Policy Formulation and EGT: Making Governance Work

  • Kristof Van AsscheEmail author
  • Raoul Beunen
  • Martijn Duineveld
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Economics book series (BRIEFSECONOMICS)


In this chapter we briefly outline a number of domains of application for EGT, some preliminary insights in each domain, and methodological considerations. We conclude with a reflection on the value of EGT in mapping out the middle ground between libertarian and socialist ideologies.


Formal Institution Informal Institution Citizen Participation Social Engineering Scientific Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Armitage, D. R. (2010). Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beunen, R. (2010). The governance of nature: How nature conservation ambitions have been dashed in planning practices. Wageningen: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  3. Beunen, R., & Opdam, P. (2011). When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 324–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunner, R. D. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brunner, R. D., & Lynch, A. H. (2010). Adaptive governance and climate change. Boston: American Meteorological Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Domingo, I., & Beunen, R. (2013). Regional planning in the Catalan Pyrenees: Strategies to deal with actors’ expectations, perceived uncertainties and conflicts. European Planning Studies, 21(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duineveld, M., Beunen, R., Van Assche, K., During, R., & van Ark, R. (2009). The relationship between description and prescription in transition research. In K. J. Poppe, C. Termeer & M. Slingerland (Eds.), Transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas (pp. 392). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Easterly, W. (2006). The white man’s burden: Why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eichholz, M., Van Assche, K., Oberkircher, L., & Hornidge, A. K. (2013). Trading capitals? Bourdieu, land and water in rural Uzbekistan. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(6), 868–892. Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Fuchs, S. (2001). Against essentialism: A theory of culture and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunder, M. (2006). Sustainability. Planning’s saving grace or road to perdition? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2), 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kooij, H., Van Assche, K., & Lagendijk, A. (2013). Open concepts as crystallization points and enablers of discursive configurations: the case of the innovation campus in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies (Online First).Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Luhmann, N. (1988). Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  20. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11.Google Scholar
  23. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Holm, J., & Lo, M. (2013). Social learning and innovation. Ice fishing communities on Lake Milles Lacs. Land Use Policy, 34, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Assche, K., Salukvadze, J., & Duineveld, M. (2012). Under pressure: Speed, vitality and innovation in the reinvention of Georgian planning. European Planning Studies, 20(6), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Assche, K., & Verschraegen, G. (2008). The limits of planning: Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and the analysis of planning and planning ambitions. Planning Theory, 7(3), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Voß, J. P., & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecology and Society, 16, 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristof Van Assche
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raoul Beunen
    • 1
  • Martijn Duineveld
    • 2
  1. 1.Strategic CommunicationWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Cultural GeographyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations