Show simple item record

dc.creatorJolly, Jean-François 
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-07T14:25:40Z
dc.date.available2018-03-07T14:25:40Z
dc.date.created2010-04-16
dc.date.issued2010 
dc.identifierhttps://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/desafios/article/view/673
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/16404
dc.descriptionEl hecho de que, desde la Constitución de 1991, normas y sentencias tiendan en considerar que los ejecutivos locales (alcaldes, gobernadores) deben ser unos agentes regidores que practican el gobierno del territorio y la “descentralización controlada” más que unos actores gobernantes, defensores de la gobernancia de sus territorios, plantea la cuestión de saber por qué y cómo aquéllos pueden combinar este doble rol. La mayor parte de la respuesta se encuentra en el examen simultáneo de la lógica de regulación de las políticas pública (Muller, 1997 y 2002) y de las condiciones de su implementación en el territorio o “despliegue territorial” (Medellín, 2003).La territorialidad de una política pública se refiere, según Muller, a una situación en la cual la lógica dominante de una política pública es una lógica territorial u horizontal (regulación de un territorio geográfico en una dialéctica centro-periferia), mientras la sectorialidad se refiere a una situación en la cual la lógica dominante de una política pública es una lógica sectorial o vertical (regulación de la reproducción de un sector determinado verticalmente en una dialéctica global-sectorial). A cada lógica de regulación de las políticas públicas le corresponde una manera de gobernar un territorio: el gobierno del territorio para la sectorialidad y la gobernancia de los territorios para la territorialidad.Al contrario del caso francés en el cual la construcción del Estado marca el fin de una lógica de territorialidad (la “territorialidad tradicional”), el Estado colombiano es un Estado endémico, un Estado fragmentado confrontado a la lucha por el control territorial y el temor a la fractura de la unidad territorial (Navas, 2003). Su capacidad parcial por cubrir todo el territorio y actuar sobre él (su “territorialidad parcial” según Medellín) afecta su gobernabilidad y el despliegue territorial de las políticas públicas, sometido a negociaciones inciertas, cercanas a la temática de la gobernancia. 
dc.description.abstractSince the 1991 Constitution, most rulings and sentences tend to consider that individuals in charge of the local executive power (mayors, governors) should be some sort of tuling aldermen responsible for their particular territories and their “controlled decentralization” instead of actual governing actors, advocates and defenders of the governance of their territories. This fact raises the questions of why and how they can possibly play this double role. The bulk of the answer to this question can be found by examining both the logic behind public policies (Muller) and the conditions in whixh these are implemented in each territory, or “territorial deployment” (Medellìn).According to Muller, the territoriality of a particular public policy refers to a situation whereby the prevailing logic is territorial or horizontal (regulation of a geographical territory follows a center-periphery scheme), whereas its sectoriality refers to a situation whereby the prevailing logic is sectorial or vertical (regulation of a sector’s reproduction is vertically determined by a global-sectorial scheme). For each regulation logic behind public policies there is a corresponding way of governing a particular territory: governing the territory for the sake of sectoriality, and governing it for the sake of territoriality.As opposed to the French case, whereby the construction of the State signals the purposes of a territorial logic (“traditional territoriality”), the Colombian State is na endemic one, a fragmented State struggling for territorial control and in fear of the fragmentation of territorial unity (Navas). Its limited capacity to cover the whole territory and to act on it (its “limited or partial territoriality”, according to Medellín) affects governability as well as the deployment of public policies, which is frequently subject to uncertain negotiations related to the problem of governance.That es why governability in Colombia is only possible through hybrid public policies, which are in turn the result of the “indissoluble marriage between sectoriality and territoriality”, the result of a sort of “secterritoriality” which combines in various proportions a sectorial logic (or sectoriallity, which implies centralization) and a territorial logic (or territoriallity, which implies decentralization), all due to a hybrid form of governmen, or “governance” of the territory, a complex and variable dosage of both government and governance. Keeping this in mind, it is possible to establish the degree of territoriality and sectoriality of a public policy at a particular time, and to classify public policies according to their degree of territoriality and/or sectoriality, that is, according to the relative importance of the logics behind their regulation.From the early 70s to the early 80s, sectoriality prevailed and governability was guaranteed almost exclusively through the separate territorial deployment of each sector, then, from 1984 to the present, “controlled decentralization” has shown partial changes in the regulation logic behind public policies by resorting, at least in part, to a logic of territoriality in response to some sort of sectorriality crisis.As can be clearly seen after analyzing and evaluatin public policies in matters such as statesubsidized housing, municipal land development and legislation, education, water and sewage services, governability during this second period can only be guaranteed by governance in the territories or by a combination of both, government in the territory and governance in the territories. In other words, governability is possible thanks to a type of hybrid government that allows those in charge of exercising local executive power to reconcile their bias towards the governance of their teritories and their duties vis-àvis the government of the territory, but capable of being, at the same time, governing actors and ruling agents, active modern-day aldermen. 
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.relation.urihttps://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/desafios/article/view/673/603
dc.rightsCopyright (c) 2014 Desafíos
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
dc.sourceDesafíos; Vol. 12 (2005): (enero-junio); 51-85
dc.source2145-5112
dc.source0124-4035
dc.subjectSecterritorialidad; gobernanza; políticas públicas
dc.titleGobierno y gobernancia de los territorios, sectorialidad y territorialidad de las políticas públicas
dc.typearticle
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosario
dc.subject.keywordSecterritoriality; governance; public policies
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.type.spaArtículo
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto completo)
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright (c) 2014 Desafíos
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright (c) 2014 Desafíos

 

Reconocimientos: