Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis - The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 33, Issue , 2013, Pages 97-103

  Raitio, Kaisa ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Conflict management; Discursive institutionalism; Forest conflicts; Frame theory; Institutional theory

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; DISCURSIVE INSTITUTIONALISM; FOREST CONFLICTS; FRAME THEORY; INSTITUTIONAL THEORY;

MANAGEMENT; NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

FORESTRY;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FORESTRY; NATURAL RESOURCES;

EID: 84878845754     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arts B., Buizer M. Forests, discourses, institutions. A discursive-institutional approach to global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11(2009):340-347.
2. Bacchi C. Analysing Policy: What's the Problem Represented to be? 2009, Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest.
3. Beierle T.C., Cayford J. Democracy in practice. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. 2002.
4. Boswell Franklin D. Historical overview of United States forest practice law: specific emphasis on public participation law. European Forest Institute Working Paper 1998, 15. European Forest Institute, Joensuu.
5. Dahrendorf R. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society 1969, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
6. Fischler R. Communicative planning theory: a Foucauldian assessment. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2000, 19(4):358-368.
7. Fisher R., Ury W. Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement without Giving 1981, Penguin Books, New York. Second edition.
8. Fréchette A., Lewis N. Pushing the boundaries of conventional forest policy research: analyzing institutional change at multiple levels. Forest Policy and Economics 2011, 13(2011):582-589.
9. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity 1984, Stanford University Press, California.
10. Gillroy J.M. Justice and Nature. Kantian Philosophy, Environmental Policy, and the Law 2000, Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
11. Gray B. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems 1989, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransisco.
12. Gray B. Framing of environmental disputes. Concepts and Cases. 2003, 11-34. Island Press, Washington. J.R. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliot (Eds.).
13. Hall A., Taylor R.C.R. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies 1996, 44:936-957.
14. Hallgren L. I djupet av ett vattendrag. Agraria 2003, 379. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
15. Hay C. Political Analysis 2002, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
16. Hay C., Wincott D. Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Political Studies 1998, 46(5):951-957.
17. Hellström E. Conflict cultures - qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica Monographs 2001, 2. he Finnish Society of Forest Science and the Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki.
18. Innes J.E. Consensus building: clarification for the critics. Planning Theory 2004, 3(1):5-20.
19. Innes J.E., Booher D. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 1999, 65:412-423.
20. Jokinen A., Holma K. Temporalities and routines in the control of private forestry in Finland. Tema Nord 2001:575 2001, 341-358. Nordic Council of Ministers. M. Hytönen (Ed.).
21. Kyllönen S., Colpaert A., Heikkinen H., Jokinen M., Kumpula J., Marttunen M., Muje K., Raitio K. Conflict management as a means to the sustainable use of natural resources. Silva Fennica 2006, 44(4):687-728.
22. McGuirk P.M. Situating communicative planning theory: context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A 2001, 33:195-217.
23. Misztal B.A. Trust in Modern Societies. The Search for the Bases of Social Order 1996, Polity Press, Cambridge.
24. Mouffe C. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?. Social Research 1999, 66(3):745-758.
25. North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Ollonqvist P. Collaboration in the forest policy arena in Finland - from neo-corporatist planning to participatory programme preparation. National Forest Programmes in a European Context 2002, 27-48. European Forest Institute, Joensuu. E. Gislerud, I. Neven (Eds.).
27. Ostrom E. An agenda for the study of institutions. Public choise 1986, 48(1):3-25.
28. Putnam L.L., Wondolleck J.M. Intractability: definitions, dimensions, and distinctions. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. Concepts and Cases 2003, 35-59. Island Press, Washington. J.R. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliot (Eds.).
29. Raitio K. "You can't please everyone" - Conflict Management Practices, Frames and Institutions in Finnish State Forests 2008, vol. 86, Joensuu University Publications in Social Sciences, Joensuu University, Available at http://joypub.joensuu.fi/publications/dissertations/raitio_conflict/raitio.pdf.
30. Raitio K. New institutional approach to collaborative forest planning on public land: methods for analysis and lessons for policy. Land Use Policy 2012, 29(2):309-316. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.001).
31. Rönnblom M., Bacchi C. Feminist Discursive Institutionalism - what's discursive about it?. Paper Presented at the 2nd European Conference on Politics and Gender, 13-15 Januari 2011, Budapest 2011.
32. Saarikoski H. When frames conflict: policy dialogue on waste. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2006, 24:615-630.
33. Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., Barry, J., (forthcoming). Understanding 'successful' conflict resolution: Policy regime changes and new interactive arenas in the Great Bear Rainforest Article accepted to Land Use Policy with revisions on Oct 18, 2011, revised version submitted on Feb 25th,2012 and July 5th, 2012.
34. Schmidt V.A. Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 2008, 11:303-326.
35. Schmidt V.A. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism'. European Political Science Review 2010, 2(1):1-25.
36. Schmidt V.A. Reconciling ideas and institutions through discursive institutionalism. Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research 2011, 47-64. Oxford University Press. D. Béland, R.H. Cox (Eds.).
37. Schmidt V.A., Radaelli C.M. Policy change and discourse in Europe: conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics 2004, 27(2):183-210.
38. Schön D., Rein M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1994, Basic Books, New York.
39. Sinclair A.J., Doelle M. Using law as a tool to ensure meaningful public participation in environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 2003, 12:27-53.
40. Walker G.B., Daniels S.E. Foundations of natural resource conflict. European Forest Institute Proceedings 1997, 14:13-36. European Forest Institute, Joensuu. B. Solberg, S. Miina (Eds.).
41. Wondolleck J.M., Yaffee S.L. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management 2000, Island Press, Washington.