Power, knowledge and environmental assessment: The world bank’s pursuit of ‘good governance’

Journal of Political Power

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 105-125

  Richardson, Tim ^a   Cashmore, Matthew ^b  

^a AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Development cooperation; Environmental assessment; Governance; Institution centred strategic environmental assessment (ISEA); Power analytics; World Bank

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957920557     PISSN: 2158379X     EISSN: 21583803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2011.556344     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ahmed, K. and Sánchez-Triana, E., 2008a. Using strategic environmental assessment to design and implement public policy. In: K. Ahmed and E. Sánchez-Triana, eds. Strategic environmental assessment for policies: an instrument for good governance. Washington, DC: World Bank, 181–205.
2. Ahmed, K. and Sánchez-Triana, E., eds., 2008b. Strategic environmental assessment for policies: an instrument for good governance. Washington, DC: World Bank.
3. Anwar, A., 2009. 60 incidents of violence on Rajshahi campuses: 30 killed since independence but no instance of justice. The Daily Star, 18 March. http://www.thedailystar.net/ newDesign/news-details.php?nid=80151
4. Bashire, M., 2009. Good governance, rule of law solution to terrorism. Daily Times, 30 May. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\05\30\story_30-5-2009_pg7_26
5. Blair, H., 2005. Civil society and propoor initiatives in rural Bangladesh: finding a workable strategy. World Development, 33 (6), 921–936.
6. Bond, A.J., et al. 2010. Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA? Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (1), 6–13.
7. Broad, R., 2006. Research, knowledge and the art of ‘paradigm maintenance’: the World Bank development economics vice-presidency (DEC). Review of International Political Economy, 13, 387–419.
8. Campbell, H., 2006. Just planning: the art of situated ethical judgment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 92–106.
9. Cashmore, M., Bond, A., and Cobb, D., 2008. The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. Journal of Environmental Management, 88 (4), 1233–1248.
10. Cashmore, M., et al. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (6), 371–379.
11. Connelly, S. and Richardson, T., 2004. Exclusion: the necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47 (1), 3–17.
12. Connelly, S. and Richardson, T., 2009. Effective policy-making in the uplands. In: A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek, and K. Stewart, eds. Drivers of environmental change in uplands. London: Routledge, 376–392.
13. Connelly, S., Richardson, T., and Miles, T., 2006. Situated legitimacy: deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 267–277.
14. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., 2001. The case for participation as tyranny. In: B. Cooke and U. Kothari, eds. Participation: the new tyranny? London: Zed Books, 1–15.
15. Deaton, A., et al. 2006. An evaluation of World Bank research, 1998–2005. Washington, DC: World Bank.
16. Devlin, J.F. and Yap, N.T., 2008. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26 (1), 17–27.
17. Dezalay, Y. and Garth, B., 2002. The internationalization of palace wars: lawyers, economists, and the contest to transform Latin American states. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. DFID, 2007. Governance, development and democratic politics: DFID’s work in building more effective states. London: Department for International Development (DFID).
19. Elling, B., 2009. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27 (2), 121–131.
20. Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making social science matter: how social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Flyvbjerg, B., 2004. Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5 (3), 283–306.
22. Foucault, M., 1994. So is it important to think? In: J.D. Faubion, ed. Michel Foucault, power: essential of Foucault 1954–1984. London: Penguin Books, 454–458.
23. Goldman, M., 2001. Constructing an environmental state: eco-governmentality and other transnational practices of a ‘green’ World Bank. Social Problems, 48 (4), 499–523.
24. Haugaard, M., 2003. Reflections on seven ways of creating power. European Journal of Social Theory, 6 (1), 87–113.
25. Haugaard, M., 2006. Power and hegemony in social theory. In: M. Haugaard and H.H. Lentner, eds. Hegemony and power: consensus and coercion in contemporary politics. Oxford: Lexington, 45–66.
26. Haugaard, M., 2010. Power and social criticism: reflections on power, domination and legitimacy. Critical Horizons, 11 (1), 51–74.
