• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
From inst to gov part 1
 

From inst to gov part 1

on

  • 865 views

First part "From institutions to governance"

First part "From institutions to governance"

Statistics

Views

Total Views
865
Views on SlideShare
246
Embed Views
619

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 619

http://adaptivegovernance2012.posterous.com 615
http://posterous.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    From inst to gov part 1 From inst to gov part 1 Presentation Transcript

    • From Institutions to Governance
    • Self-organization is key in complex adaptive systems
    • Self-organization is key in complex adaptive systems
    • Why does this matter? Because governance is becomingincreasingly complex, and provides more space for self-organization! Compare with Folke et al (2005)
    • Global changes in the politicallandscape
    • Global changes in the politicallandscape Decentralization
    • Global changes in the politicallandscape Decentralization Public Private Partnerships
    • Global changes in the politicallandscape Decentralization Public Private Partnerships Non-governmental organizations
    • Global changes in the politicallandscape Decentralization Public Private Partnerships Non-governmental organizations International agreements
    • Centralized decision-makingCentral policy-maker (e.g. environmental Decision-makingministry) Implementation and monitoringRegional or local state authorities Local natural resource users Behavioral response
    • Decision-making in complexgovernance systems International norms, agreements Central policy-maker (e.g. environmental ministry) Decision-making, implementation, negotiations, Non-state actors partnerships Regional or local state authorities Implementation, monitoring, negotiations, partnerships Decentralization Local natural resource users
    • Adaptive Management Adaptive Co-management Holling (1978): AM, iterated process in the face ofuncertainty, experimentation, continuous evaluations
    • Adaptive ManagementAdaptive Co-management
    • Adaptive ManagementAdaptive Co-management Fikret Berkes and colleagues Co-management! Adaptive, learning, sharing of decision-making btw stakeholders
    • Adaptive Governance Extension of adaptive co-management:* not place bound* can include and explore, several place boundattempts of ACM at the same time* polycentric* higher levels of social organization, up to global* explorative framework!
    • Illustrations of adaptive governance
    • Making Sense of Complexity in Governance All systems don’t look the same! Two main approaches i) Box typologies ii) Network typologies
    • Box typology, example - Urban Governance Jon Pierre Participants Objectives Instruments Outcomes .....
    • Box typology, example 1999388 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / January - Urban GovernanceTABLE 1: Models of Urban Governance: Defining Characteristics Models of Urban GovernanceDefining Characteristics Managerial Corporatist Progrowth WelfarePolicy objectives Efficiency Distribution Growth RedistributionPolicy style Pragmatic Ideological Pragmatic IdeologicalNature of political exchange Consensus Conflict Consensus ConflictNature of public-private exchange Competitive Concerted Interactive RestrictiveLocal state-citizen relationship Exclusive Inclusive Exclusive InclusivePrimary contingency Professionals Civic leaders Business The stateKey instruments Contracts Deliberations Partnerships NetworksPattern of subordination Positive Negative Positive NegativeKey evaluative criterion Efficiency Participation Growth Equity From Pierre (1999), Urban Affairs Review
    • Box typology, example 1999388 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / January - Urban GovernanceTABLE 1: Models of Urban Governance: Defining Characteristics Models of Urban GovernanceDefining Characteristics Managerial Corporatist Progrowth WelfarePolicy objectives Efficiency Distribution Growth RedistributionPolicy style Pragmatic Ideological Pragmatic IdeologicalNature of political exchange Consensus Conflict Consensus ConflictNature of public-private exchange Competitive Concerted Interactive RestrictiveLocal state-citizen relationship Exclusive Inclusive Exclusive InclusivePrimary contingency Professionals Civic leaders Business The stateKey instruments Contracts Deliberations Partnerships NetworksPattern of subordination Positive Negative Positive NegativeKey evaluative criterion Efficiency Participation Growth Equity From Pierre (1999), Urban Affairs Review
    • Box typology, example 1999388 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / January - Urban GovernanceTABLE 1: Models of Urban Governance: Defining Characteristics Models of Urban GovernanceDefining Characteristics Managerial Corporatist Progrowth WelfarePolicy objectives Efficiency Distribution Growth RedistributionPolicy style Pragmatic Ideological Pragmatic IdeologicalNature of political exchange Consensus Conflict Consensus ConflictNature of public-private exchange Competitive Concerted Interactive RestrictiveLocal state-citizen relationship Exclusive Inclusive Exclusive InclusivePrimary contingency Professionals Civic leaders Business The stateKey instruments Contracts Deliberations Partnerships NetworksPattern of subordination Positive Negative Positive NegativeKey evaluative criterion Efficiency Participation Growth Equity From Pierre (1999), Urban Affairs Review
    • ii) Network typologies - polycentric systems Vincent OstromPolycentric systems - manycenters of decision making that areformally independent of each other.“Many elements are capable ofmaking mutual adjustments forordering their relationships withone another within a generalsystem of rules where eachelement acts with independence ofother elements.”
    • ocean acidification climate changemarine biodiversity
    • UNEP World Bank IUCN UNESCO WorldFish Centre Global Forum on Oceans Coasts and Islands ICES FAO UN OceanICRI GPA-Marine PacFa
    • FAO WB World Fish UNEP
    • Other examples Cybersecurity Climate policy Urban governance
    • What do we want “adaptive governance” to achieve? “The Problem of Fit”
    • CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 315Figure 1: Structure of Transnational Municipal NetworksSource: Authors’ own data. From Kern & Bulkeley (2009), JCMS
    • CITIES, EUROPEANIZATION AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 315Figure 1: Structure of Transnational Municipal Networks1,400 European cities in city networksSource: Authors’ own data. From Kern & Bulkeley (2009), JCMS
    • From Strong to Weak Polycentricity Weakest - only communication Self-organization Not necessarily non-hierarchical
    • From Strong to Weak Polycentricity Stronger - Self-organization and joint action by core
    • From Strong to Weak Polycentricity Stronger - Self-organization and joint action by core
    • From Strong to Weak PolycentricityStrong - high levels of trust, small groupSelf-organization, joint action, conflict resolution
    • Mini-task, 10 min, 3 and 3 • Same system as before, think about it as a polycentric system • Nodes - who? what? • type of links - collaboration or just communication?
    • BREAK
    • Three forces thatare reshaping the Planet
    • The Anthopocene Planetary Boundaries“The Great Acceleration
    • The Anthopocene Planetary Boundaries“The Great Acceleration Political shifts towards networked forms of governance
    • The Anthopocene Planetary Boundaries“The Great Acceleration Political shifts towards networked forms of governance Mass-Self Communication Information Revolution
    • Mini-task, 3 and 3, 10 mins Pick a political area of interest Try to identify key actors involved in steering What is their objective?Could be local, could be global, could be multilevel.