politics and governance short presentation -...

PA 395-Energy Policy Gary Flomenhoft

GOVERNANCE

Environmental Movement 1960-1980

“Pluralism in Policy-Making”

Bottom-up not top-down

Deep seated changes in the use of nature

Breadth of constituency

Methods: lobbying, litigation, media, electoral

politics, civil disobedience

Issue networks, policy communities

Environmental laws

National Environmental laws

Global Environmental Efforts

Speth’s 8-fold path

1) Stable or smaller world population

2) Free of mass poverty

3) Environmentally benign technologies

4) Environmentally honest prices

5) Sustainable consumption

6) Knowledge and Learning

7) Governance

8) Public attitudes and motivation

Governance issues Anatomy of Failure. Ch5

1970 Domestic

Agenda

1980 Global Agenda

Understandable

science

complex science

Highly visible

impacts

remote or difficult to

perceive

Current problem future problem

Us/here them/there

Acute chronic


DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL

Majority Rules 100% consensus

Shared political culture:

parties, committees,

staffs, public input

Diplomats

Shared national interest Diverse interests

Congress decides, end of

story unless veto.

Treaties must be ratified

by national govts

Vast staff and policy

briefings

Shortage of staff, lack of

expertise by negotiators

Open to the public Closed discussions


UNEP, ECOSOC comm on Sust. Dev,

convention bodies are among the weakest

FTC, FDA

regulatory

agency with

broad powers

FDA, FTC

regulatory

agencies with

broad powers

Command and

control

International

treaties

consensus

Montreal protocol

Targets without

ratification on 2/3

vote


Necessary conditions of governance

Peace and stability

Favorable economy, absence of crisis

Open democratic society,

independant, effective media

High level and active NGOs

Presence of rule of law and culture

of compliance wiht intl law

Human and institutional capacities

in government to participate

meaningfully


Political fault lines

Environment vs. Economy

North vs. South

United States vs. the World

2002-Rio Two in Jo-berg 25 right-wing think-tanks:

“The least important global environmental issue is

potential global warming, and we hope that your

negotiators at Jo-Berg can keep it off the table and

out of the spotlight.”


Conservation threatens:

Pro-market anti-government ideology

Major governmental response needed

Interference with the market

Rethinking utopian materialism

pushing unlimited economic

expansion

Denial: Lomborg, Simon, etc.

Origins of the environmental crisis?

Adam Smith

Rivalness and Excludability • Non-rival

– My use does not leave less for you to use

– Market sells for a price, discouraging use, but social cost of use = 0, therefore market should not supply

• Non-excludable

– One person can’t keep another from using the good

– Consumer will not pay, market will not supply

Must have a price to work in the free market!

Rival}

Non-rival}

Excludable Non-Excludable

Market Good:

land, timber, fish once

captured, farmed fish,

Potential market good

(Tragedy of the

“non-commons”)

but inefficient:

patented information,

Pond

Pure Public Good:

climate stability, ozone

layer, clean air/water/land,

Biodiversity, information,

habitat, life support

functions, etc.

Open Access Regime:

(misnamed: Tragedy of the

commons)

Oceanic fisheries, timber

etc. from unprotected

forests, waste absorption

capacity, roads (congestible)

“Maximization of Shareholder Value”

“Golden Rule of Publicly held companies:

Rational behavior:

Externalize costs

Influence politics to

Seek subsidies and favors

Marginal disutility

Cost of regulations-OMB report

Annual Cost: $37-43 billion

EPA conservative approach, Consistently

overestimates costs, not considering least

cost approach and technical innovation

Annual Benefits: $121-193

EPA consistently underestimates benefits

USING ACTUAL NOT THEORETICAL

CASES BENEFITS OUTWEIGH COSTS

5:1

Full World or Empty World?

Source:

Ecological

Economics

Principles &

Applications,

Farley and

Daly

ESA Listings and GDP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1973 1980 1990 2001

$10

$9

$8

$7

$6

$5

$4

$3

R2 = 98.4

Source: The Wildlife Society Technical Review 2003-1.

Grow out of poverty?

Poverty rate vs. GDP per Capita (1996$)

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

19

591

961

19

631

965

19

671

969

19

711

973

19

751

977

19

791

981

19

831

985

19

871

989

19

911

993

19

951

997

19

992

001

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

per capita GDP (1996$) poverty rate

Full World or Empty World?

film


Difference in conditions of governance for International agreements

CFCs CO2

Absolute proof No conclusive proof

Small % of DuPont's business Huge $ impact on every sector of

economy

Only affected a few companies Effects thousands of companies

Relatively small-scale change Huge scale of change

Easy alternatives Difficult alternatives

NASA support=minimal political risk NASA support not good enough

Under Reagan 1987 Montreal Protocol

and Bush 1990 Clean Air Act

Ideologies hardened

Level of Perceived Threat?

Scale of people affected is greater

Scale of issue is greater

Lack of incentives

Lack of enforcement power


Why has international legislation

worked at all?

Government Leadership

NGO pressure

International “bridging” institutions:

Environmental groups and civil

society

Multi-natl corps.??

International science

UN

Multilateral development banks

Other multi-lateral institutions

Good Governance. Ch9

World Business Council for Sustainable Dev.

