Beyond Neocorporatism? Transdisciplinary Case Studies as a Means for Collaborative Learning in Sustainable Development



Stakeholder involvement in political decision processes is sometimes claimed being a corporatist arrangement – generally with a pejorative connotation. Answering this claim, I first review the discussion of neocorporatism. Secondly, I present our own work, the Transdisciplinary Case Study (TdCS). Through this design, we initiate and foster collaborative learning processes in sustainable development. I discuss if the TdCS design can be understood as neocorporatist arrangement. In a literal classical understanding this is not the case. In a broader process understanding, our design resembles a neocorporatist like interest mediation. Yet, it goes well beyond: a larger number of stakeholder groups is involved; the role played by science is emphasized; and it is conceptualized more as learning process than as interest negotiation. I conclude by showing some implications from this macrosociological perspective for our work. I will pay special emphasis to the crucial role(s) science plays.


Neocorporatism Sustainable development Stakeholder involvement Science and society Transdisciplinarity 


  1. Anheier H, Kendall J (2002) Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: examining three approaches. Br J Sociol 53(3):343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balasubramaniam A, Voulvoulis N (2005) The appropriateness of multicriteria analysis in environmental decision-making problems. Environ Technol 26(9):951–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belton V, Pictet J (1997) A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information. Revue des systèmes de décisions 6(3):283–303Google Scholar
  5. Bornschier V (1988) Westliche Gesellschaften im Wandel. Campus, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornschier V (2000) Befähigung zu Sozialkapitalbildung und wirtschaftlichem Erfolg im entwickelten Kapitalismus – neue Evidenzen aus Ländervergleichen 1980–1997. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 26(2):373–400Google Scholar
  7. Bornschier V (2005a) Institutionelle Ordnungen – Markt, Staat, Unternehmung, Schule – und soziale Ungleichheit. Loreto Verlag, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornschier V (2005b) Varianten des Kapitalismus in reichen Demokratien beim Übergang in das neue Gesellschaftsmodell. [Varieties of capitalism in rich democracies in transition. Toward the new societal model.] Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 45: 331–371Google Scholar
  9. Bornschier V (2005c) Culture and politics in economic development. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown K, Adger WN, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K (2001) Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol Econ 37(3):417–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chilvers J (2007) Towards analytic-deliberative forms of risk governance in the UK? Reflecting on learning in radioactive waste. J Risk Res 10(2):197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clemens ES, Cook JM (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Ann Rev Sociol 25:441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crepaz MML (1995) Explaining national variations of air pollution levels: political institutions and their impact on environmental policy-making. Environ Polit 4(3):391–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delhey J, Newton K (2003) Who trusts? The origins of social trust in seven societies. Eur Soc 5(2):93–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downes D (1996) Neo-corporatism and environmental policy. Aus J Polit Sci 31(2):175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elwood S (2007) Making space for integrative research and teaching. Environ Plann A 39(10):2291–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JT (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, Newbury Park, CA/London/New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  22. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels TL (2005) Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decis Anal 2(1):4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Healey P (1998) Building institutional capacity trough collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environ Plann A 30(9):1531–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendriks C (2002) Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: roles, tensions and incentives. Aus J Public Adm 61(1):64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hicks A, Kenworthy L (1998) Cooperation and political economic performance in affluent democratic capitalism. Am J Sociol 103(6):1631–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hicks AM, Swank DH (1992) Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, 1960–1982. Am Polit Sci Rev 86(3):658–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Innes JE (1998) Information in communicative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 64(1):52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jahn D (1998) Environmental performance and policy regimes: explaining variations in 18 OECD-countries. Policy Sci 31(2):107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joubert AR, Leiman A, de Klerk HM, Katua S, Aggenbach JC (1997) Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Ecol Econ 22(2):123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King RF, Borchardt A (1994) Red and green: air pollution levels and left party power in OECD countries. Environ Plann C 12(2):225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lahdelma R, Salminen R, Hokkanen J (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 26(6):595–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lahusen C (2000) The good government: cooperative environmental regulation in a comparative perspective. Eur Environ 10(6):253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laws D, Scholz RW, Shiroyama H, Susskind L, Suzuki T, Weber O (2004) Expert views on sustainability and technology implementation. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol 11(3):247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lehmbruch G (1979) Liberal corporatism and party government. In: Schmitter PC, Lehmbruch G (eds) Trends towards corporatist intermediation. Sage, London, pp 147–183Google Scholar
