Governance based on partnerships has become a characteristic of late capitalist societies. This paper explores how this new collaborative approach to environmental regulation creates challenges for existing technocratic policy networks, drawing on an organisational ethnography of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Our findings suggest partnership working is embraced for four reasons—to improve understanding of problems, to develop resource-efficient management solutions, to improve implementation of these solutions, and to improve communication and trust within the policy network. However, there appear to be three areas of difficulty. First, decisionmaking appears to be dominated by technocratic public servants; second, practical reasons for partnership, rather than embracing the normative arguments for discursive democracy, motivate most participants; and, third, participants are yet to experience the benefits of partnerships. We suggest three key areas which might address these problems and contribute towards a more successful implementation of the collaborative approach to regulation, namely to provide incentives for partnership working (demonstrating how the perceived benefits outweigh costs), developing interorganisational trust and providing organisational support (resources). We conclude with an analysis of the constraints that must be overcome to develop effective partnerships for environmental management, particularly the need to extend the network beyond the ‘usual suspects' and to embrace the normative dimensions of participatory democracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainbridgeVForesterSPasteurKPirnMPrattCArroyoI, 2000, “Transforming bureaucracies: Institutionalising participation and people centred processes in natural resource management—an annotated bibliography”, discussion paper, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/particip/research/institlearn/transbur-intro.pdf
2.
BarnesBEdgeD, 1982Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
3.
BeckUGiddensALashS, 1994Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Polity Press, Cambridge)
4.
BeierleT CKoniskyD M, 2001, “What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19515–527
5.
BessantJ, 2001, “A sociology of policy makings”, in Proceedings of the TASA Conference, Sydney, 13–15 December Eds BrowneTEdwardsKWatsonVVan KriekenR, CD ROM The Australian Sociological Association, School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane)
6.
BulkeleyHMolA, 2003, “Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate”Environmental Values12143–154
7.
ButcherHMullardM, 1993, “Community policy, citizenship and democracy”, in Community and Public Policy Eds ButcherHGlenA, (Pluto Press, London) pp 73–94
8.
CarminJ, 1999, “Voluntary associations, professional organizations and the environmental movement in the United States”Environmental Politics8(1) 101–121
9.
CarolanMBellM, 2003, “In truth we trust: Discourse, phenomenology and the social relations of knowledge in an environmental dispute”Environmental Values12225–245
10.
CarterN, 2001The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism and Policy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
DeanM, 2003, “Michel Foucault: ‘a man in danger’”, in Handbook of Social Theory Eds RitzerGSmartB, (Sage, London) pp 324–338
14.
DownieA, 2001, “Community consultation: Evaluation and guidance”, unpublished report, Scottish National Heritage, 12 Hope Terrace, Edinburgh EH9 2AS
15.
DryzekJ, 2000Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
16.
EckersleyR, 1999, “The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature”Environmental Politics8(2) 24–49
17.
ElsterJ, 1998, “Introduction”, in Deliberative Democracy Ed. ElsterJ, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 1–18
18.
FischerF, 2000Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
19.
PerezJ GarciaGroomeH, 2000, “Spanish forestry planning dilemmas: Technocracy and participation”Journal of Rural Studies16485–496
20.
GassGBiggsSKellyA, 1997, “Stakeholders, science and decision making for poverty-focused rural mechanization research and development”World Development25(1) 115–126
21.
GiddensA, 1998The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Polity Press, Cambridge)
22.
GouldsonAMurphyJ, 1998Regulatory Realities: The Implementation and Impact of Industrial Environmental Regulation (Earthscan, London)
23.
HabermasJ, 1984The Theory of Communicative Action (Beacon Press, Boston, MA)
24.
HeldD, 1995Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, (Polity Press, Oxford)
25.
HirstP, 1997From Statism to Pluralism (UCL Press, London)
JasonoffS, 1999, “The songlines of risk”Environmental Values8135–182
28.
KatesRClarkWCorellRHallJJaegerCLoweI, 2001, “Environment and development: Sustainability science”Science292(5517) 641–642
29.
KirkE AReevesA, 2003, “Disciplinary interactions: Ontological commitments and environmental standard setting”, in Current Legal Issues, Volume 5 Eds HolderJHarrisonC, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 557–573
30.
KooimanJ, 2000, “Societal governance: Levels, modes and orders of social–political interaction”, in Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy Ed. PierreJ, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 138–164
31.
KoontzT, 2003, “The farmer, the planner, and the local citizen in the dell: How collaborative groups plan for farmland preservation”Landscape and Urban Planning66(1) 19–34
32.
KramerL, 2000, “Water protection”, in European Commission Environmental Law (Sweet and Maxwell, London) pp 183–204
33.
