How Do States Benefit from Nonstate Governance? Evidence from Forest Sustainability Certification

被引:13
作者
Abrams, Jesse [1 ,2 ]
Nielsen, Erik [3 ]
Diaz, Diana [4 ]
Selfa, Theresa [5 ]
Adams, Erika
Dunn, Jennifer L. [6 ]
Moseley, Cassandra [7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Warnell Sch Forestry & Nat Resources, Nat Resource Sustainabil, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] Univ Georgia, Savannah River Ecol Lab, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[3] No Arizona Univ, Sch Earth Sci & Environm Sustainabil, Environm Sci & Policy, Flagstaff, AZ USA
[4] Inst Nacl Tecnol Agr Argentina, Tres, Arroyos, Argentina
[5] SUNY ESF, Dept Environm Studies, Syracuse, NY USA
[6] Michigan Technol Univ, Environm & Energy Policy, Houghton, MI 49931 USA
[7] Univ Oregon, Inst Sustainable Environm, Eugene, OR 97403 USA
[8] Univ Oregon, Ecosyst Workforce Program, Eugene, OR 97403 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
DRIVEN NSMD GOVERNANCE; PRIVATE REGULATION; GOVERNMENT; RISE;
D O I
10.1162/glep_a_00470
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Forest sustainability certification is emblematic of governance mechanisms associated with neoliberal state reforms. Despite being conceived as a means of compensating for the unwillingness or inability of states to regulate forest practices, in practice, forest certification has come to entail complex and hybrid relationships between private-sector, civil society, and government actors. Indeed, states have increasingly embraced certification as a means of complementing or even supplanting traditional forms of governmental regulation of the forest sector. Yet processes of neoliberalization imply both an expansion of opportunities for hybrid governance and a weakening of the state capacity that is often needed for successful implementation of certification initiatives. We analyze the complex relationships between neoliberalization, state capacity, and certification through two contrasting cases in Wisconsin, United States, and Entre Rios, Argentina. Our findings illustrate the tensions within broadly neoliberal and postneoliberal regimes and highlight the persistence of long-standing patterns of state-led environmental governance.
引用
收藏
页码:66 / 85
页数:20
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
Amengual Matthew., 2016, POLITICIZED ENFORCEM
[2]  
Auld G., 2014, CONSTRUCTING PRIVATE
[3]   Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields [J].
Bartley, T .
POLITICS & SOCIETY, 2003, 31 (03) :433-464
[5]  
Bartley Tim., 2011, Theoretical inquiries in law, V12, P517, DOI DOI 10.2202/1565-3404.1278
[6]   GOVERNANCE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT? THE CASE OF THE FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL [J].
Bell, Stephen ;
Hindmoor, Andrew .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2012, 90 (01) :144-159
[7]  
Bostrom M., 2003, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, V5, P165, DOI 10.1080/1523908032000121184
[8]   State actors and international forest certification policy: Coalitions behind FSC and PEFC in federal Argentina [J].
Burns, Sarah L. ;
Yapura, Pablo F. ;
Giessen, Lukas .
LAND USE POLICY, 2016, 52 :23-29
[9]   Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority [J].
Cashore, B .
GOVERNANCE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION, 2002, 15 (04) :503-529
[10]   Revising theories of nonstate market-driven (NSMD) governance: Lessons from the Finnish Forest Certification experience [J].
Cashore, Benjamin ;
Egan, Elizabeth ;
Auld, Graeme ;
Newsom, Deanna .
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 2007, 7 (01) :1-+