Lecture 3: Theory – Reactive to Proactive; new ideas, new policie Flashcards
Why are reactive policies limited?
The focus was to protect and clean up. They were designed for setting restrictions on the developents, not the developments themselves. As a result, the environment is only a check on development, not one of the key criteria for development.
Like Zuidema, 2016 said: “although these policies provide stimuli for meeting (…) minimum quality levels, they are no impetus for doing
more”
What is the shift from government to governance about?
Emergence of governing styles in which the boundaries between and within public and private sectors have blurred. State loses steering ability. Control displaced upwards, downward to regions: regional, municipalities and outwards to international corporations, non governmental organisations and other private or quasi private bodies.
How can a governance renewal take place? Zuidema talked about other types of policies and responsibilities between government levels? what needs to be done concerning these aspects?
Governmental policies need to be more coherent and well coordinated. This means cross-sectoral, mutually reinforcing each other and more integrated. –> EPI
responsibilities between government levels need to be shared more.
What is multi-level governance mean and what does shifting upwards and downwards mean in this sense?
According to Bressers and Kuks 2003 sectors in society are not governed on one level, or on a number of separate levels, but through interaction between these levels.
A shift upwards means from nation state to international level. Means increased involvement of international NGOs
A shift downwards means from nation state to regions, cities, provinces, municipalities. This causes more involvement of local people, groups and businesses.
This is also more sensitive to local circumstances and interests.
What is subsidiarity about?
Issues should be dealth with at the lowest level of authority were it is still efficient so as to be closest to the actual.
So you wanna decentralize the furthest as reasonable. This allows for more easiness with local circumstances. Municipalities know the local knowledge but EU does not.
Criticisms about decentralization?
Not all can be controlled locally. Willingness and ability are not always evident or easy. Also, fixing local fixed targets is more difficult. External/spillover effects are impossible to deal with. Economies of scale plays a role here: not every municipality has enough capacity to have expertise on everything. This creates differences.
Explain how government to governance also causes a loss of steering ability because control is displaced outwards. Outwards to what? …
International corporations, NGOs or other (quasi-) private bodies. So market parties and civil society as well
How does realism and relativism relate to the communicative turn and rationality?
Realism is more about a reality that is out there and independent of human experience while relativism things reality is a human construct based on experiences. What is real and rational is based on people’s perceptions. This relates to communicative rationality, where you want to reach an agreed reality. Making sense of those involved and interpreting.
Explain the ‘classic’ coordinative model that stays close to a realist position.
Relies on assumed perfect and objective knowledge. Factual reality with cause-effect relations we can objectively know and influence.
Tendency to rely on uniform rationality (objective standards), expressed as technical rationality.
Very pragmatic: choose the most effective and efficient means to reach a
predefined end’
What are risks of central state control?
(1) Functional specialization may cause fragmented & incoherent
policies, which is ameliorated if you face interrelated issues
(2) Complex issues are hard to fully control
(3) The state has lost power and legitimacy; they depend also on
others to govern (e.g. globalization, privatization)
(4) There are multiple contested ideas on what is ‘good’, ‘rational’
and ‘true’
Explain the third and fourth aspect of Governance renewal. Do these shifts play part inwards or outwards?
Communicative turn: governance through argumentation mainly with civil society
Neo-liberal turn: Governance through competition.
What are benefits and doubts from the communicative turn?
Benefits:
* Knowledge can be an important informant for behavioural change
* Involvement is a crucial aspect of democracy and can boost social
support, commitment/ownership and even behavioural change
* Allows for negotiated solutions; decide what to agree on
* Use each others expertises and ideas
Doubts:
* Knowledge is not the only determinant for behaviour change
* Is direct democracy always more legitimate? (e.g. power imbalances /
expertise / who participats and who not?)
* Effective? (accountability and control)
* Efficient? time and efforts needed to organise and decide
Benefits and doubts of the Neoliberal turn?
Benefits:
- Effective distribution of costs/benefits
- Direct internalization of environmental costs
- Benefit of expertise + support of market parties
- Push forward ongoing innovation; marginal costs
Risks
- Not everything can or should be prized
- Still need systems of control/accountability
- Not necessarily good levels – ‘if you pay you can’. Certain companies are not that succesful and can’t do anything or way less.
- Distributional effects of pollution not taken into account
Interrelatedness and complex uncertain issues ask for more than just shifting responsibilities. Explain why?
There is more to it: ecological modernization (decoupling, innovation and novel technologies are needed)
Transition management is also needed to adapt and cope with the unkown. Learning by doing and transforming things.
What is the shadow of law?
About a link between regulation (pressure and certainty) and Market based instruments. They make this link already anticipating what might happen in court.
