Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to offer an overview of some key theories on governing change that can be relevant for the SDGs. This outline can serve as a basis for the exploration of the case studies in Chap. 4. Extant theories and their cross-cutting issues (called ‘theoretical pillars’ in this book) are meant to serve as the basis for the novel concept of ‘integrative sustainability governance’ and can directly feed into the Integrative Sustainability Governance (ISG) framework which is presented in Chap. 7. As such, this chapter functions as the theoretical ‘scaffolding’ from which to work on the construction of the ISG framework. However, providing an exhaustive presentation of all theories related to governance for the SDGs is beyond the scope of this book. (A good overview of transition studies can be found in Grin et al. 2010. Hale and Held (Handbook of transnational governance: institutions and innovations. Polity Press, Cambridge, 2011) give a comprehensive account of transnational and networked governance. Metagovernance is outlined in Meuleman (Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: the feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Springer, New York, 2008), and the website of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/) provides numerous materials on polycentricity. Sabel and Zeitlin (The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–185, 2012) describe experimental governance.) This chapter starts by suggesting some reasons why a multiplicity of theories will continue to be needed for governing complex sustainability issues. Next, it explores five promising theories that are relevant for governance for the SDGs:
-
Transition theory;
-
Metagovernance;
-
Polycentricity;
-
Network governance; and
-
Experimentalist governance.
Finally, the summary draws linkages between the different theories and seeks to show synergies and lacunae across the theories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Early research by political scientists looked into the conditions for the formulation and implementation of sustainability governance in existing bureaucratic institutions. After that, more disciplinary approaches have become increasingly focused on international linkages, societal sectors beyond the state and have deployed the perspectives of pluralism (how can government institutions aggregate multiple competing interests?), agency capture (how are agency agendas driven by industrial constituents?), ecological Marxism (what is the role of capitalism in environmental degradation?), ecological modernization (environment and economy are mutually reinforcing if properly managed), social constructionism (how do people assign meaning to the world?) and global environmentalism (what are the external and supranational pressures on nation states?) (Davidson and Frickel 2004).
- 2.
Interdisciplinary studies involve two or more academic disciplines with the same or different research paradigms, approaches and methods which cross subject boundaries and integrate their knowledge in ways that result in new insights, knowledge, theories and methods, and solve common research questions. Interdisciplinary research might involve differing qualitative and quantitative methods and different analytical and interpretative approaches. (Evely et al. 2010) According to Davidson and Frickel (2004: 485), ‘the future work of scholars interested in environmental governance (…) will benefit from respecting the interdisciplinary and cumulative nature of conceptual developments in environmental governance, rather than abiding by theoretical or disciplinary boundaries’.
- 3.
Technically, self-organization means that subsystems maintain themselves by capturing energy from the larger system and by dissipating some of that energy back into their environment to sustain themselves through time (Prigogine and Stengers 1984).
- 4.
Complex systems are systems in which the components exhibit dependencies such that the system as a whole has properties that ‘emerge’ and cannot be explained as the sum of the constituent parts. (Holland 1998) Complex systems theory focuses on the interactions among components of a system (including socio-ecological and socio-technical). It tends to highlight the potential for relatively small-scale adjustments to a component or an interaction of components to create a ripple effect that can ultimately lead to large-scale changes of the system as a whole. (Long 2014).
- 5.
- 6.
This distinguishes the field from other forms of transition research found in political science that focus predominantly on processes of change in and around governments and nation‐states (e.g. power transition theory as found in international relations).
- 7.
For Meadowcroft, reflective governance is ‘a dynamic posture, oriented to exploiting the diffusion of power to promote adjustment of the development trajectory. It is about judicious interventions to channel social energies down pathways conductive to sustainability’. (2007: 20) Meadowcroft (2007: 310) further sees reflective governance as ‘extending an approach to governance that consciously employs interactions with other power centres to define and realise goals, and that encourages reflection (within government but also across society) about societal circumstances in order to reassess practices and adjust initiatives’.
