The transnational policy process for REDD+ and domestic policy entrepreneurship in developing countries

Abstract

This article aims to understand the complex relationship between transnational pathways of policy influence and strategies of domestic policy entrepreneurship in the pursuit of REDD+ in developing countries. Since 2007, a complex governance arrangement exerting influence through the provision of international rules, norms, markets, knowledge, and material assistance has supported the diffusion of REDD+ policies around the world. These transnational pathways of influence have played an important role in the launch of REDD+ policy-making processes at the domestic level. Indeed, over 60 developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have initiated multi-year programmes of policy reform, research, and capacity-building that aim to lay the groundwork for the implementation of REDD+. However, there is emerging evidence that the nature of policy change associated with these REDD+ policy efforts ultimately depends on the mediating influence of domestic factors. This article offers an analytical framework that focuses on whether and how domestic policy actors can seize the opportunities provided by transnational policy pathways for REDD+ to challenge or reinforce the status quo in the governance of forests and related sectors.

Following REDD+: Elite agendas, political temporalities, and the politics of environmental policy failure in Guyana

“…Overall, it showed how, distinct from the mainstream understanding of environmental policy processes as guided by scientific judgements and technocratic decision-making, the REDDþ policy process in Guyana was rather highly contingent on personal relationships and narrow political interests (e.g. Betsill, 2006;Corson et al, 2014;Dryzek, 2013;Fischer, 2003;Hajer, 1995;Jodoin, 2017;Scoones, 1999, 2014). As was seen, these actors were significantly responsible for shaping the form REDDþ in Guyana took in line with their own political interests.…”

“…According to this alternative understanding, competing actors and groups seek to influence the policy form, development, and implementation process in accordance with their own material and ideological interests (Hajer 1995;Fischer 2003;Dryzek 2013;Kern & Rogge 2018). These actors may be self-interested politicians (Béland and Waddan 2012), policy Following REDD+ in Guyana 8 entrepreneurs (Hermansen & Kasa 2014;Hermansen 2015;Jodoin 2017), or corporate actors seeking to further (or protect) their own interests (Jordan & O'Riordan 2000;Howlett et al 2012). The policy process is thus reconceived as a one dominated by influential (and often transnational) actors, who struggle to impose their interpretation of reality (or policy 'discourse') on the debate, hoping to eventually see their interpretation become hegemonic (Betsill 2006;Jodoin 2017).…”

“…These actors may be self-interested politicians (Béland and Waddan 2012), policy Following REDD+ in Guyana 8 entrepreneurs (Hermansen & Kasa 2014;Hermansen 2015;Jodoin 2017), or corporate actors seeking to further (or protect) their own interests (Jordan & O'Riordan 2000;Howlett et al 2012). The policy process is thus reconceived as a one dominated by influential (and often transnational) actors, who struggle to impose their interpretation of reality (or policy 'discourse') on the debate, hoping to eventually see their interpretation become hegemonic (Betsill 2006;Jodoin 2017). In this way, some have argued that REDD+ was favoured as a solution to climate change in the 2006 'Stern Report' because it ultimately represented a 'cheap' way of dealing with carbon emissions that would not threaten industrial growth (Stephan 2012).…”

Towards Technology and Entrepreneurship: A Perspective With Cyclic Conditions

“…(Fernhaber, Gilbert, & McDougall, 2008;Mitchneck, 2017). Developing countries entrepreneurship specifics were analysed widely and in quite different approaches by researchers as well (Dana & Ratten 2017;Jodoin 2017;Muhammad, Waren, & Binte-Saleem, 2017;Bastian, Sidani, & El Amine, 2018;Bongomin, Munene, Ntayi, & Malinga, 2018;Yessoufou, Blok, & Omta, 2018). Some effects of geographical location are also alluded to in the results and validation sections of this paper where entrepreneurship indices for different countries are mentioned and differences in entrepreneurship dynamics are indicated from secondary data analysis.…”

Bringing Local Knowledge Into Program Implementation Process (Case Study Of PIJAR Program)

“…This paper aimed to illustrate the integration of local knowledge to the policy implementation in Indonesia. Contrary to the previous studies on the implementation of public policy in Indonesia which were more top-down and technocratic (Suwarno et al, 2018;Jodoin, 2017;Pratomo, 2017), this article tried to give another review on values of local community which may be included in policy implementation. This paper also emphasized that local knowledge was significant to the public policies in Indonesia which had not been widely discussed in the past.…”