Breaking bad: When does polycentricity lead to maladaptation rather than adaptation?

Abstract

Polycentric governance structures are often touted as part of the solution to overuse and degradation of natural resources. In theory, when multiple, overlapping decision centers work independently and in coordination, they contribute more than either monocentric or atomized governance arrangements to ensuring robust, adaptive social-ecological systems (SESs). However, the degraded state of many municipal drinking water systems demonstrate Vincent Ostrom's observation that multilevel governance structure alone does not guarantee increased functionality. Two U.S. case studies drawn from opposite ends of the SES performance continuum provide insights into the differences between structural and functional features of polycentricity and the cross-cutting conditions under which these features lead to adaptation or maladaptation. New York City's water system has served as an international model of sustainable, collaborative governance for several decades, whereas Flint, Michigan's water system achieved notoriety for a tragic string of errors and a pattern of neglectful governance in the mid-2010s. Through process tracing, this article analyzes the pathways that began from a shared governance structure of polycentric federalism to starkly different decisions and outcomes in the two cities. The results highlight the dynamic and interactive nature of polycentricity, including how it can be functionally disabled when key factors converge across levels and scales: these include norms of quiescent rule enforcement, incentives that favor blame avoidance over problem solving, persistent power imbalances, large wealth inequalities, and deficits of social capital and leadership.

Polycentric to monocentric governance: Power dynamics in Lake Victoria's fisheries

“…Written power is based on the legitimate authority of states and other powerful actors to independently legislate, create formal rules, tax, distribute resources, and design policy, markets, and incentives (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Jordan, Wurzel, & Zito, 2013). Well‐designed rules can incentivize problem‐solving by motivating multiple power centers to organize (Biddle & Baehler, 2019). Power by design focuses on structural features and is revealed by examining de jure institutional arrangements such as policies, agreements, laws, strategies, and incentives to understand how authoritative power is officially designed and formally distributed within a system (Morrison et al, 2019).…”

“…Much of the work on polycentricity has examined what features of polycentric systems can foster partnerships, cooperation, and power‐sharing among agencies to manage complexity and uncertainty (Biddle & Baehler, 2019; Carlisle & Gruby, 2017; Gelcich et al, 2010; Morrison et al, 2019). Research on how power dynamics influence the structure and functionality of a polycentric system is limited (Cvitanovic, Hobday, McDonald, Van Putten, & Nash, 2018; Morrison et al, 2019).…”

“…Further, research on which kinds of power dynamics matter most in polycentric systems and under what circumstances do they matter is undeveloped (Morrison et al, 2019). Answering these questions is important because “governance features have profound implications for how actors behave in polycentric systems and for the outcomes their actions might induce” (Biddle & Baehler, 2019, p. 3).…”

The Politics of Maladaptation

“…It is only possible, therefore, to engage with a relatively small fraction of the published research output. Within this rapidly expanding field there is also an emerging body of scholarship, most of it relatively recent, dealing with political aspects of adaptation and maladaptation [4,9,13]. We have focused on, and chosen our sources from, the growing scholarship dealing with the political dimensions of adaptation and maladaptation focusing on issues such as equity, institutions, justice and power.…”

Building Resilience: An Art–Food Hub to Connect Local Communities

“…At the same time, polycentric systems have been demonstrated to have a higher degree of adaptive capacity than mono-centric or centralized structures, resulting in improved social and environmental performance [5][6][7]. Theoretically, polycentric policy and management structures should provide sufficient regulatory oversight, resources and information anticipating and facilitating informed decision-making when sudden shocks and cumulative stressors threaten the socio-ecological system [8]. The present paper illustrates an example of participatory urban planning in Campania-an economically disadvantaged region of Southern Italy-that led to the definition and final approval of a Strategic Urban Planning Document (Documento di Orientamento Strategico, DOS) for a medium-sized city (Battipaglia, Salerno).…”