- 8.
One of the most central elements in transition management concerns the set-up of a so‐called transition arena: ‘a multi‐actor governance instrument [that] intends to stimulate and coordinate innovation through creating shared (new) problem definitions and shared long‐term goals’, consisting of ‘a virtual arena, an open and dynamic network in which different perspectives, different expectations, and different agendas are confronted, discussed and aligned where possible’ (Loorbach 2007: 132–133).
- 9.
The ‘Niche–Regime’ (‘empowered Niche’) refers to ‘a Niche that has grown powerful enough to gain a number of new characteristics, most important of which is the ability to attack (sometimes effectively) an incumbent regime (and therefore to potentially take over from it)’ (Rotmans and Loorbach 2010: 136). A Niche–Regime is a group of actors that exercises transformative power, i.e. develops new structures and institutions.
- 10.
- 11.
Lock‐in: when ‘choices made in the past exclude different opportunities now, e.g. by ingrained behaviour or ideas’, back‐lash: when the diversity of alternatives is too low and ‘too much is betted on the wrong horse’ (e.g. a ‘hype’), system breakdown: a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed without being re‐established. (Rotmans 2005: 24).
- 12.
This definition is mainly based on Jessop (2003) and Sørensen (2006). For example, Jessop (2003) sees metagovernance as ‘the organization of the conditions for governance’ which involves ‘managing the complexity, plurality and tangled hierarchies found in prevailing modes of co-ordination’. Sørensen (2006) describes metagovernance as a way of enhancing coordination of governance in a fragmented political system based on a high degree of autonomy for networks and institutions, and also as ‘an indirect form of governing that is exercised by influencing various processes of self-governance’ aimed at ‘enhancing coordinated governance in a fragmented [regulatory] system based on a high degree of autonomy for a plurality of self-governing networks and institutions’ (ibid., 2006: 100).
- 13.
Self-governance could be seen as a fourth mode of governance. Kooiman (2000) distinguishes in a different categorization between first-, second- and metagovernance orders. First-order governance concerns dealing with problems directly, efficiently and legitimately through implementation and action (e.g. setting targets for renewable energy). Second-order governance relates to the context for first-order governance (e.g. institutional design and the creation of policy instruments to steer first-order governance). Metagovernance for Kooiman means the governance of governance in terms of devising guiding principles, influencing contextual factors for institution building and discussing norms for problem framing (e.g. by the media).
- 14.
The three socially active ways of life of Thompson et al. (1990) show quite similar values and preferences as the three ideal-typical governance styles. Hierarchism, egalitarianism and individualism are three ‘ways of life’ in cultural theory, and regarding social coordination, they are analogous to hierarchical, network and market governance, respectively. Like the three governance styles, the three ways of life compete with each other, often in a hostile way. On the other hand, they complete one another, and they therefore continue to coexist. ‘That what we today define as free societies—those with the rule of law, alternation in office, and the right to criticise—are a product of the interpenetration of hierarchism, individualism, and egalitarism’ (Thompson et al. 1990: 50, 257). The two other, not socially active ‘ways of life’ (fatalism and autonomism), are not separate governance styles, and neither is anarchy. Some scholars use anarchical models of political structure in order to argue that states are the most important units of analysis, and to understand their behaviour one has to look at the anarchical structure of the international system due to the lack of a higher authority (‘world government’) above the state. States act in their self-interest and will only cooperate if it is in their ‘national interest’. The anarchical structure of international politics for them is the reason why it is so difficult to make progress in actual practice on issues like climate change which most governments actually agree on in principle (ibid.).
- 15.
Lund et al. (2012) show how Danish municipalities adapt to climate change and how added value can be achieved by a change of governance modes. According to the authors, collaboration and metagovernance were for the aid of the municipalities, stimulated intermunicipal and cross-sectoral collaboration and ultimately produced adaptation measures with added value.
- 16.
Examples of new institutions are the creation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the UK and of the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Buildings in Denmark.
- 17.
‘If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail’ (attributed to Abraham Maslow).
- 18.
- 19.
In social network analysis, the measurement of betweenness centrality is used to identify individual participants that occupy a bridging position (‘leaders’). Betweenness centrality is the number of times that an actor connects two nodes which would otherwise be unconnected. This actor brings diversity and new ideas to a network, but might feel torn between different elements and might feel forced to take sides. Degree centrality is the number of times a given actor is connected to other nodes. High degree centrality actors are important to mobilise the network, bring diverse stakeholders together and diffuse information.
- 20.
A scalar dimension is generally seen as an analytical dimension of a problem under study, e.g. the biophysical and the institutional scalar dimension. A scalar level is a particular level on a scalar dimension, e.g. a municipality in a political-administrative system.
- 21.
Governance architectures are norms, principles, regimes and other institutions in a given issue area (Biermann et al. 2009).
- 22.
Hale and Held (2011: 15) see transnational governance as ‘the processes and institutions, formal and informal, whereby rules are created, compliance is elicited, and goods are provided in the pursuit of collective goals’ when the actors involved are sub- and non-state actors from different countries.
- 23.
Keohane and Nye (1974: 39) defined transgovernmental relations as ‘direct bureaucratic contacts among governmental sub-units’. Such relations have the potential to ‘create opportunities for international organizations to play significant roles in world politics’ (ibid.: 42) and are an important component of international relations.
- 24.
The UN offers a platform for networks (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/actionnetworks) and other initiatives (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/search/?str) that are in support of the SDGs.
- 25.
These partnerships were popular after the WSSD in 2002. Recent evaluations of PPPs show that they could benefit from a clearer linkage to trade-offs and international agreements, measurable targets and timetables, effective leadership, improved accountability mechanisms, systemic review and reporting and monitoring. (Bäckstrand 2006) At the UN Secretary General's Climate Summit in September 2014, several partnerships were announced. The first is a global alliance of the world’s leading consumer goods companies and producers, and many important tropical forest countries, donor countries and NGOs. This alliance commits to eliminate deforestation from the production of agricultural commodities, such as palm oil, soy, paper and beef, no later than 2020. Unsustainable sourcing of these four commodities contributes to half of the world’s tropical deforestation, and about 11 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture which is built among governments, food producers, farmers, scientists, civil society, multilateral organizations and the private sector was announced. Third, the Carbon Disclosure Standards Board alliance is a global public–private alliance that has developed a common framework for reporting climate-related risks and performance in companies' annual reports to shareholders. Hsu et al. (2015) scrutinize the potential impact that these partnerships can have on climate change mitigation.
- 26.
Hemmati and Dodds (2017) have suggested to clearly differentiate between MSPs and PPPs using the following definitions:
-
Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) for sustainable development are specific commitments and contributions, undertaken together by various partners intended to support the implementation of transformation towards sustainable development and help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other relevant sustainable development agreements.
-
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are principally contractual arrangements between single or several public agencies (federal, state or local) and single or several private sector entities. Through such arrangements, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared, in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. Other stakeholders might be subcontractors in a PPP.
-
- 27.
Some of the oldest GANs are the Red Cross (with origins in 1863), the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
- 28.
Experimentalism is very similar to what Hajer (2011: 43) calls ‘radical incrementalism’, which is radical in terms of result and incremental in terms of process structure. Such an approach which is based on ‘variety and selection’ should work better than the conventional hierarchical governance mode of ‘analysis and instruction’. Just like in experimentalism, in the government in radical incrementalism does not rely on absolute control but puts an emphasis on learning ability, local concerns, horizontal and open governance, the innovative capacity latent in society, dynamic regulation, and ‘releasing energy’ at all levels of society. As such, many small steps may amount to a sizeable result. Fung (2004) shows how a radical incrementalist focuses on the mobilisation and empowerment of individuals and companies has led to improvements in education and crime in Chicago.
