نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی ، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended Abstract
Introduction: Throughout history, crises have often served as catalysts for profound social transformations. One of the areas most affected by crises is governance at the national level. Examining how crises impact governance—and how they drive transformations in governing structures—is therefore a crucial task. This provides a strong justification for constructing an analytical framework to study the effects of crises on governance. Existing scholarship on crisis-induced change has typically focused on specific aspects of the political, economic, or cultural domains. Such works tend to examine how large-scale crises affect narrower segments of society. Research directly related to governance has often been limited to assessing the quantitative and qualitative role of the state, while society and the private sector have either been marginalized or excluded from consideration within a broader governance framework. Furthermore, some recent studies have relied heavily on quantitative approaches, which, while useful, can sometimes be misleading. As a result, no comprehensive analytical or conceptual framework has yet been developed to fully understand the impact of crises on governance at the national level. Accordingly, this study seeks to propose an appropriate analytical model for examining governance-related changes under conditions of crisis.
Method: Given the breadth of the concept of governance and the interwoven nature of its relationships, this study adopts a critical-normative approach as the most effective means of analyzing governance-related transformations brought about by crises. This approach, in addition to being problem-oriented, seeks to avoid the limitations of purely explanatory or interpretive perspectives, while still benefiting from their insights. The article employs a comparative method to analyze governance both before and after crises, within the framework of the critical-normative approach and in light of the defining characteristics of governance.
Discussion and Findings: The concept of crisis is analyzed in multiple dimensions. Governance, in its broadest sense, is defined here as the issuing and implementation of rulings, encompassing the interactions of the three main pillars: society, government, and the market. These pillars and their interrelationships provide the foundation for five proposed models of governance: 1) Authoritarian governance; 2) Capitalist governance; 3) Democratic governance; 4) Balanced governance; 5) The impossibility of governance. On the basis of these models, an analytical framework for understanding governance under conditions of crisis is presented. The findings suggest that the position of society, government, and the market in the processes of issuing and implementing rulings reflects the state of governance at any given time. Understanding how the position of each pillar shifts—or how the interpretation and application of rulings change within different practical frameworks—offers a pathway to analyzing governance transformations under crisis conditions. Importantly, not all observed changes during crises should automatically be attributed to the crises themselves. Instead, it is essential to investigate how crises contribute to altering the roles of society, government, and the market within governance, situating these developments within broader historical processes. This approach allows clearer distinctions to be drawn between destabilizing and stabilizing variables, thereby clarifying the specific role crises play in governance-related transformations.
Conclusion: It is possible to analyze the performance of governance pillars—and their transformations under crisis—through both the issuance and implementation of laws, as well as resistance to them. However, it must also be acknowledged that the actors and resources associated with the three pillars (society, government, and market) interact in complex ways, shaping their influence on governance outcomes.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
منابع
References
)