Polycentricity
In: Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons, Hudson, Rosenbloom, Cole (eds.) (Routledge, Forthcoming)
In: Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons, Hudson, Rosenbloom, Cole (eds.) (Routledge, Forthcoming)
SSRN
In: Routledge Handbook of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics_, edited by Christopher Melenovsky, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: The Routledge handbook of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, edited by Chris Melenovsky
SSRN
This paper discusses definitions that have been developed and used in the study of polycentric governance. It offers conceptual refinements with the aim of reducing fuzziness, showing challenges of operationalization and application to an empirical setting—in other words, analyzing governance arrangements through the polycentricity lens. One defining element of polycentricity is the presence of "multiple decision‐making centers." This paper shows that this multiplicity is specific to the good/problem in focus, the center's tasks/responsibilities, the level in focus and analytical system boundaries. Functional overlapping among those centers is required to consider centers forming one system in relation to a good. These specificities should be examined for comparisons on polycentricity influencing the functioning of systems. The paper applies those conceptual refinements to the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Berlin and Hamburg. It characterizes the two cases in terms of their polycentricity. It compares their functioning so far and how the latter relates to interactions and social interrelations. The polycentricity lens illuminates important features and differences: given an overall multiplicity of centers and a similar rule setting in both cities, the differences in the distribution of responsibilities and social interrelations led to a faster but less integrated implementation in Hamburg than in Berlin. The application of the proposed refinements yields insights into further work to be done in favor of theory‐building on the functioning of polycentric governance systems. ; Peer Reviewed
BASE
In: Institutional Diversity and Political Economy, S. 30-70
SSRN
Supranational governance is being challenged by politicians and citizens around the EU as over-centralized and undemocratic. This book is premised on the idea that polycentric governance, developed by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, is a fruitful place to start for addressing this challenge. Assessing the presence of, and potential for, polycentric governance within the EU means approaching established principles and practices from a new perspective. While the debate on these issues is rich, longstanding and interdisciplinary, it has proven difficult to sidestep the 'renationalisation/federalisation' dichotomy. The aim of this volume is not to reject the EU's institutional structure but provide a different benchmark for the assessment of its functioning. Polycentric theory highlights the importance of multilevel horizontal relationships within the EU - between states, but also between many sub-state actors, all the way down to individuals. This helps us answer the question: how do we achieve self-governance in an interdependent world?
In: The Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-Being of Nations: Volume IV (2012), Forthcoming
SSRN
In: The Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well Being of Nations, 2011-2012
SSRN
Working paper
In: Izvestia of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Sociology. Politology, Band 10, Heft 2, S. 96-100
In: Polycentricity: studies in institutional diversity and voluntary governance
In: Governance: an international journal of policy and administration, Band 25, Heft 2, S. 237-262
ISSN: 1468-0491
The article overviews and elaborates the concept of polycentricity, defined as a structural feature of social systems of many decision centers having limited and autonomous prerogatives and operating under an overarching set of rules. The article starts by introducing the concept as it was advanced by Michael Polanyi and developed by Elinor and Vincent Ostrom. It continues introducing possible instances of polycentricity as well as related notions, as part of an attempt to further elaborate the concept through a concept design approach that systematically applies the logic of necessary and sufficient conditions. The article concludes by arguing that the polycentricity conceptual framework is not only a robust analytical structure for the study of complex social phenomena, but is also a challenging method of drawing non‐ad hoc analogies between different types of self‐organizing complex social systems.
In: Governance: an international journal of policy and administration, Band 25, Heft 2
ISSN: 1468-0491
The article overviews and elaborates the concept of polycentricity, defined as a structural feature of social systems of many decision centers having limited and autonomous prerogatives and operating under an overarching set of rules. The article starts by introducing the concept as it was advanced by Michael Polanyi and developed by Elinor and Vincent Ostrom. It continues introducing possible instances of polycentricity as well as related notions, as part of an attempt to further elaborate the concept through a concept design approach that systematically applies the logic of necessary and sufficient conditions. The article concludes by arguing that the polycentricity conceptual framework is not only a robust analytical structure for the study of complex social phenomena, but is also a challenging method of drawing non-ad hoc analogies between different types of self-organizing complex social systems. Adapted from the source document.
In: Climatic Change
This paper builds on recent research on polycentric governance and the Ecology of Games to understand climate politics in the USA. Complementing previous work from 2005 to 2009, we map out the ideological networks of political actors engaged in the climate policy network using data from the US Congress as an arena of symbolic interaction. Our analysis identifies polycentric sites of ideological congruence and conflict in the discourse network on climate change. Political actors from different levels and including several actor types formed multiple centers that became bipolarized between the 112th and 114th sessions of the US Congress. This process took place in tandem with the increased participation of subnational actors in the polycentric system. By the 114th session of the Congress—during which the 2016 election took place—subnational policy actors, along with a diversity of other actors, contributed to an extremely polarized discussion of one of the central policies in the Obama Administration's Climate Action Plan: the Clean Power Plan. This finding is remarkable as the concept of polycentricity tends to be normatively associated with policy innovation, rather than stagnation. Our longitudinal analysis demonstrates, using Discourse Network Analysis, how increased multi-level participation can be associated with policy blockage of progressive climate policies rather than enabling policy innovation.