多中心的环境治理外文文献翻译.docx

1、多中心的环境治理外文文献翻译多中心的环境治理外文翻译2019-2020英文The black box of power in polycentric environmental governanceT.H.Morrison， W.N.Adger，etcAbstractFailure to address unsustainable global change is often attributed to failures in conventional environmental governance. Polycentric environmental governancethe popul

2、ar alternativeinvolves many centres of authority interacting coherently for a common governance goal. Yet, longitudinal analysis reveals many polycentric systems are struggling to cope with the growing impacts, pace, and scope of social and environmental change. Analytic shortcomings are also beginn

3、ing to appear, particularly in the treatment of power. Here we draw together diverse social science perspectives and research into a variety of cases to show how different types of power shape rule setting, issue construction, and policy implementation in polycentric governance. We delineate an impo

4、rtant and emerging research agenda for polycentric environmental governance, integrating diverse types of power into analytical and practical models.Keywords: Polycentric governance, Environmental governance, Power1.IntroductionGlobal environmental change is a wicked challenge: non-reducible, variab

5、le, and complex. It is also an urgent problemfailure to progress the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for instance, could permanently compromise finite natural resources and inter and intra-generational well-being. While there is general agreement that averting unsustainable chan

6、ge is desirable, social and policy responses are often constrained by limited capacity and the fact that single actors or singular approacheswhether top down or bottom upcannot effectively tackle such problems. Social and policy solutions need to be experimental, adaptive, distributed, and multi-sca

7、le (Loorbach et al., 2017;Ostrom, 2010a;Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016).Environmental governance structures have broadened in response to such complexity and interdependency, from top-down centralised approaches to decentralised, community-based, or polycentric arrangements, incorporating not just pri

8、nciples of efficiency but also those of equity, legitimacy, and accountability (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). Polycentric governance structures in particular have become popular with analysts since Elinor Ostroms reflections in 2010 on the failure of top down solutions (Ostrom, 2010a).The concept ofpoly

9、centric governanceis best understood when juxtaposed with monocentric governance (Ostrom et al., 1961). An ideal-typemonocentricsystem is one controlled by a central predominant authority (e.g. a comprehensive governmental authority or private monopoly responsible for all goods and services). By con

10、trast, apolycentricsystem comprises multiple governing authorities at different scales which do not stand in hierarchical relationship to each other but are engaged in self-organisation and mutual adjustment (Ostrom, 2010a).Polycentric systems are attractive to a wide variety of interests in that th

11、ey allow for more policy innovation and diffusion across multiple organisational units, whether through “hard” regulation or “soft” instruments such as economic incentives, voluntary agreements, self-regulation, and sustainability certification (Jordan et al., 2013,2015). Advocates suggest that this

12、 form of governance creates new opportunities for multiple actors at multiple levels to take responsibility for initiating and implementing sustainability and resilience solutions (Carlisle and Gruby, 2017;Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016;Steffen et al., 2018). Polycentric governance is also understood

13、to provide more opportunities for representation of different social actors than monocentric governance. As such, its inclusivity can be viewed as a more legitimate form of governance. In providing opportunities for innovation and experimentation across multiple organisational units, polycentric gov

14、ernance can also enable the development of tailor-made solutions that are fit for purpose (Lebel et al., 2006). It additionally provides a level of flexibility and nimbleness that may not be possible in traditional hierarchies. Furthermore, polycentric governance is regarded as more robust: when one

15、 part of the system fails there are multiple other parts able to step in (Ostrom, 2010b).While not a panacea, polycentricism holds much promise for solving the multiple governance challenges of environmental change (Aligica and Tarko, 2012;Andersson and Ostrom, 2008). However, new research on polyce

16、ntric governance is also challenging normative prescriptions, somewhat controversially (Gallemore, 2017;Sovacool et al., 2017;Sunderlin et al., 2015). In many cases, polycentric governance systems are struggling to cope with the growing risks of rapid social and environmental change (Jordan et al.,

