Suchergebnisse

This paper explores the political opportunities and challenges associated with facilitating integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation in land use policy processes across levels of governance in Indonesia. Since the 2nd IPCC assessment report it has been recognized that mitigation and adaptation display important synergies in the land use sector (Klein et al. 2005, Nabuurs et al. 2007). While previous research has proposed various ways to integrate adaptation and mitigation activities (Murdiyarso et al. 2005), we know little about what is needed to effectively integrate policy decision-making processes and policy objectives across levels of governance (Locatelli et al. 2015, Doherty and Schroeder 2011, Ravikumar 2015). We understand multi-level governance as 'the existence of overlapping competencies among multiple level of governments and the interaction of policy actors across those level', which result in 'multi-level policy networks' (Marks et al. 1996: 41-2) and reflect a multi-actor polycentric polity structure (Mayntz 1994, Ostrom 2010). Mechanisms that determine the structure of cross-level interactions – whether they result in dominance, separation, merger, negotiated agreement or systems change – are determined by: i) authority and power differentials; ii) level and limits of decentralization; iii) contrasting discourse; iv) cognitive transitions; and v) blocking - or supporting - policy coalitions (Young 2006). This paper investigates multi-level governance processes within the sub- domains of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the land use sector. It focuses in particular on assessing the differences and the level of integration among these two sub-domains across national and sub-national governance levels. It does so by investigating the role of policy coalitions and of central policy actors in facilitating interactions across national, province and district levels in Indonesia. It adopts an institutional approach and social network analysis approach (Scott 2000, Young 2006). ...

The assumption that there will be trade-offs between climate change mitigation measures and poverty reduction measures goes largely unchallenged in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This paper analyses how these trade-offs unfold at the national level in South Africa. South Africa is a middle income country that exemplifies the challenge of accommodating efforts for emissions reductions and poverty reduction at the same time. The paper analyses the trade-offs and distributional conflicts that drive and hinder institutional change in the current climate policy regime. The analysis focuses on three regulatory regimes in climate change: the climate change response white paper, the carbon tax and the renewable energy program. A combination of interview-based qualitative research and an innovative discourse network analysis reveals the discourse between competing coalitions supporting and opposing specific interventions. We find in the case of South Africa that the lack of economic growth over the last few years has kept emissions levels relatively low and consequently postponed the hard trade-offs between climate change mitigation and poverty reduction. Trade-offs appear in the political discourse, especially around the carbon tax and carbon budgets. Yet, distributional conflicts determine both drivers and barriers to institutional change. Powerful coalitions opposing the carbon tax managed to push the government into postponing the implementation of the tax. We conclude that win-win situations are possible, and that the crux lies in the implementation. A carbon tax proposal has made provisions for off-setting emissions through investment in clean technologies in low income communities. The renewable energy program created large foreign investment influx into the country, which is partially spent on community development. The main challenge in creating win-win situations is overcoming the distributional conflicts. Lack of policy coordination, alignment and clarity of the legal frameworks ...

The goal of this study is to examine and challenge questions of regulatory capture by concentrated industry interests in the reform debates in response to the credit crisis which originated in the US in 2008. Policymakers in the EU and the US set ambitious reform efforts in motion to better protect consumers of financial services. Decisions to reform credit regulations marked the end of highly politicized reform debates in the US Congress as well as in the European Parliament, involving lobbying from business associations and civil society groups, in which proponents of reforms would normally have been considered to be much weaker than their opponents. Paradoxically, a poorly-resourced civil society coalition successfully lobbied decision-makers and countered industry attempts to prevent regulatory change. What, then, explains that rather weak and peripheral actors prevailed over more resourceful and dominant actors? ; Le but de l'étude est de mettre en question la capture de régulation par les intérêts concentrés de la finance dans les débats sur les mesures à prendre après la crise du crédit partie des États-Unis en 2008. Les décideurs publics de ce pays et de l'Union européenne ont entrepris des efforts de réforme ambitieux pour mieux protéger les consommateurs de services financiers. Les débats au Congrès des États-Unis et au Parlement européen se sont achevés sur des décisions importantes concernant la réglementation du crédit. Fortement politisés, ils avaient suscité un lobbying intense des groupes d'intérêt de la finance et de la société civile, où normalement ces derniers auraient été tenus pour beaucoup plus faibles que leurs adversaires. Paradoxalement, une coalition de la société civile aux moyens modestes a réussi à convaincre les décideurs de la nécessité du changement et à contrecarrer les efforts du lobby financier pour l'empêcher. Qu'est-ce qui explique que des acteurs faibles et périphériques l'ont emporté sur des acteurs riches et puissants ?

The goal of this study is to examine and challenge questions of regulatory capture by concentrated industry interests in the reform debates in response to the credit crisis which originated in the US in 2008. Policymakers in the EU and the US set ambitious reform efforts in motion to better protect consumers of financial services. Decisions to reform credit regulations marked the end of highly politicized reform debates in the US Congress as well as in the European Parliament, involving lobbying from business associations and civil society groups, in which proponents of reforms would normally have been considered to be much weaker than their opponents. Paradoxically, a poorly-resourced civil society coalition successfully lobbied decision-makers and countered industry attempts to prevent regulatory change. What, then, explains that rather weak and peripheral actors prevailed over more resourceful and dominant actors? ; Le but de l'étude est de mettre en question la capture de régulation par les intérêts concentrés de la finance dans les débats sur les mesures à prendre après la crise du crédit partie des États-Unis en 2008. Les décideurs publics de ce pays et de l'Union européenne ont entrepris des efforts de réforme ambitieux pour mieux protéger les consommateurs de services financiers. Les débats au Congrès des États-Unis et au Parlement européen se sont achevés sur des décisions importantes concernant la réglementation du crédit. Fortement politisés, ils avaient suscité un lobbying intense des groupes d'intérêt de la finance et de la société civile, où normalement ces derniers auraient été tenus pour beaucoup plus faibles que leurs adversaires. Paradoxalement, une coalition de la société civile aux moyens modestes a réussi à convaincre les décideurs de la nécessité du changement et à contrecarrer les efforts du lobby financier pour l'empêcher. Qu'est-ce qui explique que des acteurs faibles et périphériques l'ont emporté sur des acteurs riches et puissants ?

A decade ago, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH) was established to combat the growing fragmentation of global health action into uncoordinated, issue-specific efforts. Inspired by dominant global public-private partnerships for health, the PMNCH brought together previously competing advocacy coalitions for safe motherhood and child survival and attracted support from major donors, foundations and professional bodies. Today, its founders highlight its achievements in generating priority for 'MNCH', encouraging integrated health systems thinking and demonstrating the value of collaboration in global health endeavours. Against this dominant discourse on the success of the PMNCH, this article shows that rhetoric in support of partnership and integration often masks continued structural drivers and political dynamics that bias the global health field towards vertical goals. Drawing on ethnographic research, this article examines the Safe Motherhood Initiative's evolution into the PMNCH as a response to the competitive forces shaping the current global health field. Despite many successes, the PMNCH has struggled to resolve historically entrenched programmatic and ideological divisions between the maternal and child health advocacy coalitions. For the Safe Motherhood Initiative, the cost of operating within an extremely competitive policy arena has involved a partial renouncement of ambitions to broader social transformations in favour of narrower, but feasible and 'sellable' interventions. A widespread perception that maternal health remains subordinated to child health even within the Partnership has elicited self-protective responses from the safe motherhood contingent. Ironically, however, such responses may accentuate the kind of fragmentation to global health governance, financing and policy solutions that the Partnership was intended to challenge. The article contributes to the emerging critical ethnographic literature on global health initiatives by highlighting how integration may only be possible with a more radical conceptualization of global health governance.

