Adapting to Sea‐Level Rise: Centralization or Decentralization in Polycentric Governance Systems?

Abstract

How do polycentric governance systems respond to the emergence of new collective-action problems?We study this question in the context of the evolution of polycentric systems of sea-level rise adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area. We focus on how the structure of polycentric systems changes over time to support cooperation and learning and whether those changes represent a process of centralization or decentralization. The ecology of games framework provides the theoretical background for developing hypotheses about the structure of the system over time. We test the hypotheses by analyzing the polycentric system as a two-mode network where actors are linked to policy, divided into five time periods from 1991 to 2016. The results suggest that the polycentric system for sea-level rise adaptation started with a centralized set of actors, which evolved over time to a more decentralized structure. The research has general implications with respect to how polycentric systems manage the trade-off between maintaining local autonomy and coordinating decisions at the regional level across fragmented policy communities.

The benefits of specialized knowledge in polycentric governance

“…Both findings reflect key tensions in the politics of climate adaptation and polycentric governance more generally. Regional forums are required to navigate the tension between coordinating regional action, and the desire of local actors to maintain autonomy and respond to local knowledge and priorities (Lubell & Robbins, 2021). Non‐governmental actors often take more of an advocacy role that is critical of existing policies and institutions.…”

“…These forums may vary in terms the mix of conflict and cooperation they experience, which reflects the extent to which the forums exist primarily for information sharing and learning, versus bargaining over resource distribution and changes in authoritative rules (Fischer & Maag, 2019, Mewhirter, McLaughlin, et al, 2019). In the context of sea level rise, any forum that may influence on local planning and decision‐making tends to generate more conflict (Lubell & Robbins, 2021). Science communication forums (13 in our dataset) and forums that facilitate information exchange and network development (12 in our dataset) typically feature the lowest level of conflict and highest level of potential mutual gains.…”

“…The Bay Area is highly exposed to inundation due to sea level rise (Wang et al, 2018), its nine counties are highly interdependent in terms of vulnerability (Hummel et al, 2018) and divided concerning how to deal with it (Mildenberger et al, 2019). In the past decade, the number of policy forums dedicated to sea level rise and climate adaptation has rapidly increased (Lubell & Robbins, 2021). We use original data collected via an online survey in summer 2018 from 422 stakeholders involved in 55 forums focused on adaptation to sea level rise.…”

Centralize or Decentralize? - The Question Currently Facing Schools in Qatar

“…The general impression potentially drawn from the results above is that the participants' responses seem to reflect satisfaction with the rationale underlying those impressions, suggesting that schools are satisfied with the return to centralization. Considering the tension between decentralization and centralization, we need to find regional solutions to collective-action problems (Lubell & Robbins, 2022). Shah (2010) observed that it is rare to have either pure decentralization where one individual makes all the decisions or pure centralization where the decisions are made solely by the center.…”

Editorial introduction: Exploring theories and subtleties of the policy process

“…Now, moving on to the articles, the first seven contributions discuss various policy theories as they are related to different aspects of the policy process. The articles address topics such as polycentric governance (e.g., Lubell & Robbins, 2022;Vantaggiato & Lubell, 2022), institutional configurations for policy outcomes (e.g., Herzog et al, 2022;Möck et al, 2022), grammar of institutions for complex legal topics (e.g., Olivier & Schlager, 2022;Siddiki et al, 2022), state legislatures' public-facing policy agendas (e.g., Meza, 2022;Sato & Haselswerdt, 2022), consultants' roles in public policy formulation (e.g., Marchevska & Steen, 2022;Vantaggiato & Lubell, 2022), decision makers' attention to experts (e.g., Schiff & Schiff, 2023;Williams, 2021), and policy feedback via economic behavior (e.g., Jacobs et al, 2022;Lacombe, 2022). These articles shed light on the nuances and complexities of policy theory research and invite you to engage with different theoretical perspectives and frameworks.…”