| 1. |
- Cumming, G. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Advancing understanding of natural resource governance : a post-Ostrom research agenda
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier BV. - 1877-3435 .- 1877-3443. ; 44, s. 26-34
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Institutions are vital to the sustainability of social-ecologicalsystems, balancing individual and group interests andcoordinating responses to change. Ecological decline andsocial conflict in many places, however, indicate that ourunderstanding and fostering of effective institutions for naturalresource management is still lacking. We assess theoreticaland methodological challenges facing positivist institutionalanalysis, focusing on natural resource governance according toOstrom’s social-ecological systems (SES) framework. Ratherthan adding more variables, progress requires a clearer, moreconsistent approach to selecting, defining and measuringinstitutional elements; stronger links between theory andempirical research; a greater focus on mechanisms andcausality; and the development and application of newmethods, including quantitative approaches. Strengthening theconnections between theory, models, and data suggestsseveral promising avenues for advancing institutional analysisthrough the study of relationships between institutionalstructure, process, function, context, and outcomes.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Weible, Christopher M., et al.
(författare)
-
Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Policy Studies Journal. - : Wiley. - 0190-292X .- 1541-0072. ; 48:4, s. 1054-1081
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The concept of “advocacy coalitions” is the bedrock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), one of the most established and successful approaches for understanding policy processes across the globe. This article revisits and sharpens the conceptual definition of advocacy coalitions. We summarize the lessons from its theoretical emphases under the ACF and specify its five attributes (policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability). Through this specification, we identify the ideal coalition type and several coalition subtypes. We then clarify and make a distinction between how we think about coalitions as a concept and how we approach coalitions empirically. This article sharpens the lens for describing and explaining coalitions toward better observations, theorizing, and measurements. It ends with next steps for further deepening and broadening knowledge about advocacy coalitions.
|
|