A decade ago, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH) was established to combat the growing fragmentation of global health action into uncoordinated, issue-specific efforts. Inspired by dominant global public-private partnerships for health, the PMNCH brought together previously competing advocacy coalitions for safe motherhood and child survival and attracted support from major donors, foundations and professional bodies. Today, its founders highlight its achievements in generating priority for 'MNCH', encouraging integrated health systems thinking and demonstrating the value of collaboration in global health endeavours. Against this dominant discourse on the success of the PMNCH, this article shows that rhetoric in support of partnership and integration often masks continued structural drivers and political dynamics that bias the global health field towards vertical goals. Drawing on ethnographic research, this article examines the Safe Motherhood Initiative's evolution into the PMNCH as a response to the competitive forces shaping the current global health field. Despite many successes, the PMNCH has struggled to resolve historically entrenched programmatic and ideological divisions between the maternal and child health advocacy coalitions. For the Safe Motherhood Initiative, the cost of operating within an extremely competitive policy arena has involved a partial renouncement of ambitions to broader social transformations in favour of narrower, but feasible and 'sellable' interventions. A widespread perception that maternal health remains subordinated to child health even within the Partnership has elicited self-protective responses from the safe motherhood contingent. Ironically, however, such responses may accentuate the kind of fragmentation to global health governance, financing and policy solutions that the Partnership was intended to challenge. The article contributes to the emerging critical ethnographic literature on global health initiatives by highlighting how integration may only be possible with a more radical conceptualization of global health governance.

The goal of this study is to examine and challenge questions of regulatory capture by concentrated industry interests in the reform debates in response to the credit crisis which originated in the US in 2008. Policymakers in the EU and the US set ambitious reform efforts in motion to better protect consumers of financial services. Decisions to reform credit regulations marked the end of highly politicized reform debates in the US Congress as well as in the European Parliament, involving lobbying from business associations and civil society groups, in which proponents of reforms would normally have been considered to be much weaker than their opponents. Paradoxically, a poorly-resourced civil society coalition successfully lobbied decision-makers and countered industry attempts to prevent regulatory change. What, then, explains that rather weak and peripheral actors prevailed over more resourceful and dominant actors? ; Le but de l'étude est de mettre en question la capture de régulation par les intérêts concentrés de la finance dans les débats sur les mesures à prendre après la crise du crédit partie des États-Unis en 2008. Les décideurs publics de ce pays et de l'Union européenne ont entrepris des efforts de réforme ambitieux pour mieux protéger les consommateurs de services financiers. Les débats au Congrès des États-Unis et au Parlement européen se sont achevés sur des décisions importantes concernant la réglementation du crédit. Fortement politisés, ils avaient suscité un lobbying intense des groupes d'intérêt de la finance et de la société civile, où normalement ces derniers auraient été tenus pour beaucoup plus faibles que leurs adversaires. Paradoxalement, une coalition de la société civile aux moyens modestes a réussi à convaincre les décideurs de la nécessité du changement et à contrecarrer les efforts du lobby financier pour l'empêcher. Qu'est-ce qui explique que des acteurs faibles et périphériques l'ont emporté sur des acteurs riches et puissants ?

Purpose– This paper aims to improve the knowledge of the way business relationships end by using a triadic analysis. Triadic analysis is used as a tool, permitting the examination of a dyadic business relationship in relation to a third actor(s). The triadic approach has been chosen for two reasons: first, because a triad is the smallest possible network and so offers a network perspective on the phenomenon. Second, the triadic approach exposes the process of forming internal and external coalitions, which affects the course of events and, thus, offers a different perspective from the traditional dyadic one on the dissolution of business relationships.Design/methodology/approach– As adopting a triadic perspective on the ending of business relationships and the field of research are relatively new, data gathering and empirical findings play an important role in producing understanding of the phenomenon. This qualitative research uses the abductive approach, in which empirical findings are systematically combined with the theoretical literature related to the topic. The research also draws from the theoretical literature of ending dyadic business relationships and uses a body of literature from the field of sociology where triadic analysis has long been used.Findings– As the result, this paper presents a model describing the end of a triadic business relationship and details the characteristics that derive from a triadic perspective. The study answers questions on what kind of process takes place when a triadic business relationship is ending; what kinds of sub-processes can be identified; and also adds information on what kinds of coalitions companies may form during the ending process of a triadic business relationship. The findings suggest that triadic analysis is an appropriate tool when studying a dyadic business relationship in relation to third actors.Originality/value– The research offers a new insight into the phenomenon of ending business relationships by using a triadic perspective.