- 29.
- 30.
The principal–agent problem, in political science and economics, (also known as agency dilemma or the agency problem) occurs when one person or entity (the ‘agent’) is able to make decisions on behalf of, or that impact, another person or entity: the ‘principal’. This dilemma exists in circumstances where agents (e.g. politicians) are motivated to act in their own best interests, which are contrary to those of their principals (e.g. voters), and is an example of moral hazard.
- 31.
Biodiversity and forestry (both in SDG 15) are examples of local issues in a substantive sense, but global governance approaches are used to address them. Illegal timber trade, for example, is addressed through the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and trade in endangered species through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Target 15.7 is ‘Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products’,. and Target 15.c is ‘Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities’. Although trade related to forestry and endangered species is an international issue, the biodiversity loss and forest clearing that these instruments address are most visible locally. Deforestation can also have global impacts, e.g. on climate change (SDG 13). (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015).
- 32.
Gold Standard, for example, introduced ‘Gold Standard for the Global Goals’: https://www.goldstandard.org/articles/gold-standard-global-goals.
References
Andonova LB, Mitchell RB (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35:255–282. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-100809-125346
Andonova LB, Hale T, Roger C (2014) How do domestic politics condition participation in transnational climate governance. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Argyris C (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Adm Sci Q 21:363–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391848
Avelino F, Rotmans J (2009) Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. Eur J Soc Theory 12:543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431009349830
Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Environ 16:290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425
Biermann F, Pattberg P, Van Asselt H, Zelli F (2009) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob Environ Politics 9:14–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14
Bosman R, Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Pistorius T (2014) Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition. Environ Innov Soc Trans 13:45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.07.003
Bulkeley H, Andonova L, Betsill MM et al (2014) Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Castells M (2004) Informationalism, networks, and the network society: a theoretical blueprint. In: Castells M (ed) The network society: a cross-cultural perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 3–48
Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge
Cohen J, Sabel CF (2005) Global democracy. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 37:763–797
Davidson DJ, Frickel S (2004) Understanding environmental governance: a critical review. Organ Environ 17:471–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026603259086
De Burca G, Keohane RO, Sabel CF (2013) New modes of pluralist global governance. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 45:723
De Burca G, Keohane RO, Sabel CF (2014) Global experimentalist governance. Br J Polit Sci 44:477–486. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000076
De Caluwé L, Vermaak H (2004) Change paradigms: an overview. Organ Dev J 22:9–18
De Haan H, Rotmans J (2011) Patterns in transitions: understanding complex chains of change. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.10.008
DRIFT (The Dutch Research Institute for Transitions) (2012) Transitions. In: DRIFT. http://www.drift.eur.nl/?page_id=4496. Accessed 26 Jun 2017
Ekstrom J, Young OR (2009) Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol Soc 14:16
EU (European Union) (2012) Global trends 2030: citizens in an interconnected and polycentric world. Institute for Security Studies of the European Union, Paris
Evely AC, Fazey I, Lambin X et al (2010) Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research. Environ Conserv 37:442–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000792
Frantzeskaki N (2011) Dynamics of societal transitions: driving forces and feedback loops. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology
Fung A (2004) Empowered participation: reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Geels FW (2002) Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Twente University Press, Enschede
Geels FW (2005) Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Geels FW, Kemp R (2000) Transities vanuit socio-technisch perspectief. Maastricht University, Maastricht
Gold Standard (2015) Gold standard for the global goals. In: Gold Standard. https://www.goldstandard.org/articles/gold-standard-global-goals. Accessed 5 Oct 2017
Görg C, Rauschmayer F (2009) Multi-level governance and the politics of scale: the challenge of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In: Kütting G, Lipschutz RD (eds) Environmental governance: power and knowledge in a local-global world. Routledge, London, pp 81–99
Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, London
Grubb M (2014) Planetary economics: energy, climate change and the three domains of sustainable development. Routledge, London
Hajer MA (2011) The energetic society: in search of a governance philosophy for a clean economy. PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), The Hague
Hajer MA, Versteeg W (2008) The limits to deliberative governance. Boston
