trajectories of economic development in contemporary developing countries (Evans, 1995; Kohli, 2004). Two fundamental con- cepts have defined this field. First, state– society relations is partly about the state itself. Despite the notorious elusiveness of ‘stateness’, and the fluctuating fortunes of this concept (Nettl, 1968; Levi, 2002), it has remained useful to identify a set of common organizational, administrative, legal, territo- rial and sociocultural attributes of public authority. Secondly, in contrast with purely statist accounts, state–society relations as a field focuses on the interactions and inter- dependency between the state and society. Among a range of theoretical perspectives, scholars in the field have converged around a broadly similar conclusion that society pro- vides crucial elements of support for a state to be effective, and that a state is critical to collective action in society (Haggard, 1990; Evans, 1995; Migdal, 2001; Kohli, 2002).

From its origins in the Weberian tradition of political sociology, work on state–society relations has inherited several propensities. Regardless of its specific focus, it shares a

predilection for large-scale generalizations about the state and its relation to society. Conceptions of the state itself, bearing the imprint of traditional European state forms, continue to portray it as a hierarchical, Weberian bureaucratic apparatus (Kohli, 2002). Consistent with this view of the state, analysts in the field have characteristically presumed a sharp analytical distinction, if not always an actual separation, between the state and society. In comparative studies that have sought to generalize about encompass- ing contrasts and similarities among nation- states, these approaches to state–society relations remain largely hegemonic.

This chapter demonstrates how these tradi- tional approaches have proven increasingly inadequate to capture the realities of state– society relations. Not only in developed countries but also increasingly beyond them, a variety of trends have progressively altered the Weberian state and the overall patterns of