The policy of the Polish government in exile during World War II has been the subject of numerous studies, but it still seems reasonable to trace their relation to crimes committed on Polish soil. The aim of this article is not to present the whole problem, but just outline the attitude towards German crimes. It must be remembered that the Polish government was also confronted with the occupation policy of the Soviet Union and the crimes committed in Volhynia and Galicia by Ukrainian nationalists. The final caesura of the article is the President's decree of on punishment for war crimes released on March 30, 1943.The Polish government was of the opinion that the crimes should be punished primarily on the level of individuals who committed them, but the consequence of the criminal policy of the Third Reich should be the adoption of such a post-war policy against Germany that would guarantee compensation for victim countries, including compensation for material damage, and lead to a change in the German mentality, which was blamed partly responsible for the policy of the Third Reich. Such an attitude was shared by the anti-Hitler coalition countries.On the practical level, the Polish government's policy had several stages. Initially, they collected information, tried to make it public and sough the cooperation of other countries. Despite numerous doubts were reported, they decided to amend the Polish criminal law to allow punishing war criminals more proportionally, as they thought, to the committed acts. The government's activity probably influenced the attitude of the Allies, although it is difficult to accurately recognize and describe this issue. As a result of the situation after World War II, the new Polish authorities pursued a policy of punishing the guilty. Due to the international situation, i.e. the growing conflict between the coalition partners, many criminals escaped punishment.

The 2008 Constitution was the political opening for food sovereignty in Ecuador. By framing food sovereignty as a right to sumak kawsay (living well), the indigenous and peasant movements garnered support from diverse social groups and sectors forming coalitions like the Red Agraria. Through these coalitions, the social movements have shaped and negotiated policy in new ways. The Red Agraria works with the state's Conferencia Plurinacional e Intercultural de Soberanía Alimentaria (COPISA) to formulate policies at local and regional levels and then negotiates these policies in the National Assembly. In this process, COPISA has helped create a synergistic relationship between civil society and the state. While it remains unclear whether social movements and the state will move toward implementation and practice, current gains in terms of synergies and opportunities for negotiation have been instrumental in institutionalizing food sovereignty. La Constitución de 2008 fue la apertura política para la soberanía alimentaria en el Ecuador. Los movimientos indigenistas y campesinos han recibido el apoyo de diversos sectores y grupos sociales al concebir la soberanía alimentaria como un derecho a sumak kawsay (vivir bien). Al formar coaliciones como la Red Agraria, los movimientos sociales han formulado y negociado la política pública con nuevas estrategias. La Red Agraria trabaja con la Conferencia Plurinacional e Intercultural de Soberanía Alimentaria (COPISA) del Estado para formular políticas a nivel local y regional y luego negociar estas políticas en la Asamblea Nacional. En este proceso COPISA ha ayudado a crear una relación sinérgica entre la sociedad civil y el estado. Aunque todavía no está claro si los movimientos sociales y el estado avanzarán hacia la implementación y la práctica, los logros alcanzados en términos de sinergias y oportunidades para la negociación han sido fundamentales para institucionalizar la soberanía alimentaria.

