【作者】楚貝克,D.M.
【內(nèi)容提要】
The evidence of “new governance anxiety” can be seen in some of the solutions put forward in the literature and echoed in the Symposium. This includes calls for “hybridity” or the integration of new governance with older forms of top-down command-and-control type regulation. To some this seems like a promising way to get the advantages of the new without sacrificing the values of the old. And it
can be seen in efforts to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of some new governance institutions by requiring that they involve legislatures or be subject to judicial review. These efforts to hold on to one or more elements of older models while endorsing the use of new governance seem to have reduced the anxiety felt by many scholars. On the other hand, some have questioned both the viability and the desirability of some of these hybrid solutions, suggesting that the problems should be solved not by holding on to parts of the past but by perfecting new governance through the creation of new ways to ensure democratic input and accountability. The debates between the “moderates” who hope for hybrid solutions, and the new governance “radicals” surfaced during the debates and will continue to animate future debates in this network and elsewhere.