Environmental Co-governance, Legitimacy, and the Quest for Compliance: When and Why Is Stakeholder Participation Desirable?

Birnbaum, Simon

doi:10.1080/1523908x.2015.1077440

Cited by 60 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Mees et al (2016a) show how efforts to 'coproduce' flood risk governance between public authorities and private citizens in selected European countries, may be driven by efforts to facilitate the transfer of risk responsibilities onto at-risk householders and propagate societal acceptance of alternative measures to flood defence. Birnbaum (2016) argues that public participation in the context of sustainable development planning primarily appears to have established as a professionally mediated exercise, seeking consensus as opposed to confrontation and serving conventional governing practices. In agreement, Few et al (2007) note how participation is often used as a rhetoric for consultation, without any real redistribution of power.…”

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Observations have been made about the shifting relationship between the state and non-state actors (such as private citizens, businesses, NGOs), from once unidirectional, top-down diffusion of knowledge towards more multidirectional forms of knowledge exchange and participatory governance (e.g. Birnbaum 2016). This transition presents both a threat and opportunity for addressing legitimacy deficits.…”

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A requisite for procedural justice, and legitimacy more broadly, is accountability (Lawrence et al 1997;European Commission 2001;Risse 2006;Birnbaum 2016). In the pursuit of procedural justice, it argued that stakeholders should be equally able to challenge decisions that have been made, exercise their legal rights, and hold designated actors to account (Spagnuolo 2011;Schmidt 2013;Goytia et al 2016).…”

Section: Procedural Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…van Kersbergen and van Waarden 2004;Esty 2006;Biermann and Gupta 2011;Cashmore and Wejs 2014;Mees et al 2014;van Buuren et al 2014;Eriksen et al 2015;Birnbaum 2016 appropriately judge participatory quality, it is essential that such underlying motives are explicated. Multi-stakeholder participation is not in itself a guarantee of legitimacy, but can both undermine as well as support pursuits of legitimate governance (Thaler and Hartmann 2016).…”

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Weber 1976;Ebbesson 2010;Termeer et al 2011;Spagnuolo 2011;Driessen and van Rijswick 2011;Buijze 2013). Building upon these issues, public policy and administration scholarship seems to extend the view on legitimacy towards wider matters of public participation, social equity, and distributive justice (Few et al 2007;Birnbaum 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimacy is widely regarded as a founding principle of 'good' and effective governance, yet despite intense academic debate and policy discourse, the concept remains conceptually confusing and poorly articulated in practice. To bridge this gap, this research performed an interpretive thematic analysis of academic scholarship across public administration, public policy, law, political science, and geography. Four core themes were identified in relation to representative deliberation, procedural and distributive equity and justice, and socio-political acceptability, with numerous sub-themes therein. In an attempt to clarify conceptual confusion, this paper grounds these theoretical debates in the context of flood risk governance where numerous legitimacy dilemmas exist. A number of questions are presented as conceptual 'signposts' to encourage reflexive governance in the future. Thus, more broadly, we assert the importance of bringing legitimacy to the forefront of contemporary flood risk governance discourse and practice, moving beyond the realm of academic reflection.

show abstract

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Procedural Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The resource‐based view, stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and sustainable competitive advantage: The firm's embeddedness into ecology, society, and governance

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main research question of the study is this: Is the firm embedded into ecology, society, and governance (ESG), or vice versa? Using the resource-based view as a theoretical lens, and stakeholder capitalism as a paradigm anchored in the Dashgupat Review, we demonstrate in a panel data over 26 years that at the firm level, the relationship between sustained competitive advantage and the ESG footprint is concave shaped, and the impact inequality multiple gaps of the ESG footprint are 4.75 times the providing capacity of the natural and business environment. To solve the common method variance, endogeneity, and unobserved heterogeneity, system GMM is used as a method in a dataset of US manufacturing firms from 1992 to 2019. At the end, we argue that extant attributes of a resource base for sustained competitive advantage have an inherent flaw anchored in the resource-based view, as they ignore the "environmental, social, and governance (ESG) friendliness" attribute of a resource. Managers need to rethink the objective of their firms if they want to survive in the new ESG-friendly economy with stakeholder supremacy.

show abstract

The limits of collaborative governance: The role of inter‐group learning and trust in the case of the Estonian “Forest War”

Vihma

Toikka

2021

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the reported success of introducing collaborative governance to the field of Estonian forest policy, conflicts over regulations escalated to an unprecedented extent in 2017. We analyze the institutional design and process of collaborative governance in this area in order to understand the reasons behind the failure of this governance arrangement. Our empirical analysis is based on a mixed methods approach combining network analysis with qualitative analysis of interview data. Our analysis reveals that the collaborative institutions were unable to generate shared understanding of the mission and the ground rules of decision-making, provided uneven facilitation, failed to build trust, and thus were unable to establish an arena conducive to learning. We further stress the role of network methods in capturing adequate information from an institutional setting involving multiple participants.

show abstract

Environmental Co-governance, Legitimacy, and the Quest for Compliance: When and Why Is Stakeholder Participation Desirable?

Cited by 60 publications

References 48 publications

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

The resource‐based view, stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and sustainable competitive advantage: The firm's embeddedness into ecology, society, and governance

The limits of collaborative governance: The role of inter‐group learning and trust in the case of the Estonian “Forest War”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About