Institut für Nachhaltigkeitssteuerung (INSUGO)
Refine
Keywords
- Governance (2)
- Decline (1)
- Energiepolitik (1)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Erfolg (1)
- Failure (1)
- Gewässerbelastung (1)
- Governance System (1)
- Institutional Change (1)
- Institutioneller Wandel (1)
The world currently faces important issues concerning climate change and environmental sustainability, with the wellbeing of billions of people around the world at risk over the next decades. Existing institutions no longer appear to be sufficiently capable to deal with the complexity and uncertainty associated with the wicked problem of sustainability. Achieving the required sustainability transformation will thus require purposeful reform of existing institutional frameworks. However, existing research on the governance of sustainability of sustainability transformations has strongly focused on innovation and the more ‘creative’ aspects of these processes, blinding our view to the fact that they go hand with the failure, decline or dismantling of institutions that are no longer considered functional or desirable. This doctoral dissertation thus seeks to better understand how institutional failure and decline can contribute productively to sustainability transformations and how such dynamics in institutional arrangements can serve to restructure existing institutional systems.
A systematic review of the conceptual literature served to provide a concise synthesis of the research on ‘failure’ and ‘decline’ in the institutional literature, providing important first insights into their potentially productive functions. This was followed up by an archetype analysis of the productive functions of failure and decline, drawing on a wide range of literatures. This research identified five archetypical pathways: (1) crises triggering institutional adaptations toward sustainability, (2) systematic learning from failure and breakdown, (3) the purposeful destabilisation of unsustainable institutions, (4) making a virtue of inevitable decline, and (5) active and reflective decision making in the face of decline instead of leaving it to chance. Empirical case studies looking at the German energy transition and efforts to phase out coal in the Powering Past Coal Alliance served to provide more insights on (a) how to effectively harness ‘windows of opportunity’ for change, and (b) the governance mechanisms used by governments to actively remove institutions. Results indicate that the lock-in of existing technologies, regulations and practices can throw up important obstacles for sustainability transformations. The intentional or unintentional destabilisation of the status quo may thus be required to enable healthy renewal within a system. This process required active and reflective management to avoid the irreversible loss of desirable institutional elements. Instruments such as ‘sunset clauses’ and ‘experimental legislation’ may serve as important tools to learn through ‘trial and error’, whilst limiting the possible damage done by failure. Focusing on the subject of scale, this analysis finds that the level at which failure occurs is likely to determine the degree of change that can be achieved. Failures at the policy-level are most likely to merely lead to changes to the tools and instruments used by policy makers. This research thus suggests that failures on the polity- and political level may be required to achieve transformative changes to existing power structures, belief-systems and paradigms. Finally, this research briefly touches on the role of actor and agency in the governance of sustainabilitytransformations through failure and decline. It finds that actors may play an important role in causing a system or one of its elements to fail and in shaping the way events are come to be perceived. Drawing on the findings of this research, this dissertation suggests a number of lessons policy makers and others seeking to revisit existing institutional arrangements may want to take into account. Actors should be prepared to harness the potential associated with failure and decline, preserve those institutional elements considered important, and take care to manage the tension between the need for ‘quick fixes’ to currently pressing problems and solution that maintain and protect the longterm sustainability of a system.
Over 25 years after the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, agriculture in the European Union (EU) has below the line not come much closer to being sustainable. By now, efforts to promote sustainability in agriculture have predominantly been based on “mainstream science”. This has resulted in strategies directed mainly at agricultural production, measures targeted at individual farms, and a major focus on technology-centered solutions. Yet, there have been many claims emphasizing that such approaches are insufficient to deal with wicked, sustainability-related problems. Rather, it has been argued, we need to question the governance of sustainability issues, i.e. who makes which decisions in which way. A central aspect of sustainability governance is collaboration, which has been lauded for its benefits but also criticized for its challenges. The potential benefits of collaboration have apparently been recognized also in the context of EU agriculture. Yet, there has been a lack of holistic consideration of how collaboration can be systematically integrated and promoted in the governance of EU agriculture. Sustainable agriculture cannot only be encouraged through changes in the overall governance system but also through the support of existing and emerging small-scale collaborative initiatives for sustainable agriculture. Indeed, there has been substantial research on the conditions that influence success of similar collaborative initiatives. However, the knowledge resulting from this research remains rather scattered and does not allow for the identification of overall patterns. Additionally, little of this research specifically focuses on sustainable agriculture. What is more, the promotion of collaboration for sustainable agriculture is further complicated by the lack of clarity of the meaning of sustainable agriculture, which is an inherently ambiguous and contested concept. This cumulative dissertation aims to address these gaps by contributing to a better understanding of how collaboration can be facilitated and designed as a means to govern for and advance sustainable agriculture. For this purpose, the dissertation addresses three sub-aims: 1) Advancing the understanding of the concept of sustainable agriculture; 2) scrutinizing the current governance system regarding its potential to facilitate or hamper collaboration; 3) assessing conceptually and empirically how actor collaboration can be facilitated as a means to govern for sustainable agriculture, both from a top-down and a bottom-up perspective. In doing so, this dissertation focuses on EU agriculture and applies a mix of methods, ranging from qualitative to quantitative dominant. The findings of this dissertation highlight that collaboration has been underappreciated and even hampered as an approach to governing for sustainable agriculture. In contrast, this dissertation argues that collaboration offers one promising way to promoting and realizing agriculture and emphasizes the need to integrate different approaches to collaboration and to sustainable agriculture. Thus, the findings of this dissertation encourage and justify more research, discussion, and action around collaboration in the context of sustainable agriculture. Additionally, the dissertation provides first tangible insights both on principles for systemic change to promote governance for sustainable agriculture and on factors that are crucial for the successful management of small-scale collaborative initiatives. Most importantly, this dissertation advocates an ‘integrative attitude’ among and between scientists and practitioners which could enable more collegial, collaborative and hopefully more constructive research, discussion and action for sustainable agriculture.