  36. Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  37. Lijphart A, Crepaz MML (1991) Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen countries: conceptual and empirical linkages. Br J Polit Sci 21(2):235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lowndes V, Sullivan H (2004) Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: how well do local partnerships and public participation go together? Local Govern Stud 30(1):51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthews MM (2001) Cleaning up their acts: shifts of environment and energy policies in pluralist and corporatist states. Policy Stud J 29(3):478–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDaniels TL, Gregory R (2004) Learning as an objective within a structured risk management decision process. Environ Sci Technol 38(7):1921–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDaniels TL, Trousdale W (2005) Resource compensation and negotiation support in an aboriginal context: using community-based multi-attribute analysis to evaluate non-market losses. Ecol Econ 55(2):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Théoret A (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Adm Sci Q 21(2):246–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molina O, Rhodes M (2002) Corporatism: the past, present, and future of a concept. Ann Rev Polit Sci 5:305–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neumayer E (2003) Are left-wing party strength and corporatism good for the environment? Evidence from panel analysis of air pollution in OECD countries. Ecol Econ 45(2):203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Nuissl H (2005) Trust in a ‘post-socialist region’. A study of East German ICT entrepeneurs’ willingness to trust each other. Eur Urban Reg Stud 12(1):65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perez C (1983) Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems. Futures 15(5):357–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Petts J (2004) Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management. J Risk Res 7(2):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ploger J (2001) Public participation and the art of governance. Environ Plann B 28(2):219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Renn O (1999) A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 33(18):3049–3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rittel HW, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sager T (1994) Communicative planning theory. Avebury, Aldershot, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmitter PC (1974) Still the century of corporatism? Rev Polit 36(1):85–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmitter PC (1979) Still the century of corporatism? In: Schmitter PC, Lehmbruch G (eds) Trends towards corporatist intermediation. Sage, London, pp 7–52Google Scholar
  55. Schmitter PC, Lehmbruch G (eds) (1979) Trends towards corporatist intermediation. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Scholz RW (2000) Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In: Scholz RW, Häberli R, Bill A, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: mutual learning sessions (Vol. 2). Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag AG, Zürich, pp 13–17Google Scholar
  57. Scholz RW, Marks D (2001) Learning about transdisciplinarity. Where are we? Where have we been? Where should we go? In: Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser, Basel/Boston/Berlin, pp 236–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M (2007) Managing transition in clusters: Area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss prealpine region. Environ Plann A 39(10):2518–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  60. Scholz RW, Mieg HA, Oswald JE (2000) Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management: towards mutual learning of science and society. Water Air Soil Pollut 123(1–4):477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Wiek A (eds) (2002) Landschaftsnutzung für die Zukunft: der Fall Appenzell Ausserrhoden. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2001. Rüegger und Pabst, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  62. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Krütli P (eds) (2004) Mobilität und zukunftsfähige Stadtentwicklung: Freizeit in der Stadt Basel. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2003. Rüegger und Pabst, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  63. Scholz RW, Lang D, Wiek A, Walter A, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustainability High Educ 7(3):226–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Krütli P, Wiek A (2007) Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg – Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2006. Rüegger, Zürich, ChurGoogle Scholar
  65. Scruggs L (1999) Institutions and environmental performance in seventeen western democracies. Br J Polit Sci 29(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scruggs L (2001) Is there really a link between neo-corporatism and environmental performance? Updated evidence and new data for the 1980s and 1990s. Br J Polit Sci 31(4):686–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecol Manage 207(1–2):171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shinn T (2002) The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Soc Stud Sci 32(4):599–614Google Scholar
  69. Shinn T (2005) New sources of radical innovation: research-technologies, transversality and distributed learning in a post-industrial order. Soc Sci Inf 44(4):731–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shonfield A (1965) Modern capitalism: the changing balance of public and private power. University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  71. Siaroff A (1999) Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: meaning and measurement. Eur J Polit Res 36(2):175–205Google Scholar
  72. Stauffacher M (2006) Beyond neocorporatism: new practices of collective decision making. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means for societal learning in sustainable development. Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of ZürichGoogle Scholar
  73. Stauffacher M, Scholz RW (2008) Erfahrungen in Grenzgebieten: transdisziplinäre Fallstudien als Lehrforschungsprojekte an der ETH Zürich. In: Darbellay F, Paulsen T (eds) Herausforderung Inter- und Transdisziplinarität. Konzepte, Methoden und innovative Umsetzung in Lehre und Forschung. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes (PPUR), Lausanne, pp 135–154Google Scholar
  74. Stauffacher M, Walter A, Lang D, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006) Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary case study approach. Int J Sustainability High Educ 7(3):252–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008a) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaborative planning: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss pre-alpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stauffacher M, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008b) Gesellschaft und radioaktive Abfälle: Ergebnisse einer schweizweiten Befragung. Rüegger, Zürich, ChurGoogle Scholar
  77. Streeck W, Kenworthy L (2005) Theories and practices of neocorporatism. In: Janoski T, Alford RR, Hicks AM, Schwartz MA (eds) A handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies and globalization. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 441–460Google Scholar
  78. Streit ME (1988) The mirage of neo-corporatism. Kyklos 41(4):603–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiek AH, Binder CR, Scholz RW (2006) Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 38(7):740–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETHInstitute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)ZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations