Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negative Juxtaposition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Governance, Policy and Juxtaposition

Abstract

It has taken a while to get here but we are nearing the end of our journey towards an understanding of governance and policy-making and more specifically that for the maritime sector and its problems and needs. In the final chapter, we shall provide an overview of the whole process and see where this might take the reader to the next but here, we focus on a last look at juxtaposition, policy and governance and in particular, the difficulties and drawbacks faced in attempting to develop such an approach for although it might sound like an obvious and desirable thing to achieve, the problems that remain reflect the general failure that exists. We begin with a look at private governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrahamson, E., & Baumard, P. (2008). What lies behind organizational facades and how organizational facades lie; An untold story of organizational decision-making. In G. Gerard, P. Hodgkinson, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision-making (pp. 437–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2007). State sovereignty after 9/11; Disorganised hypocrisy. Political Studies, 55, 274–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience; Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, R. (2002). The time dimension in international regime interplay. Global Environmental Politics, 2(3), 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcarazo, D. A., & Freier, L. F. (2015). Turning the immigration policy paradox upside down? Populist liberalism and discursive gaps in South America. International Migration Review, 3, 659–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning; A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartelson, J. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Belintsev, B. N. (1983). Dissipative structures and the problem of biological pattern formation. Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 26(9), 775–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, P. (2000). Environmental governance and private actors: Enrolling insurers in international maritime regulation. Political Geography, 19, 875–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2008). Earth system governance: A research agenda. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change; Principal findings, applications and research frontiers (pp. 287–290). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., & Brohm, R. (2005). Implementing the Kyoto protocol without the United States; The strategic role of energy tax adjustments at the border. Climate Policy, 4(3), 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures; A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biersteker, T., & Weber, C. (1996). State sovereignty as a social construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blazquez, J., Fuentes-Bracamontes, R., Bollino, C. A., & Nezamuddin, N. (2018). The renewable energy policy paradox. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. (2002). The organization of hypocrisy; Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. Copenhagen: Abstrakt Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buijs, J. (2010). Understanding connective capacity of program management from a self-organization perspective. Emergence, Complexity and Organization, 12(1), 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buijs, B., Sievers, H., & Tercero Espinoza, L. (2012). Limits to the critical raw materials approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 165(4), 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational facades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism; Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. (1997). Globalization and fragmentation. International relations in the twentieth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, C. (1999). The limits of consensus. Environment, 41(3), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping. Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K. R. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or; Looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darier, E. (1996). Environmental governability; The case of Canada’s green plan. Environmental Politics, 5, 585–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. (1982). Transforming organizations; The key to strategy is context. Organizational Dynamics, 10, 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Burca, G., O’Keohane, R. O., & Sabel, C. (2012). New modes of pluralist global governance. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 45, 723–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, S. P. L., Smit, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2016). Scientists’ response to societal impact policies; A policy paradox. Science and Public Policy, 43(1), 102–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derkx, B., & Glasbergen, P. (2014). Elaborating global private meta-governance: An inventory in the realm of voluntary sustainability standards. Global Environmental Change, 27, 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf, J., Blengini, G. A., Pennington, D., Nuss, P., & Nassar, N. T. (2016). Criticality on the international scene: Quo vadis? Resources Policy, 50, 169–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorf, M. C., & Sabel, C. F. (1998). A constitution of democratic experimentalism. Columbia Law Review, 98(2), 267–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egnell, R. (2010). The organised hypocrisy of international state-building. Conflict, Security and Development, 10(4), 465–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenbaum, J., & Gale, S. (1971). Form, function and process: A methodological inquiry. Economic Geography, 47(4), 525–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdmann, L., & Graedel, T. E. (2011). Criticality of non-fuel minerals; A review of major approaches and analyses. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(18), 7620–7630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Essletzbichler, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2010). Generalized Darwinism and evolutionary economic geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 43–61). