Suchergebnisse

Introduction:The comparative study of environmental governance /Andreas Duit --Comparing environmental performance /James Meadowcroft --Explaining environmental policy adoption : a comparative analysis of policy developments in twenty-four OECD countries /Christoph Knill, Susumu Shikano, and Jale Tosun --The three worlds of environmental politics /Detlef Jahn --Wind-power development in Germany and the United States : structural factors, multiple-stream convergence, and turning points /Roger Karapin --Early bird or copycat, leader or laggard? A comparison of cross-national patterns of environmental policy changeThomas Sommerer --The role of the state in the governance of sustainable development : subnational practices in European states /Susan Baker and Katarina Eckerberg --Sustainable citizenship : the role of citizens and consumers as agents of the environmental state /Michele Micheletti, Dietlind Stolle, and Daniel Berlin --Decentralization and deforestation : comparing local forest governance regimes in Latin America /Krister Andersson, Tom Evans, Clark C. Gibson, and Glenn Wright --Enforcement and compliance in African fisheries : the dynamic interaction between ruler and ruled /martin Sjöstedt --Causes and consequences of stakeholder participation in natural resource management : evidence from 143 biosphere reserves in fifty-five countries /Andreas Duit and Ola Hall --Conclusion:An emerging ecostate? /Andreas Duit.

The notion of resilience is rapidly gaining influence in public administration practice and research, but a more comprehensive resilience research agenda in public administration is yet to emerge. This article aims to clarify how experiences and potential contributions from social‐ecological resilience research can inform resilience studies in public administration. By contrasting key components of the resilience paradigm and its policy prescriptions with established findings from public administration research, a set of key shortcomings of social‐ecological resilience thinking are identified: (1) deterministic systems models; (2) simplified accounts of politics and policy; and (3) a lack of systematic and generalizable empirical studies. To avoid these shortcomings, it is suggested that public administration resilience studies should explore multiple and competing models for how resilience can be generated; analyse trade‐offs between resilience and other values of public administration; avoid systems theoretical resilience models; and apply the notion of resilience in areas beyond crisis management.

In this article, we investigate whether increased participation offers a way of addressing wicked policy problems. We utilize a natural policy experiment in the form of a 2010 reform of Swedish wildlife management policy aiming to solve longstanding conflicts over predators through increased stakeholder participation in regional Wildlife Management Boards. Using a panel study design containing quantitative and qualitative data, we estimate pre- and post-reform levels of three wickedness-reducing mechanisms: legitimacy, deliberation, and conflict intensity. Despite a substantial increase in participation, we find no evidence of reduced wickedness after the reform.

While there is broad consensus that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sometimes succeed in influencing policy making within international organizations (IOs), there is much less agreement on the factors that make NGO lobbying effective. This article makes two contributions to this debate. First, the determinants of influence among NGOs active in different IOs, issue areas and policy phases are examined. The analysis builds on original survey data of more than 400 NGOs involved in five different IOs, complemented by elite interviews with IO and state officials. Secondly, the article advances a specific argument about how the strategic exchange of information and access between NGOs and IOs increases NGO influence in IOs. This argument, derived from theories of lobbying in American and European politics, is contrasted with three alternative explanations of NGO influence, privileging material resources, transnational networks and public opinion mobilization, and the broader implications of these results for research on NGOs in global governance are explored.