Since coming to power in 2010, the UK Coalition government has enacted a series of cuts to public spending, under the auspices of austerity. Underpinning these cuts is a neo-liberal model of citizenship, in which citizens are expected to be autonomous, independent and economically productive, and in which the responsibilities of citizenship outweigh the rights. This model of citizenship is characterised by a paradoxical approach to social reproduction. The Coalition government has taken a significant interest in social reproduction as a means of creating the next generation of 'good' neo-liberal citizens; yet, the current austerity measures involve the withdrawal of state support for social reproduction activities. Drawing on participant observation carried out with migrant women's groups in Sheffield and Manchester, as well as interviews with group members, this article demonstrates how the government's paradoxical approach to social reproduction, combined with gendered and racialised discourses of citizenship and 'Britishness', have led to policies that place ethnic minority migrant women in an untenable situation. The social reproduction activities of ethnic minority migrant women are the subject of intense government interest, because of the concern that they will be unable to produce 'good' neo-liberal citizens. In some cases, this has led to government policies clearly intended to dissuade 'undesirable' migrants from having children. In other cases, migrant women are expected to show their commitment to integration, both for themselves and their children, specifically by learning English, even as the government has drastically cut funding for English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) classes. While seemingly paradoxical, this is in keeping with a racialised neo-liberal model of citizenship under which the 'responsible' migrant mother should be able to parent and learn English without government assistance. Nonetheless, these policies are actually self-defeating, as they prevent migrant women from exhibiting the very characteristics of neo-liberal citizenship that they are ostensibly trying to encourage.

During the 2000s France witnessed the emergence of activist initiatives whose aim was to include residents in the design, building and management of housing. Yet, today, cohousing appears to have migrated from the activist phrasebook to the political agenda. The aim of this article is to analyze the dynamics and interactions that have fed into this process of institutionalization. It shows that the latter is the result of a coalition between the activist and political arenas, whose interests, at this juncture, overlap. This alliance with the public authorities can be linked to the "outreach" strategy offered by elected Green politicians, who needed to ally themselves with activists in order to pursue their policies and gain legitimacy as new public actors grappling with power. In this arena of "cause entrepreneurs", the practice of public actors resembles that of interest or even activist groups. ; Au cours des années 2000 en France, on a assisté à l'émergence d'initiatives militantes visant à concevoir, produire et gérer le logement avec ses habitants. Aujourd'hui la thématique de « l'habitat participatif » semble avoir quitté le seul registre des mobilisations pour faire son apparition dans l'agenda politique. L'article se propose d'analyser les dynamiques et interactions qui ont alimenté ce processus d'institutionnalisation. Il montre que celui-ci est le produit d'une coalition entre espace militant et espace politique, associés conjoncturellement par des intérêts croisés. L'alliance avec les pouvoirs publics est à lier à la stratégie de « courte échelle » offerte par les élus verts qui ont eu besoin de se trouver des interlocuteurs parmi les militants pour conduire leurs politiques et se légitimer en tant que nouveaux acteurs publics aux prises avec le pouvoir. La pratique des acteurs publics s'apparente ici à celle de groupes d'intérêts voire de militants dans le jeu des « entrepreneurs de cause ».

During the 2000s France witnessed the emergence of activist initiatives whose aim was to include residents in the design, building and management of housing. Yet, today, cohousing appears to have migrated from the activist phrasebook to the political agenda. The aim of this article is to analyze the dynamics and interactions that have fed into this process of institutionalization. It shows that the latter is the result of a coalition between the activist and political arenas, whose interests, at this juncture, overlap. This alliance with the public authorities can be linked to the "outreach" strategy offered by elected Green politicians, who needed to ally themselves with activists in order to pursue their policies and gain legitimacy as new public actors grappling with power. In this arena of "cause entrepreneurs", the practice of public actors resembles that of interest or even activist groups. ; Au cours des années 2000 en France, on a assisté à l'émergence d'initiatives militantes visant à concevoir, produire et gérer le logement avec ses habitants. Aujourd'hui la thématique de « l'habitat participatif » semble avoir quitté le seul registre des mobilisations pour faire son apparition dans l'agenda politique. L'article se propose d'analyser les dynamiques et interactions qui ont alimenté ce processus d'institutionnalisation. Il montre que celui-ci est le produit d'une coalition entre espace militant et espace politique, associés conjoncturellement par des intérêts croisés. L'alliance avec les pouvoirs publics est à lier à la stratégie de « courte échelle » offerte par les élus verts qui ont eu besoin de se trouver des interlocuteurs parmi les militants pour conduire leurs politiques et se légitimer en tant que nouveaux acteurs publics aux prises avec le pouvoir. La pratique des acteurs publics s'apparente ici à celle de groupes d'intérêts voire de militants dans le jeu des « entrepreneurs de cause ».

