The title of this post might seem a bit drastic. But think about it for a moment. As the science behind the environmental challenges facing the planet is getting clearer each day - people direct their attention to issues related to management, institutions and governance in search for solutions. And obviously, everybody wants to contribute. Transitions scholars, reflexive governance researchers, the Earth System Governance Project, institutional scholars from the Ostrom school, social constructionists in the UK - just to mention a few.
Our challenges hence lies in finding our niche in this landscape of emerging governance research. And to move the research front in a direction that we find interesting, innovative and relevant for the study of coupled social-ecological systems. So, just to start off the debate, here are 3 topics we see emerging in the frontiers.
a) Innovation and Transformations- We all talk about it, and everybody seem to agree on that they are important, but we actually know little about these processes and practice. Sure, Panarchy theory gives a range of great hints on what to look for, but we are still looking for some solid elaborations and empirical research for social-ecological systems. How do we for example, separate between maladaptations, adaptations and transformations? Other scholars - such as those studying transitions in socio-technical systems - have developed ways of analyzing the multilevel institutional dimensions of these topics. On the other hand, they also miss the action happening at the social-ecological interface.
b) Governance and Cascading Crisis - We know a lot about how communities deal with surprise and change. But we know little about how national and international policy makers deal with social crises induced by ecological change. Multiple and cascading crises that easily move across systems and spatial scales, develop a quite different social, political and mass media dynamic compared to slow environmental change. Just think about the current droughts in Argentina and Uruguay, or attempts to deal with infectious diseases. An institutional analysis here would require combining resilience theory with insights from crisis management (for example Boin et al 2005), and high reliability organizations (Weick and Sutcliffe 2007).
c) Scaling Up - A last point mentioned quite often, is the need to address the national and international level to really get a grip of multilevel governance processes in AG. We all know that a bulk of the resilience literature has a bias towards local and regional governance, and that a lot of interesting topics remain to be explored once we start moving up in levels of political organization. We are getting there - thanks to Per's piece in PNAS, Emily's article, and ongoing work by Lisen, Jacob, Björn, Måns and Victor. The question in the longer term is how to bring all of this together into a framework that speaks not only to the resilience community, but also to insights from other (and quite disparate) fields in the social sciences.
So while it is too drastic to say that we are "under attack", the pressure is on us to prove that AG is a relevant framework to understand, and deal with the governance challenges posed by global change. The question is: what other topics do you see emerging on the frontier? Add your comments, recommended literature and feed-back in the comment field!
Hi Victor, Emily and Per,
ReplyDeleteI think this blog is a terrific idea and I hope you will get lots of responses. When it comes to governance at national and international levels, there are quite a few references in economics that would probably be useful starting with Scott Barrett's book "Environment & Statecraft" (2003).
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI was just sent an invitation to Victor's seminar on his upcoming paper on "supernetworks" where uses the case of global epidemic governance to elaborate the need for prompt multilevel inter-organizational responses in the face of abrupt change and surprise. This sounds interesting!
As a reseracher of urban social-ecology I wondered if this type of considerations could be extended and include literature on cities and global city-networks.
It would be interesting to ask what the relation between pandemics and the governance responses to pandemics (and similar events) have to the networks that bind cities together through migration, consumption/production, and policy. This would be relevant both since cities could be seen as production sites and "acceleration sites" for pandemics, but also as they could be seen as "coordination sites" to steer societal and collective international responses to pandemics.
The sociologist Saskia Sassen (see also Manuel Castells) sees cities as commando sites for global capitalism through their concentration of especially consultancy firms that carry out complicated services to global companies with sites of production and sales in many different countries and cities. What would this viewpoint mean to the idea of "supernetworks" of the spread of and response to pandemics? Where are the nodes/actors/organizations located that participated in the policy and governance networks that engaged in the response to the latest pandemic and what type of experts, skills, tools and networks did they use to create meaning out of existing information flows regarding the pandemic? As Sassen and also geographer Erik Swyngedouw mean, that in spite that globalization seems to create "spaceless production", it simulatenously drives a concentration of coordination hubs to some few physical sites of cities through which capital and information flows are manipulated and steered. Cities would probably come out as having high centrality in the governance (and production) networks of pandemics as well.
/Henrik Ernstson
Stockholm Resilience Centre
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/aboutus/staff/staff/ernstson.5.aeea46911a3127427980005372.html
See for example:
Sassen S. (2006). Cities in a World Economy, (original 1994) updated 3 edition. Pine Forge Press, London.
Sassen S. (2002). Locating Cities on Global Circuits. In Sassen S. (ed), Global Networks Linked Cities. Routledge, New York, pp. 1-38
Swyngedouw E. (1989). The Heart of the Place: The Resurrection of Locality in an age of Hyperspace. Geografiska Annaler 71 B(1):31-42.
Castells M. (1996). The Information Age. Vol. I: The Rise of the Network Society, (2000) 2nd edition. Blackwell, Oxford.
I am relatively new to the adaptive governance, STS, transition management and reflexive/deliberative governance literature but I wonder whether one of the key offerings of adaptive governance is that it seems to be driven by the urgent need to act in spite of complexity/uncertainties etc. and a reflexive awareness of the dilemmas that presents. My provocative critique of the other literatures (to take the lead from the first post) is that STS isn’t focused on insights that can guide deliberative action, reflexive/deliberative governance gets bogged down in process at the expense of action and transition management remains to be tested. Is one advantage of adaptive governance that theory development has such a grounded action base? If so then I definitely support the call in the first post for more empirical research. Or am I too biased in my critique of the other literatures and have missed key lessons we should be heeding?
ReplyDeleteCathy
Hi all, this is another example of how the AG concept is starting to take off, and why we might want to sharpen our arguments. Note that some of us hopefully will be teaching at this course (not totally confirmed yet however).
ReplyDelete"WINTER SCHOOL ON EARTH SYSTEM GOVERNANCE: THE CHALLENGE OF ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE
Back-to-back with the 2009 Amsterdam Conference, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam will offer an International Winter School on Earth System Governance for PhD students and other researchers in their early career stages. The leading topic of this year´s programme is ´adaptive governance´. The Winter School will last from 23 November through 1 December 2009, with the possibility that participants will also attend the 2009 Amsterdam Conference afterwards. The International Winter School is supported by the EU FP6 Marie Curie Actions in co-operation with the Netherlands Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE) and the Dutch national research programme BSIK-Climate for Space, Space for Climate.
Conference website: www.ac2009.earthsystemgovernance.org"