Understanding sustainability policy: governance, knowledge and the search for integration
Understanding sustainability policy: governance, knowledge and the search for integration
复制标题
了解可持续发展政策：治理、知识和寻求整合
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. E. Klausen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rob Atkinson;J. E. Klausen
欧盟通过卡迪夫战略和哥德堡战略，力求通过促进对可持续性采取广泛和综合的办法，来应对被视为支离破碎和不协调的环境政策制定。本文旨在评估两个最近实施的欧盟指令的环境问题，根据这一目标，即空气质量管理和战略环境评估的指令。借鉴欧盟FP6项目“可持续发展治理”的理论基础和经验证据，本文旨在了解政策整合是如何利用知识的问题，这又与实施的治理安排有关。本文通过对9个国家的15个案例研究发现，尽管基于相同的指令，但实际的决策实践差异很大。在许多情况下，指令被视为部门性的“环境工具”，这些情况往往由通过相对封闭、等级森严的治理安排汇集的专家知识主导。然而，在其他情况下，这些指令被视为政治家培养一种网络治理模式的机会，这种模式“渴望”争论，有时还为竞争性的知识主张敞开大门。
The EU, through the Cardiff and the Gothenburg strategies, sought to counter what was seen as fragmented and uncoordinated environmental policy development by promoting a broad and integrated approach to sustainability. This article seeks to assess two recently implemented EU directives on environmental issues in light of this aim, namely the directives on Air Quality Management and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Drawing on theoretical foundations and empirical evidence from the EU FP6 project ‘Governance for Sustainability’, this article seeks to understand how policy integration is a matter of knowledge use, which is again related to the governance arrangements in which implementation takes place. Drawing on a total of 15 case studies in nine countries, the article finds that actual decision-making practice varies a lot albeit based on the same directives. In many cases, the directives were viewed as a sectoral ‘environmental tools’, and these cases were often dominated by expert knowledge being funnelled through relatively closed, hierarchical governance arrangements. In other cases, however, the directives were viewed as opportunities for politicians to cultivate a network mode of governance that ‘aspired’ to arguing and sometimes opened up for competing knowledge claims.