International audience ; The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is one of the last communist states ruled by a single political party. Despite what the one party rule in Vietnam may suggest, issues related to urban planning reveal a great complexity of interaction between stakeholders in the country, and an aggregation of new coalitions concerned with growth, who question the regime's political choices and development orientations. The authoritarianism of the Vietnamese political regime is undeniably key to understanding the socio-spatial organisation of cities in the country. However, this paper aims to show how the contemporary urban planning of these cities is participating in the recent evolution of the political regime, towards what can be called a "negotiated authoritarianism". With the implementation of new urban projects; debates over notions of justice and injustice, common good and private interests, community and individuality are emerging. These values are conveyed by the authorities, as well as the citizens, in order to negotiate their participation in decision-making and their access to new wealth. Our goal is then to question the links between political authoritarianism and the production of the city in contemporary Vietnam. ; La République Socialiste du Vietnam est l'un des derniers bastions du communisme d'État, avec un Parti unique. Le champ de l'aménagement révèle cependant des jeux d'acteurs de plus en plus complexes et l'agrégation de nouvelles coalitions de croissance, qui interrogent les choix politiques opérés par les pouvoirs publics du pays et les grandes orientations de développement. Si le caractère autoritaire du régime vietnamien constitue indéniablement une clef de compréhension de l'organisation socio-spatiale des villes du pays, nous souhaitons à l'inverse montrer en quoi les modalités contemporaines d'aménagement de ces villes participent aujourd'hui à l'évolution du régime autoritaire vietnamien, vers un « autoritarisme négocié ». À l'occasion de la mise en œuvre de nouveaux projets ...

During the 2000s France witnessed the emergence of activist initiatives whose aim was to include residents in the design, building and management of housing. Yet, today, cohousing appears to have migrated from the activist phrasebook to the political agenda. The aim of this article is to analyze the dynamics and interactions that have fed into this process of institutionalization. It shows that the latter is the result of a coalition between the activist and political arenas, whose interests, at this juncture, overlap. This alliance with the public authorities can be linked to the "outreach" strategy offered by elected Green politicians, who needed to ally themselves with activists in order to pursue their policies and gain legitimacy as new public actors grappling with power. In this arena of "cause entrepreneurs", the practice of public actors resembles that of interest or even activist groups. ; Au cours des années 2000 en France, on a assisté à l'émergence d'initiatives militantes visant à concevoir, produire et gérer le logement avec ses habitants. Aujourd'hui la thématique de « l'habitat participatif » semble avoir quitté le seul registre des mobilisations pour faire son apparition dans l'agenda politique. L'article se propose d'analyser les dynamiques et interactions qui ont alimenté ce processus d'institutionnalisation. Il montre que celui-ci est le produit d'une coalition entre espace militant et espace politique, associés conjoncturellement par des intérêts croisés. L'alliance avec les pouvoirs publics est à lier à la stratégie de « courte échelle » offerte par les élus verts qui ont eu besoin de se trouver des interlocuteurs parmi les militants pour conduire leurs politiques et se légitimer en tant que nouveaux acteurs publics aux prises avec le pouvoir. La pratique des acteurs publics s'apparente ici à celle de groupes d'intérêts voire de militants dans le jeu des « entrepreneurs de cause ».