27. Jasanoff, S., 2004. Design on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. Jokinen, J., 2004. Balancing between East and West: the Asian Development Bank’s policy on good governance. In: M. Boas and D. McNeill, eds. Global institutions and development: framing the world? London: Routledge, 137–150.
29. Lewis, D. and Hossain, A., 2008. Understanding local power structure in rural Bangladesh. Sida Studies Series (Vol. 22). Stockholm: Sida.
30. Li, T.M., 2007. The will to improve: governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31. Lowndes, V., 2005. Something old, something new, something borrowed… Policy Studies, 26 (3–4), 291–309.
32. Miller, P. and Rose, N., 2008. Governing the present. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33. O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2009. Effectiveness in social impact assessment: Aboriginal peoples and resource development in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (2), 95–110.
34. Perry, A., 2006. Rebuilding Bangladesh. Time, 3 April. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1179421,00.html
35. Phillips, T., 2010. Awarding of Brazilian dam contract prompts warning of bloodshed: Indigenous leader says men are preparing their bows and arrows to prevent construction of the Belo Monte dam. The Guardian, 21 April, p. 1.
36. Pischke, F. and Cashmore, M., 2006. Decision-oriented environmental assessment: an empirical study of theory and methods. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 643–662.
37. Richardson, T., 2005. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 341–365.
38. Rose, N. and Miller, P., 2010. Political power beyond the state: problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 61, 271–303.
39. Saar, M., 2010. Power and critique. Journal of Power, 3, 7–20.
40. Sairinen, R., Barrow, C., and Karjalainen, T.P., 2010. Environmental conflict mediation and social impact assessment: approaches for enhanced environmental governance? EIA Review, 30, 289–292.
41. Sarker, A.B., 2008. Patron–client politics and its implications for good governance in Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 1416–1440.
42. Saward, M., 1996. Must democrats be environmentalists? In: B. Doherty and M. de Geus, eds. Democracy and green political thought: sustainability, rights and citizenship. London: Routledge, 79–96.
43. Slunge, D., et al. 2009. Conceptual analysis and evaluation framework for institution-centered strategic environmental assessment. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETENVIRONMENT/Resources/244351-1222272730742/I-SEA_Conceptual_Analysis_and_Evaluation_Framework-FINAL_DRAFT_JUNE_23_2009.doc
44. Taylor, I., 2004. Hegemony, neoliberal ‘good governance’ and the International Monetary Fund: a Gramscian perspective. In: M. Bøås and D. McNeill, eds. Global institutions and development: framing the world? London: Routledge, 124–136.
45. Törnqvist, A., 2006. Efficiency and effectiveness in the management of land-use planning conflicts. In: L. Emmelin, ed. Effective environmental assessment tools – critical reflections on concepts and practice. Karlskrona: Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, 158–175.
46. Transparency International, 2009. Corruption perception index (2009). Available from: http://www.transparency.org/
47. Turnpenny, J., et al. 2009. The policy and politics of policy appraisal: emerging trends and new directions. Journal of European Public Policy, 16 (4), 640–653.
48. Unalan, D. and Cowell, R., 2009. Adoption of the EU SEA Directive in Turkey. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29 (4), 243–251.
49. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2009. What is good governance? Available from: http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp
50. Wade, R.H., 2002. US hegemony and the World Bank: the fight over people and ideas. Review of International Political Economy, 9 (2), 215–243.
51. Wallington, T., Bina, O., and Thissen, W., 2007. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27, (7), 569–584.
52. Watson, V., 2006. Deep difference: diversity, planning and ethics. Planning Theory, 5 (1), 31–50.
53. Williams, G., et al. 2005. Seeing the state: governance and governmentality in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. World Bank, 2005. Integrating environmental considerations in policy formulation: Lessons from policy-based SEA experience. Washington, DC: World Bank.
55. World Bank, 2010. Policy SEA: conceptual model and operational guidance for applying strategic environmental assessment in sector reform. Washington, DC: World Bank.