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, R., & Gupta, A. (2009). Limits of regulatory convergence; Globalization and GMO politics in the south. International Environmental Agreements, 9(2), 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster, E. M. (1909). The machine stops. In E. M. Forster (Ed.), The machine stops and other stories. London: Andre Deutsch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, N. J., & Ward, K. J. (2008). What governs governance, and how does it evolve? The sociology of governance-in-action. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 519–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law Review, 45(1), 1–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). Emergent complex systems. Futures, 26(6), 568–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemmill, G., & Smith, C. (1985). A dissipative structure model of organization transformation. Human Relations, 38(8), 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombiewski, R., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1975). Measuring change and resistance in human affairs; Types of change generated by OD design. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 12, 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graedel, T. E., & Reck, B. K. (2016). Six years of criticality assessments; What have we learned so far? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(4), 692–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2008). Global biosafety governance; The current state of play. In O. R. Young, W. Bradnee Chambers, J. A. Kim, & C. ten Have (Eds.), Institutional interplay: The case of biosafety (pp. 19–46). Yokohama: UNU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1985a). The geopolitics of capitalism. In D. Gregory & J. Urry (Eds.), Social relations and spatial structures. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1985b). The urbanization of capital. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschmann, G. (2012). Peacebuilding in the UN peacekeeping exit strategies; Organized hypocrisy and institutional reform. International Peacekeeping, 19(2), 170–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S., Schindler, D. W., Walker, B. W., & Roughgarden, J. (1995). Biodiveristy in the functioning of ecosystems; And ecological synthesis. In C. Perrings, K. G. Maler, C. Folke, C. S. Holling, & B. O. Jansson (Eds.), Biodiveristy loss; Economic and ecological issues (pp. 44–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. (1995). Sustainability and ‘the market’; A typology of environmental economics. In R. Eckersley (Ed.), Markets the state and the environment (pp. 46–70). London: Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or the culture of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1981). The evolutionary vision. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, J. (2000). Remarks at Workshop on Science and Governance, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Brussels, March 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and metagovernance; On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanie, N. (2007). Governance with multilateral environmental agreements; A healthy or ill-equipped fragmentation. In L. Swart & E. Perry (Eds.), Global environmental governance; Perspectives on the current debate (pp. 69–86). New York: Center for UN Reform.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R., & Turner, B. L., II. (1996). Regions at risk. Exploring environmental criticality. Environment, 38(10), 4–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W. J. M. (2003). Beneath consensual corporatism; Traditions of governance in The Netherlands. Public Administration, 81(1), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouzmin, A. (2002). Symposium—The new ‘political’ economy of the ‘smart’ state. Transitions in governance capacities. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(1), 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouzmin, A., Dixon, J., & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2001). From self-referential economics to managerialism and the ‘economic holocaust’ of down-sizing/re-engineering; A global reckoning begins! In K. Thorne & G. Turner (Eds.), Global business regulation; Some research perspectives (pp. 1–37). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. D. (2013). Recognition; Organized hypocrisy once again. International Theory, 5(1), 170–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. (2014, November). Why we can’t (or won’t) govern. The Hindu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. (2019, January). The Modi government’s reservation gambit is neither sound nor smart politics. The Hindu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughland, J. (2008, October). Bloom off the rose; Georgian ‘democracy’ owes more to Josef Stalin than Thomas Jefferson. Abkhaz World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. Y. (2013). A policy paradox from paternalism to populism; The case of foot and mouth disease in South Korea. International Review of Public Administration, 18(3), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindroos, A., & Mehling, M. (2005). Dispelling the chimera of ‘self-contained regimes’. International law and the WTO. European Journal of International Law, 16(5), 857–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipson, M. (2007). Peacekeeping; Organized hypocrisy? European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackinnon, D., & Derickson, K. D. (2012). From resilience to resourcefulness; A critique of resilience policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangat, R. (2001). The death of distance? Globalism in international relations. E-merge, 2, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 93–119). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1969). Theories of surplus value, part 2. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research policy and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptations in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, M. D. (2005). Costs and challenges of polycentric governance. In Workshop on Analyzing Problems of Polycentric Governance in the Growing EU. Berlin: Humboldt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, A. (1992). A global society? In S. Hall, D. Held, & A. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures. Cambridge: Polity Press/Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mee, A. (2007). E-learning funding for schools; A policy paradox. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, R. (2007). Shaking up international development. What one hand gives, the other takes. Industrial countries’ policy coherence for development. Challenge, 50(5), 28–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, U. (1998). Globalisierung versus Fragmentierung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, L. (2010). The cultural dimension of metagovernance; Why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Structural change and performance; Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 867–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morison, E. E. (Undated) Poetry and policy. Working Paper No. 3, Program in Science, Technology and Society. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhoff, K. (1990). Private funding for university research in Europe—Some models and conceptions. Higher Education Quarterly, 44(2), 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onuf, N. (1991). Sovereignty; Outline of a conceptual history. Alternatives, 16, 425–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, V. (1995). The meaning of democracy: The vulnerability of democracies. Bloomington, IN: Indian University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide; Coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, H. V. (1991). On the rocky road to the first civilization. Human Relations, 44(9), 897–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2012). The meta-governance of policy networks; Steering at a distance but still steering. Working Papers. Roskilde: Democratic Network Governance in Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. (1980). From being to becoming. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., & Nicolis, G. (1977). Self organization in non-equilibrium systems. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., Nicolis, G., & Babloyantz, A. (1972). Thermodynamics of evolution. Physics Today, 25, 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos; Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam New Age Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashish, M. (1982). Statement of Myer Rashish to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, August 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. (2003). A paradoxical future for safety in the global knowledge economy. Futures, 35, 811–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. (2006). Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3, 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. (2011). Post normal science and the maturing of the structural contradictions of modern European science. Futures, 43, 142–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, M. (2016). Maritime governance. Speed, flow, form, process. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered; Conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy implications. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 651–682). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sack, R. D. (1974). The spatial separatist theme in geography. Economic Geography, 50(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2003). Mapping institutional linkages in European air pollution politics. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), 14–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, A. (1980). Organizational paradigms; A theory of organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 8, 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidaway, R. (1994). Political geography in the time of cyberspaces; New agendas? Geoforum, 25, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnemann, G., Gemechu, E. D., Adibi, N., De Bruille, V., & Bulle, C. (2015). From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes; Putting effectiveness theory to work? (FNI Report 10/2001). Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Peters, G. B., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance. Advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, P., & Pilcher, N. (2017). Port governance in Taiwan: How hypocrisy helps meet aspirations of change. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., & Bateman, I. (1994). Environmental economics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voets, J., Verhoest, K., & Molenveld, A. (2015). Coordinating for integrated youth care. The need for smart metagovernance. Public Administration Review, 17(7), 981–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G. (2003, January). Policy escapism during the implementation of policies. Guihong Tribune (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C. (1995). Simulating sovereignty: Intervention the state and symbolic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B. R. (1993). Constitutions as governance structures; The political foundations of secure markets. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149, 286–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B. R. (1995). The economic role of political institutions; Market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 11(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions; A cultural theory of preference formation. The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1994). The institutions and governance of economic development and reform. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wuisan, L., Van Leeuwen, J., & Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2012). Greening international shipping through private governance; A case study of the clean shipping project. Marine Policy, 36, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society. Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelli, N. (2008). Regime conflicts in global environmental governance. A framework for analysis. Global Governance Working Paper No. 36, The Global Governance Project, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelli, F., & Van Asselt, H. (2013). The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance; Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK

    Michael Roe

Authors
  1. Michael Roe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Roe .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Roe, M. (2020). Negative Juxtaposition. In: Governance, Policy and Juxtaposition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31848-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation