How does symbolic commitment strengthen the resilience of sustainability institutions? Exploring the role of bureaucrats in Germany, Finland, and the UK

Abstract

Symbolic commitment is commonly acknowledged in the literature to be important for sustainability governance. Academics express high hopes and expectations of symbolic commitment as a means to strengthen sustainability institutions. Policy makers and bureaucrats see it as being necessary in order to keep an issue on the agenda. However, little is known about how symbolic commitment contributes to institutional resilience. This study examines the rise and fall of national institutions for implementing sustainability agendas in Germany, Finland, and the UK in the context of fluctuating symbolic commitment. Interviews with 56 policy actors and documentary analysis uncovered the creative role of bureaucrats in securing symbolic commitment. The risks of relying on symbolic commitment can be reduced by considering the impact of economic austerity and the loss of institutional memory.

Toward the sustainability state? Conceptualizing national sustainability institutions and their impact on policy‐making

“…They can thus form but one building block of a prospective sustainability state next to other possible elements like, inter alia, a constitutional commitment to sustainability, a set of laws aligned with sustainability goals, and respective checks for the national budget. However, we also acknowledge that, from the perspectives of symbolic politics and organizational neo‐institutionalism (Blühdorn, 2007; Brunsson, 2002; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), sustainability institutions might even serve as formal substitutes for a substantial reorientation of policy‐making toward SD, reflecting only a “symbolic commitment from the highest level of leadership” (Wong & van der Heijden, 2021, p. 4). Still, a number of examples we provided suggest that sustainability institutions have the potential to reorient policy‐making toward sustainability objectives, which would qualify them as constitutive elements in their respective polity.…”

“…By using the term “institutions,” we aim to avoid confusion with non‐governmental and for‐profit “organizations” and underscore the fact that they embody a degree of institutionalization of sustainability in national polities. Thereby, we also follow the use of this terminology in the field (Boston, 2017; Dirth, 2016; Dovers, 2001; Göll & Thio, 2008; González‐Ricoy & Gosseries, 2016b; Rose, 2016; UNGA, 2013; Wong & van der Heijden, 2021), even though this understanding differs from the mainstream social sciences notion of “institutions” as referring to rules, norms and practices (North, 1990; Young et al, 2008).…”

“…Second, the future‐orientation of sustainability suggests that sustainability institutions exist permanently in order to enable long‐term political commitment, establish viable working relationships and provide continuity beyond election cycles (OECD, 2016; Wong & van der Heijden, 2021). We operationalize permanence by an open‐ended mandate or the repeated appointment because these criteria hint to a long‐term mission or an accepted practice, respectively.…”

“…Additionally, the crosscutting orientation of sustainability institutions may be facilitated by certain internal design features such as office‐holders and staff members with varying professional backgrounds, from different policy areas or constitutional organs. Further, leaders of government or parliament or their representatives may be formally involved, for example, as a chair, to signal its cross‐cutting character and political priority (integrative high‐level political leadership) (Breuer et al, 2019; Heinrichs & Laws, 2014; Wong & van der Heijden, 2021). This is the case for Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development, which is chaired by the Prime Minister (Prime Minister's Office Finland, 2020, p. 21).…”

“…Second, the future-orientation of sustainability suggests that sustainability institutions exist permanently in order to enable long-term political commitment, establish viable working relationships and provide continuity beyond election cycles (OECD, 2016;Wong & van der Heijden, 2021).…”