FROG-first raise our growth

GEOpolity-intl env law

JAZZ-unscripted, volulntary initiatives,

decentralized andd improvisational

Good conduct enforced by public opinion and

consumer decisions.

Business sees advantage in doing right thing


GEOpolity-intl env law-External

Transition to capable, accountable, and

democratic governments

Development in poorer regions

Compacts between North and South


GEOpolity-intl env law-Internal

International principles (Rio Principles)

Fundamental human rights

Common concern

Common but differentiated responsibilities

Duty not to cause environmental harm

Integration

Polluter pays

Precautionary principle

Public participation

Right to development


GEOpolity-intl env law-Internal Decision-making process improvements:

1) Binding regulatory power

2) Compel action through intl court

3) WEO

1) International body for environmental ministers

2) Promote Intl Law

3) Watchdog, ombudsman, catalyst

4) Global monitoring

5) Develop consensus on goals, mobilize finanacing,

and launch campaigns

6) Assess and report on natl& intl progress

7) Coordinate& sponsor science


GEOpolity-intl env law-Internal Norms for globalization

Public access


GEOpolity-intl env law-Internal Montreal protocol won because (Grundmann):

Defined the problem on their own terms

Enforced the preautionary principle

Focussing event

Better network and hustle than opposition

NRDC expoited Hodel’s comment about “more

hats”

Policy advisors from: NRDC, WRI, EPA, UNEP


GEOpolity-intl env law-Internal Susskind:

Formal recognition of NGOs

Amnesty Intl for global environment


JAZZ-

Environmental groups

Consumer Groups

NGOs

Business

State & local Govt.

Foundations

Religious groups

investors


JAZZ-State & local level

Smart growth

Sustainable cities

Greenplans

State climate protection initiatives

State regulatory approaches (Renewable

portfolio standards)

State green purchasing

Environmental building codes


JAZZ-

Product certification

US toxics release invenory

“Right to know”

Third-party auditing

Market creation

Boycotts/buycotts

internet


JAZZ-

WWF= $340 million

NC and CI protection


JAZZ-

NGOs:30,000 international

World Social Forum


JAZZ-Business and investors

Business GHG initiatives

Green power marketing group

Lumber stores selling FSA certified wood

Unilever-fish certification

Social investment

Sustainability Reports

Business strategic planning

Ecolabeling


JAZZ-How to encourage:

Information-internet access & connectivity

Govt disclosures

Improve Ecolabeling-life cycle product

biographies

Corporate compliance with global reporting

initiative


JAZZ-How to encourage:

Governments:

Change tax laws to encourage citizen activity

in Jazz

Public-private partnerships

Green Purchasing

Media recognition

Foundations link isolated actors


JAZZ-How to encourage

Personal:

Drive hybrid vehicles

Eat certified seafood

Become active in env. Cons. Causes

LCV voting guide

Escape enthrallment of utopian materialism

Consumer demand for green products


Fusion of JAZZ an GEOpolity

Global issue networks

Voluntary partnerships:

Public-private and other partnerships for

sustainable development

Example: HOT SPOTS-CI

Think BIG even if you are small:

The world might respond!

But piecemeal approach won’t work-need to

address the global issues

Interest Groups and Social Movements

Interest Group: “Organized body of individuals who

share some goals and who try to influence public

policy.” -Berry

“Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared

attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in

society for the establishment, maintenance, or

enhancement of other forms of behavior that are

implied by the shared attitudes.”-Truman

“Advance the the common interests of groups of

individuals.”-Olson

Organizations which seek incremental changes in laws,

regulations, or judicial decision through institutional

means. McAdam


Social Movement: tactics, non-incremental

“A process in which people seek a better world by

means of collective action which, with the proper mix

of circumstances, can challenge the existing social

order.”-Boggs

an attempt to change existing relations of authority

between groups of people, or to change the

fundamental values on which the social system is

based.- Rochon

Those organized efforts, on the part of excluded groups,

to promote or resist changes in the structure of society

that involve recourse to non-institutionalized forms of

political participation (c.d. and direct action).”-

McAdam


Choice of means:

Assess the Structural arrangements of the Political

system to determine likelihood of access and

policy success.

Structural arrangements of political process may

determine choice of means.

1) Rational Actor Thesis: Mancur Olsen. Groups are most likely

to form and to maintain themselves in direct proportion to their

ability to offer selective benefits to their members. Salisbury:

Entrepeneurs concerned with ensuring group maintenance

(and their own employment through staff position) rather than

impacting policy outcomes.

2) Holistic: Paehlke, Gottlieb, Fitzsimmons. Transformation of

fragmented narrow, particularlistic lobbies into a broad-scale

social movement that would change the nature of American

politics.

3) Pluralist: Fragmented, piecemeal. Group membership

motivated by idealogical appeals, concerns over public policy,

and successful mobilization. Influencing policy dependent

upon effective leadership, the emplyment of appropriate

strategies, and forging of coalitions to alter the distribution of

power within the political system.

Theories of Interest Groups: Ingram, Colnic, Mann

Theories of Environmental Change-Flo

Eco-illogical cycle

politics and governance short presentation -...

Documents