Die schlechte Qualität von Binnengewässern ist ein weit verbreitetes und herausforderndes Problem für die Menschheit. Das Konzept der Komplexität ist ein besonders vielversprechendes Konzept zur Analyse und Lösung dieses Problems und von Problemen der öffentlichen Ordnung im Allgemeinen. Der Hauptgrund ist die Stärke des Konzepts, strukturelle Problemmerkmale innerhalb eines umfassenderen strukturellen Ansatzes für die politische Problemlösung zusammenzufassen. Bislang blieben diese möglichen Vorteile jedoch verborgen, da kein klares Verständnis der Komplexität vorhanden war, was letztendlich eine systematische Analyse der Auswirkungen der Komplexität auf Lösungen und Governance-Strategien behinderte. Diese Studie zielt darauf ab, den Wert des Komplexitätsbegriffs für systematische vergleichende Analysen von Wasserproblemen und von Problemen der öffentlichen Politik im Allgemeinen zu stärken. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, werden in dieser Arbeit das Konzept der Komplexität sowie die Implikationen der Komplexität für Lösungen und Governance-Strategien sowohl aus theoretischer als auch aus empirischer Sicht spezifiziert. Zu diesem Zweck werden fünf grundsätzliche Ansätze angewandt, die sich auf die zugrunde liegenden Prämissen, die Rolle eines interdisziplinären Ansatzes, die Europäische Wasserrahmenrichtlinie als empirischen Bezugspunkt, die Integration von praktischem Wissen und den Fokus auf externe Validität beziehen. Hauptergebnisse sind: Operationalisierung und Messung: Diese Dissertation bietet eine detaillierte Operationalisierung der Komplexität in Bezug auf die Dimensionen der Ziele, Variablen, Dynamiken, Vernetzungen und Informationsunsicherheiten. Sie zeigt zudem, dass sich Wasserqualitätsprobleme in Deutschland entlang dieser fünf Komplexitätsdimensionen unterscheiden. Dies gilt für 37 Typen von Wasserqualitätsproblemen und vier Problemcluster, die sich hier auf ´zahme´, ´bösartige´, ´sysytemkomplexe´ und ´mit Unsicherheit behaftete´ Probleme beziehen. Implikationen von Komplexität für Lösungen: Diese Dissertation legt nahe, dass die Beziehungen zwischen Komplexität und Politikumsetzung sowohl positiv als auch negativ sein können und je nach Dimension der Komplexität und Politikumsetzung variieren können. In Bezug auf die untersuchten Wasserqualitätsprobleme zeigt diese Arbeit zudem verschiedene Auswirkungen der Komplexität auf die Politikumsetzung auf, sowohl bei den 37 Problemtypen als auch bei den vier Problemclustern. Implikationen von Komplexität für die Governance: Diese Dissertation schlägt einen differenzierten theoretischen Ansatz vor, um Governance-Strategien für komplexe Problemlösungen zu definieren. Dabei wird gezeigt, dass die Rolle verschiedener Institutionen, Akteure und Interaktionen für Lösungen entlang der fünf Schlüsseldimensionen der Komplexität (Ziele Variablen, Dynamiken, Vernetzungen und Informationsunsicherheiten) sowie entlang verschiedener Managementstrategien (Informationsgenerierung, Modellierung, Verwendung von Entscheidungsunterstützungs-instrumenten, Priorisierung von Maßnahmen, Konfliktlösung, Entscheidung unter Unsicherheit und Anpassungsfähigkeit und Flexibilität) variieren. Zukünftiger Forschung wird empfohlen, auf diesen Ergebnissen aufzubauen, indem weitere empirische Nachweise geliefert werden und der Governance-Ansatz für komplexe Problemlösungen weiter kontextualisiert wird. Auf diesem Weg kann dazu beigetragen werden, die ´Logik des Scheiterns´ (Dörner 1996) in Bezug auf komplexe Problemlösungen in eine ´Erfolgslogik´ umzuwandeln, um Probleme unterschiedlicher Komplexität im Wasserressourcenmanagement und bei Problemen öffentlicher Ordnung anzugehen.