Hale T, Held D (2011) Handbook of transnational governance: institutions and innovations. Polity Press, Cambridge
Haughton G, Allmendinger P (2008) The soft spaces of local economic development. Local Econ 23:138–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02690940801976216
Hemmati M, Dodds F (2017) Principles and practices of multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development—guidance and oversight from UN decisions. Paper prepared for a workshop of the Friends for Governance for Sustainable Development, New York
Holland JH (1998) Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Holzer K (2014) Carbon-related border adjustment and WTO law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Types of multi-level governance. European Integration Online Papers 5: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302786
Hsu A, Moffat AS, Weinfurter AJ, Schwartz JD (2015) Towards a new climate diplomacy. Nat Clim Change 5:501–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2594
IUB (Indiana University Bloomington) (2017) Ostrom Workshop. In: Ostrom Workshop. https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/. Accessed 4 Oct 2017
Jessop B (2003) Governance and meta governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In: Bang HP (ed) Governance as social and political communication. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 101–116
Karlsson SI (2000) Multilayered governance: pesticides in the south: environmental concerns in a globalised world. Dissertation, Linköping University
Kates RW, Wilbanks TJ (2003) Making the global local responding to climate change concerns from the ground. Environment 45:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150309604534
Kauffman S (1995) At home in the universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 14:78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709
Keohane RO, Nye JS (1974) Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Polit 27:39–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009925
Khan J (2013) What role for network governance in urban low carbon transitions? J Clean Prod 50:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.045
Klijn EH, Koppenjan JFM (2000) Public management and policy networks. Public Manag 2:135–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030000000007
Kooiman J (2000) Societal governance: levels, modes, and orders of social-political interaction. In: Pierre J (ed) Debating governance: authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 229–250
Lawrence D, Vandecar K (2015) Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat Clim Change 5:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2430
Le Blanc D (2015) Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain Dev 23:176–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582
Long A (2014) Complexity in global energy-environment governance. Minn J Law Sci Technol 15:1055–1115
Loorbach D (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. International Books, Dublin
Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transition management: examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42:237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.009
Lund D, Sehested K, Hellesen T, Nellemann V (2012) Climate change adaptation in Denmark: enhancement through collaboration and meta-governance? Local Environ 17:613–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.678318
Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
Mathijs E (2008) Towards integral transition management: the case of the sustainable materials usage transition in Belgium. Society of Organizational Learning, Masqat
McGinnis MD (2011) An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Stud J 39:169–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x
Meadowcroft J (2007) Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. J Environ Policy Plann 9:299–314.https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701631544
Meadowcroft J (2011) Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1:70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.003
Meadowcroft J, Farrell KN, Spangenberg J (2005) Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union. Int J Sustain Dev 8:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007371
Meuleman L (2008) Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: the feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Springer, New York
Meuleman L (ed) (2012) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York
Meuleman L, Tromp H (2010) The governance of useable and welcome knowledge: two perspectives. In: In’t Veld RJ (ed) Knowledge democracy: consequences for science, politics and media. Springer, New York, pp 201–226
Monkelbaan J (2015) Experimentalist sustainability governance: jazzing-up environmental blues?. CISDL/GEM/NIEML, Montreal
Moss T, Newig J (2010) Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate. Environ Manage 46:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1
Murillo-Luna JL, Garcés-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P (2011) Barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies. J Clean Prod 19:1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.005
Ostrom E (2009a) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change: background paper to the 2010 world development report. The World Bank, Washington
Ostrom E (2009b) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Ostrom V, Tiebout CM, Warren R (1961) The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am Polit Sci Rev 55:831–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400125973
Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Change 19:354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Pollitt C (2008) Time, policy, management: governing with the past. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Post JE, Altma BW (1994) Managing the environmental change process: barriers and opportunities. J Organ Change Manag 7:64–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819410061388
Poteete AR, Janssen M, Ostrom E (eds) (2010) Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Prigogine I, Stengers I (1984) Order out of chaos: man’s new dialogue with nature. Random House, New York
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Rotmans J (2005) Societal innovation: between dream and reality lies complexity. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Rotmans J, Loorbach D (2010) Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: a systemic and reflexive approach. In: Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J (eds) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, London, pp 105–221
Rotmans J, Kemp R, Van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3:15–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003
Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012) Experimentalist governance. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–185
Sassen S (2002) Global networks, linked cities. Routledge, London
Sassen S (2011) Saskia Sassen on sociology, globalization, and the re-shaping of the national. Theory talks
Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York
Seth N (2015) SDGs and sustainable development governance as we are today. In: Friends of governance for sustainable development (ed) Governance for sustainable development: ideas for the post-2015 agenda. New World Frontier, New York, pp 98–106
Slaughter AM (2004) A new world order. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Slaughter A-M, Hale T (2010) Transgovernmental networks and emerging powers. In: Alexandroff AS, Cooper AF (eds) Rising states, rising institutions: challenges for global governance. Brookings Institution Press, Baltimore, pp 48–62
Smith N (1993) Homeless/global: scaling places. In: Bird J, Curtis B, Putnam T et al (eds) Mapping the futures: local cultures, global change. Routledge, London, pp 87–119
Smith A, Stirling A (2007) Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. J Environ Plann Policy Manage 9:351–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622873
Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F (2005) The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 34:1491–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005
Smith A, Voss J-P, Grin J (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy 39:435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023
Sørensen E (2006) Metagovernance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. Am Rev Pub Adm 36:98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282584
Sovacool BK (2010) An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance. Energy Policy 39:3832–3844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.014
Swyngedouw E (1996) Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authoritarianism: closing the Belgian mines. Urban Stud 33:1499–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098966772
Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Camb Rev Int Aff 17:25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0955757042000203632
Tellus Institute (2015) Great transition initiative: towards a transformative vision and praxis. http://www.greattransition.org/about/what-is-the-great-transition. Accessed 19 Apr 2017
Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A (2012) Towards theoretical multiplicity for the governance of transitions: the energy-producing greenhouse case. Int J Sustain Dev 15:37–53. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2012.044033
Thompson GF (2003) Between hierarchies and markets: the logic and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Thompson M, Ellis RJ, Wildavsky AB (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder
Trutnevyte E, Strachan N, Dodds PE et al (2015) Synergies and trade-offs between governance and costs in electricity system transition. Energy Policy 85:170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.003
UN (United Nations) (2017) Search results. In: Partnerships for SDGs platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/search/?str. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
UN (United Nations) Partnerships for SDGs (2016) Action networks: driving actions towards achievement of the sustainable development goals. In: Sustainable development knowledge platform: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/actionnetworks. Accessed 10 May 2017
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2014) ADP 2-7 agenda item 3: elements for a draft negotiating text, version 2
Vandevyvere H, Nevens F (2015) Lost in transition or geared for the s-curve? An analysis of Flemish transition trajectories with a focus on energy use and buildings. Sustainability 7:2415–2436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032415
Waddell S (2011) Global action networks: creating our future together. Macmillan, London
Wessel RA (2011) Informal international law-making as a new form of world legislation? Int Organ Law Rev 8:253–265. https://doi.org/10.1163/157237411X594209
Zelli F, Van Asselt H (2013) Introduction: the institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: causes, consequences and responses. Glob Environ Polit 13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00180
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Monkelbaan, J. (2019). Overview of Governance Theories That Are Relevant for the SDGs. In: Governance for the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0474-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0475-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)