New directions in earth system governance research

Burch, Sarah; Gupta, Aarti; Inoue, Cristina Yumie Aoki; Kalfagianni, Agni; Persson, Åsa; Gerlak, Andrea K.; Ishii, Atsushi; Patterson, James; Pickering, Jonathan; Scobie, Michelle; Heijden, Jeroen van der; Vervoort, Joost; Adler, Carolina; Bloomfield, Michael; Djalante, Riyante; Dryzek, John S.; Galaz, Victor; Gordon, Christopher J.; Harmon, Renée; Jinnah, Sikina; Kim, Rakhyun E.; Olsson, Lennart; Leeuwen, Judith van; Ramasar, Vasna; Wapner, Paul; Zondervan, Ruben

doi:10.1016/j.esg.2019.100006

Cited by 150 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 154 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an urgent need for further theoretical development, empirical assessment and policy innovation at the democracy-environment nexus (Burch et al, 2019). The imaginative, boundary-transcending impetus of earlier work on ecological democracy remains as important as ever, particularly in envisioning what democracy should look like in the increasingly unstable conditions of the Anthropocene.…”

Section: Conclusion: Priorities For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

Pickering

Bäckstrand

Schlosberg

2020

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Self Cite

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts of ecological and environmental democracy seek to reconcile two normative ideals: ensuring environmental sustainability while safeguarding democracy. These ideals are frequently conceived as being in conflict, as democracy is perceived as too slow and cumbersome to deliver the urgent large-scale collective action needed to tackle environmental problems. Theories addressing the democracyenvironment nexus can be situated on a spectrum from theories of ecological democracy that are more critical of existing liberal democratic institutions to theories of environmental democracy that call for reforming rather than radically transforming or dismantling those institutions. This article reviews theoretical and empirical scholarship on the democracy-environment nexus. We find continued theoretical and empirical diversity in the field, as well as vibrant debates on democratising global environmental politics, local material practices, and nonhuman representation. We argue for stronger dialogue between environmental political theory and empirical, policy-oriented research on democracy and sustainability, as well as further exploration of complementarities between ecological and environmental democracy. We identify four main areas of challenge and opportunity for theory and practice: public participation and populism; technocracy and expertise; governance across scales; and ecological rights and limits.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Priorities For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

Pickering

Bäckstrand

Schlosberg

2020

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Self Cite

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the existing or new potential governance theories that are relevant to the SDGs include metagovernance (Meuleman and Niestroy 2015), network governance (Fenton and Gustafsson 2017), and adaptive governance (Xue et al 2018). ESG explores novel and effective governance mechanisms that can cope with the current transitions in the planet's biogeochemical systems (Burch et al 2019). Through careful empirical observation, ESG offers a framework composed of contextual conditions (transformations, inequality, the Anthropocene, and diversity) and five sets of research lenses (architecture and agency, democracy and power, justice and allocation, anticipation and imagination, and adaptiveness and reflexivity) (Burch et al 2019).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Governance Systems For the Sdgsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ESG explores novel and effective governance mechanisms that can cope with the current transitions in the planet's biogeochemical systems (Burch et al 2019). Through careful empirical observation, ESG offers a framework composed of contextual conditions (transformations, inequality, the Anthropocene, and diversity) and five sets of research lenses (architecture and agency, democracy and power, justice and allocation, anticipation and imagination, and adaptiveness and reflexivity) (Burch et al 2019). Systematic governance analysis is not only an issue in relation to governance systems for the SDGs, but is also largely missing from governance studies and often only a normative afterthought while maintaining a focus on the modes, behaviors, and interactions of the actors (see Meadowcroft 2007).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Governance Systems For the Sdgsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of national and local governance systems to achieve the sustainable development goals: case studies of Japan and Indonesia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs), all countries' efforts are essential, and each country needs to recognize their level of achievement in terms of the SDGs, identify the goals and targets that require more effort, and build more effective and well-performed governance systems to accelerate their efforts toward achieving the SDGs. This study identifies different governance system structures for achieving the SDGs and the challenges they face in improving their performance using a new matrix tool to evaluate governance systems for the SDGs. We use Japan and Indonesia as case studies to provide perspectives from countries at different levels of economic development. The results show that the governance systems for the SDGs are structurally and functionally different in the two countries, which face different challenges. Japan has relatively well-structured "vision and objective setting", "research and assessment", and "strategy development", but faces challenges in relation to "implementation" and "monitoring, evaluation, and review", while Indonesia has relatively well-structured "research and assessment", "strategy development", and "monitoring, evaluation, and review." However, Indonesia faces challenges in relation to "vision and objective setting" and "implementation." We found that the differences in the governance systems for the SDGs have arisen in relation to three key elements: differences in the development of governance systems for the SDGs, differences in the lead ministries, and the existence or otherwise of a supportive legal framework. We argue that the proposed matrix tool is useful in identifying the structure of governance systems for the SDGs and the challenges that must be overcome to improve the performance of these systems. However, some analytical limitations must be overcome before the tool can be applied to other countries.

show abstract

“…Most important perhaps, relatively little is known about the political feasibility of different transformations in different contexts. It is recognized that transformations may be deeply political (Meadowcroft, 2011;Scoones, Leach and Newell, 2015;Smith and Stirling, 2010;Newell and Mulvaney, 2013;Cherp et al, 2018), and that this poses a challenge for governance, such as dealing with vested interests, the short-termism of policy and political cycles, the resistance of the wealthy to taxation, displaced workers and communities, deficits in representation, and the lack of public awareness of and support for transformation (e.g., TWI2050, 2018; Burch et al, 2019;Sovacool et al, 2017;Hausknost and Haas, 2019). What has not yet been researched in-depth is the impact on the feasibility of sustainability transformations of those who consider themselves 'losers' of the change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compensation strategies to enact new governance frameworks for SDG transformations

Horan

2019

pse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an emerging consensus at international level that systemic transformations are needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Such transformations require paradigm shifts in policies, with appropriate governance frameworks to implement them. Fundamental transformations are likely to generate winners and losers; the latter may act strategically to deter transformation. Most governance literature points at mutual gains negotiation methods to prevent the emergence of losers and create 'win-win' package deals. In this article a different -and less researched -approach will be discussed: (economic) compensation strategies. Drawing on the political economy literature of reform in transition economies, I propose three compensation strategies to buy out or weaken the opposition of strategic losers -big bang, optimal sequencing and divide-and-rule governance reforms -that can help to frame discussions around the political feasibility of new governance frameworks for SDG transformations. The paper suggests that careful consideration needs to be given to the design of these compensation packages, since history tells us that buying acceptance for reform can involve not just variation in economic outcomes, it can also have long-term political implications and distributional effects.

show abstract

New directions in earth system governance research

Cited by 150 publications

References 154 publications

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

Analysis of national and local governance systems to achieve the sustainable development goals: case studies of Japan and Indonesia

Compensation strategies to enact new governance frameworks for SDG transformations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About