MolA J, 1997, “Ecological modernisation: Industrial transformation and environmental reform”, in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology Eds RedcliftMWoodgateG, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 138–149
34.
NewmanJ, 2001Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society (Sage, London)
35.
O'NeillJ, 1997, “Value pluralism, incommensurability and institutions”, in Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and the Environment Ed. FosterJ, (Routledge, London) pp 75–88
36.
O'RiordanTVoiseyH, 1998, “The political economy of the sustainability transition”, in Agenda 21: The Transition to Sustainability in Europe Eds O'RiordanTVoiseyH, (Earthscan, London) pp 2–30
37.
PainRFrancisP, 2003, “Reflections on participatory research”Area35(1) 46–54
38.
PellizzoniL, 2003, “Uncertainty and participatory democracy”Environmental Values12195–224
39.
PierreJ, 2000, “Introduction: Understanding governance”, in Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy Ed. PierreJ, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 1–9
40.
PughK, 1997, “Beyond definitions of freshwater quality”, in Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Ed. BoonP, (The Stationery Office, Edinburgh) pp 13–19
41.
RCEP, 1998Setting Environmental Standards: Twenty-first Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Cm 4053, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (The Stationery Office, London)
42.
ReevesAKirkESherlockK, 2003, “Disciplinary interactions: Science and the law”, unpublished ESRC report R000223838, University of Dundee, Dundee
43.
Scottish Executive, 2001Rivers, Lochs, Coasts: The Future for Scottish Waters. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh
44.
Scottish Executive, 2003, “Policy and financial management review of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency”, unpublished document, http://www.sepa.org.uk (accessed 23 June 2003)
45.
SharpL, 2002, “Public participation and policy: Unpacking connections in one UK Local Agenda 21”Local Environment7(1) 7–22
46.
SherlockKReevesAKirkE, 2002a, “Institutional challenges of the Water Framework Directive 2002”, in Proceedings of the Science for Water Policy Conference, Norwich Eds LedouxLBurgessD, Centre for Socio-Economic Research on the Gobal Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Essex
47.
SherlockKReevesAKirkE, 2002b“Institutional challenges created by Water Framework Directive: A Scottish case study”, included in papers of the International Water Association Conference on River Basin Planning, Edinburgh, 11–13 September CD ROM (IWA Publishing, London)
48.
SherlockKKirkEReevesA, 2003, “Sociology, science and sustainability: Developing relationships in Scotland”, unpublished paper presented at the British Sociological Association Conference, York, 11–13 April; copy available from the authors; submitted to Sociological Research Online
49.
SmithG, 2001, “Taking deliberation seriously: Institutional design and green politics”Environmental Politics10(3) 72–93
50.
SnaryC, 2002, “Risk communication and the waste to energy incinerator EIA process: A UK case study of public involvement”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45267–283
51.
StokesS, 1998, “Pathologies of deliberation”, in Deliberative Democracy Ed. ElsterJ, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 123–139
52.
TaitJ, 2001, “Risk assessment and regulation: Interactions among industry, public and policy makers”, paper 24, Scottish Universities Policy Research and Advice Network, Edinburgh, http://www.supra.ed.ac.uk/Publications/paper24.pdf
53.
UNECE, 1998Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (United Nations, Geneva)
54.
Van BeekPWatsonR DMaxwellJ, 1996, “Making research work for the community”, in Multiple Land Use and Catchment Eds CresserMPughK, (Aberdeen Research Consortium, Aberdeen) pp 147–155
55.
Van den HoveS, 2000, “Participatory approaches to environmental policy making: The European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study”Ecological Economics33457–472
56.
VatnA, 2002, “Rationality, institutions and environmental policy”, paper presented at 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, Sousse, Tunisia; copy available from Dr Sherlock
57.
VatnA, 2004, “Environmental valuation and rationality”Land Economics80(1) 1–18
58.
WardHNorvalALandmannTPrettyJ, 2003, “Open citizens' juries and the politics of sustainability”Political Studies51282–299
59.
WarrenC, 2002Managing Scotland's Environment (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh)
60.
Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003Acts of the Scottish Parliament3 (The Stationery Office, Edinburgh)
61.
WCED, 1987Our Common Future World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
62.
WeberNChristophersonT, 2002, “The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process”Forest Policy and Economics4(1) 1–12
63.
WoodgateG, 1997, “Introduction”, in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology Eds RedcliftMWoodgateG, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 1–17
64.
YearleyS, 1997, “Science and the Environment”, in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology Eds RedcliftMWoodgateG, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 227–236
65.
YearleySCinderbySForresterJBaileyPRosenP, 2003, “Participatory modelling and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: A three-city case study”Environmental Values12247–262
