Actors and strategies in translating global conservation narratives to Vietnam: An agency perspective

Abstract

With the increasing influence of New Public Management, such narratives as payments for ecosystem services and ecological networks are gaining global popularity in natural resource management. Promoted by transnational actors, these narratives have been introduced in Vietnam and have inspired a number of projects. The ensuing politics of multi-level governance triggered conflict and cooperation in adversarial policy process and deserve greater attention from environmental policy scholars. In this paper we advance a framework to analyze such processes from an agency perspective and contend that policy actors engage in three types of strategies in their policy work: (1) scale-based strategies of seeking support across governance scales; (2) meaning-based strategies of linking narratives to other concepts and discourses; and (3) context-based strategies of engaging with the policy context at multiple sites of governance. We illustrate these strategies with examples from the Ba Be and Na Hang protected areas in Vietnam.

Kingdon's “Streams” Model at Thirty: Still Relevant in the 21st Century?

“…The top‐down administration modified the policy to an extent that it had little resemblance to the original idea, and at the local level there was hardly any awareness and support for the policy (Mukhtarov et al . ).…”

“…They present three levels of political rules—preconstitutional, constitutional, and postconstitutional—and define the characteristics of the policy entrepreneurs in these different settings. Mukhtarov and others () study the role of transnational entrepreneurs in introducing a global environment conservation policy in Vietnam and conclude that transnational actors are the most influential as they enter into coalitions with national‐level government and are excellent in strategizing while local actors (civil society and local communities) have no opportunity to engage in strategy at national level.…”

“…Scholars also highlight how such structural factors can produce failed policies despite the presence of powerful entrepreneurs. Mukhtarov and others () emphasize in their Vietnamese case study that despite the power enjoyed by the transnational actors and the patronizing attitude of the national government toward these actors, the policy did not translate into successful policy implementation. The top‐down administration modified the policy to an extent that it had little resemblance to the original idea, and at the local level there was hardly any awareness and support for the policy (Mukhtarov et al .…”

Strategizing beyond boundaries : policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture

“…We find that the literature on policy entrepreneurship pays limited explicit analytical or conceptual attention to cross-boundary strategies. An exception is the notion of "venue shopping", "venue shifting" or "venue manipulation" (Boasson and Wettestad 2014, Boekhorst et al 2010, Carter and Jacobs 2014, Mukhtarov et al 2013, Pralle 2006, an activity related to shifting the decisionmaking authority to a different arena, which is discussed not only in the policy entrepreneurship literature but also more broadly in relation to the policy process literature, most importantly punctuated equilibrium theory (Baumgartner andJones 2010, Pralle 2003a). The increasing number of articles addressing boundary-crossing in our sample might well be aligned to the increasing attention for crosscutting policy issues.…”

“…A fifth and last implication of crossing boundaries reported in the literature is when a policy entrepreneur enters an arena where it has no traditional authority or reputation it may lead to issues regarding trust, legitimacy and authority (Alimi 2015, Arieli and Cohen 2013, Forbes 2012, Mukhtarov et al 2013, Newman 2008. To illustrate this, Alimi (Alimi 2015) discusses the development of a global drug policy and describes how in this process a multi-stakeholder partnership around the promotion of global drug policy called itself a "global mission" as a strategic line in order to pretend to a certain level of legitimacy to create a global process (Alimi 2015).…”