“…More generally, governance is vulnerable because it has been associated in many of its manifestations with a broader focus on depoliticization and a preference for technocratic decision-making (Fawcett et al, 2017). In Europe, responding to the totalitarian experiences of the interwar years, those elites rebuilding democracy wanted to divide power, develop strong legal protections and move decision-making to supranational bodies to avoid the nationalist failings of the past.…”
Section: Governance: Sowing the Seeds Of Its Own Destruction?mentioning
The governance paradigm has provided a dominant way of thinking about how to govern and found reflection in practice with the increased use of partnerships, networks, and markets to deliver public services and programmes. The emergence of populism as a political force, however, calls into question the thinking behind the governance paradigm and some of its favoured tools for governing. Populism sees the task of governing in very different terms to that of the advocates and practitioners of governance. This article explores the populist challenge to governance. It shows that gaps in its analysis of a changed environment left the governance paradigm potentially open to populist attack. It explores how the governance paradigm might adapt to survive by developing either a more technical or political dynamic to its presentation.
“…More generally, governance is vulnerable because it has been associated in many of its manifestations with a broader focus on depoliticization and a preference for technocratic decision-making (Fawcett et al, 2017). In Europe, responding to the totalitarian experiences of the interwar years, those elites rebuilding democracy wanted to divide power, develop strong legal protections and move decision-making to supranational bodies to avoid the nationalist failings of the past.…”
Section: Governance: Sowing the Seeds Of Its Own Destruction?mentioning
The governance paradigm has provided a dominant way of thinking about how to govern and found reflection in practice with the increased use of partnerships, networks, and markets to deliver public services and programmes. The emergence of populism as a political force, however, calls into question the thinking behind the governance paradigm and some of its favoured tools for governing. Populism sees the task of governing in very different terms to that of the advocates and practitioners of governance. This article explores the populist challenge to governance. It shows that gaps in its analysis of a changed environment left the governance paradigm potentially open to populist attack. It explores how the governance paradigm might adapt to survive by developing either a more technical or political dynamic to its presentation.
“…As a social scientist I have been trained to operate with a currency of facts, but what if feelings trump facts? The initial source for this question lay in title of Paula Ionide's brilliant book -The Emotional Politics of Racism: How feelings trump facts in an era of colorblindnessbut this rather haunting thought preoccupied my mind throughout the UKIP surge in 2014 and 2015, it gripped me as I witnessed the rise of populist nationalism across Western Europe and the UK's Brexit referendum in 2016, and it really haunted me as I watched the election of Donald Trump and to a lesser extent the Corbyn-mania surrounding the leader of the Labour Party in 2017 (see Flinders, 2018).…”
Section: Why Feelings Trump Facts: Anti-politics Citizenship and Emotionmentioning
This article seeks to explore and emphasise the role of emotions as a key variable in terms of understanding both the rise of anti-political sentiment and its manifestation in forms of ethno-populism. It argues that the changing emotional landscape has generally been overlooked in analyses
that seek to comprehend contemporary social and political change. This argument matters, not only due to the manner in which it challenges dominant interpretations of the populist signal but also because it poses more basic questions about the limits of knowledge and evidential claims in an
increasingly polarised, fractious and emotive contemporary context. The core argument concerning the existence of an emotional disconnection and why ‘feelings trump facts’ is therefore as significant for social and political scientists as it is for politicians and policy makers.
“…One version of the 'marginalised communities' narrative, associated most closely with Jennings and Stoker's (2016) account of 'two Englands', places strong emphasis on economic stagnation (see also Flinders, 2018;Jennings & Lodge, 2018). 1 The narrative is one which imagines England (and by extension Britain) to be divided into thriving cosmopolitan areas and post-industrial cities and towns in decline.…”
Place-based explanations' of politics in the U.K. tell sweeping narratives about 'Two Englands', or of sizeable regions of the country that have been 'Left Behind', reinforcing popular accounts of a North-South or city-town divide. We introduce the concept of nested deprivationdeprivation that may occur in just one housing estate or even one row of flats within neighbourhoods that are otherwise affluent. We report on intensive fieldwork in 8 neighbourhoods varying in relative affluence and density of population (including urban, suburban/satellite, market town or rural village). Three key themes and consequences emerge for those living in nested deprivation in relatively affluent and geographically dispersed contexts: (a) either disconnection from or entrapment within the local economy; (b) social isolation and atomisation; and (c) powerlessness to affect politics. 'Place-based' explanations of rapid and radical changes to political participation in Britain need to take fine-grained geographical distinctions much more seriously. Our study provides evidence that the rising tides in affluent areas are drowning some residents rather than lifting all boats. Where deprivation is dispersed and then nested within mostly affluent constituencies it does not allow for the political mobilisation among communities of interest that is a necessary condition for pluralist representative democracies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.