17、2018). Documented problems include high transaction costs, inconsistencies, freeloading, unanticipated effects, gridlock, and ultimate implementation failure (Morrison et al., 2017). A new strand of environmental policy science is also beginning to highlight how the concept of polycentricity is plag

18、ued by inherent contradictions and assumptions, and that some big gaps in knowledge remain. Power dynamics have been highlighted as one of these gaps (Morrison et al., 2017), alongside assumptions about policy experimentation (Huitema et al., 2018), lack of understanding of feedbacks (Berardo and Lu

19、bell, 2019), and limited evaluation of effectiveness (Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017). The central focus of this Perspective is the pronounced lack of analysis of the role of power.In this Perspective, we define power as the uneven capacity of different actors to influence the goals, process, and outc

20、omes of polycentric governance. We argue that while it is axiomatic that all governance (whether monocentric, integrated, decentralised, or polycentric) involves uneven power dynamics, many studies of polycentric governance provide only partial analyses of the initial design or the emergent structur

21、e of polycentric systems, ignoring uneven power dynamics or relegating them to being exogenous to the system. In the rare cases where power is highlighted, we show that analyses tend to focus on the potential negativeeffectsof (higher-level) power; they rarely highlight the process nor the positive

22、outcomes of powerful steering or “orchestration” (Abbott, 2017). We argue that scientists and policymakers can improve their ability to explain and enhance the environmental outcomes of polycentric systems by re-conceiving polycentric governance not just as a structural solution or a diagnostic but

23、also as a set of diverse institutions, agencies, and other social actors influenced by power-laden social relationships. Distilling the power dynamics inherent in polycentric governance will thus be a critical step in moving from polycentric governance as a concept to polycentric governance as a the

24、ory and practice for addressing global environmental change. We conclude by highlighting future research needs which are dependent on a power-centred analysis.2.The power gap in polycentric governance and why it mattersAll governance involves power: more powerful actors receive more favourable outco

25、mes than less powerful ones; equality and fairness are rare. However, while many analysts of polycentric governance have often acknowledged power dynamics, they have not directly addressed how power dynamics can challenge or reinforce polycentric governance systems (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2006;Mansbrid

26、ge, 2014). As a result, studies of polycentric environmental governance often remain snapshot analyses of only the initial design or the emergent structure of polycentric systems, with post-hoc analysis of power dynamics often relegated to an explanatory postscript about “a black box of politics” or

27、 “the lack of political will”. For example, shows that while there has been a dramatic rise of scientific interest in polycentric environmental governance since Elinor Ostroms influential 2010Global Environmental Changearticle, scientific interest in the power dynamics of polycentric governance is o

28、nly now emerging as an important field in its own right.There are a variety of reasons why the power gap persists in polycentric environmental governance. The complexity and messiness of polycentric systems means that power dynamics are hidden more effectively than in other governance types; they ar

29、e difficult to observe, tough to define, slippery to measure, tricky to generalise about, and challenging to manage (Sova et al., 2016). Scientists, policymakers, and practitioners working at the interface between the application of science and policy can also find power dynamics sensitive and uncom

30、fortable, and therefore may often deliberately or inadvertently overlook them.Oversight of power dynamics also has its roots in disciplinary divisions and trends. For example, while important strands of political science have focused on the strategies of powerful actors in driving and addressing glo

31、bal change (such as the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations, the United States, and multinational corporations) (Nye, 2008), these insights have often remained separate from the polycentric environmental governance literature, which tends to focus on the diffusion of power across groups of

32、actors (with the notable exception of Abbott (Abbott, 2017;Abbott and Bernstein, 2015). The bias towards diffuse power also reflects the broader governance literature, where researchers in the key fields of American federalism and European Union (EU) studies (Feiock, 2013;Hooghe and Marks, 2003;Scha

33、rpf, 2006), political science (Crook and Manor, 1998), public policy and administration (Bevir and Rhodes, 2006), and institutional economics (Ostrom, 2010b), have spent many years exploring the diffusion of power away from powerful sole actors such as a centralised governmental authority. And as ably illuminated byPartzsch (2017