The potential role of boundary organizations in the climate regime

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 36, Issue , 2014, Pages 24-36

  Lee, Eungkyoon ^a   Su Jung, Chan ^b   Lee, Myung Kyoon ^c,d  

^a Korea University   (South Korea)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c Keimyung University   (South Korea)

^d Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Boundary organizations; Climate change; Collaborative networks; Less developed countries; Polycentricity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BOUNDARY ORGANIZATION; CASE STUDY; CLIMATE CHANGE; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ENERGY YIELD; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GLOBAL CLIMATE; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; STANDARDIZATION; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84892480048     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Agrawala S., Broad K., Guston D.H. Integrating climate forecasts and societal decision making: challenges to an emergent boundary organization. Science, Technology & Human Values 2001, 26:454-477.
2. Boezeman D., Vink M., Leroy P. The Dutch Delta Committee as a boundary organization. Environmental Science and Policy 2013, 27:162-171.
3. Brennan G. Climate change: a rational choice politics view. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2009, 53:309-326.
4. Brown J.S., Duguid P. Organizing knowledge. California Management Review 1998, 40:90-111.
5. Cash D. In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2001, 26:431-453.
6. Cash D., Clark W., Alcock F., Dickson N., Eckley N., Guston D., Jäger J., Mitchell R. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003, http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8086.full.pdf+html.
7. Clark W., Thomas T., van Noordwijk M., Guston D., Catacutan D., Dickson N., McNie E. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3%3AHUL.%20InstRepos%3A%209774653.
8. Eden S., Donaldson A., Walker G. Green groups and grey areas: scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organizations, and environmental knowledge. Environment and Planning A 2006, 38:1061-1076.
9. Forsyth T. Critical Political Ecology 2003, Routledge, London.
10. Fung A. Deliberative democracy in international labor standards. Governance 2003, 16:51-71.
11. Geddes B. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get. Paradigms and Sand Castle: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics 2003, 89-129. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
12. Gibbons M. Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy 2000, 27:159-163.
13. Gieryn T. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 1983, 48:781-795.
14. Giest S., Howlett M. Understanding the pre-conditions of commons governance: the role of network management. Environmental Science and Policy 2014, 36:37-47.
15. Guston D. Institutional design for socially robust knowledge: the national toxicology program's report on carcinogens. Sociology of the Sciences 2005, 24:63-79.
16. Guston D. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2001, 26:399-408.
17. Haas P. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 1992, 46:1-35.
18. Hellström T., Jacob M. Boundary organizations in science: form discourse to construction. Science and Public Policy 2003, 30:235-238.
19. Jasanoff S. Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science 1996, 26:393-418.
20. Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers 1990, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
21. Keller A. Science in Environmental Policy: The Politics of Objective advice 2009, MIT Press, Cambridge.
22. Keohane R., Victor D. The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics 2011, 9:7-23.
23. Klerkx L., Leeuwis C. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy 2008, 33:260-276.
24. Koontz T., Thomas C. What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative managementα. Public Administration Review 2006, 66:111-121.
25. Lee E. Information, interest intermediaries, and regulatory compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2011, 21:137-157.
26. Lejano R., Ingram H. Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environmental Science & Policy 2009, 12:653-662.
27. Lejano R., Meléndez G., Benetez I., Park S. On the need to redesign the CDM carbon trading program. Environmental Science & Technology 2010, 44:6914-6916.
28. Lemos M. A tale of two policies: the politics of seasonal climate forecast use in Ceará, Brazil. Policy Sciences 2003, 36:101-123.
29. Lemos M., Morehouse B. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change 2005, 15:57-68.
30. Lentsch J., Weingart P. Quality control in the advisory process: towards an institutional design for robust science advice. The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance 2011, 353-374. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Justus Lentsch, Peter Weingart (Eds.).
31. Mansbridge J. The role of the state in governing the commons. Environmental Science and Policy 2014, 36:8-10.
32. Meserve R. An introduction to energy and climate change. Bulletin of the American Academy 2008, Winter:29-32.
33. Meyer K., Wright M., Pruthi S. Managing knowledge in foreign entry strategies: a resource-based analysis. Strategic Management Journal 2009, 30:557-574.
34. Michaelowa A. CDM host country institution building. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2003, 8:201-220.
35. Miles M.A., Huberman M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook 1994, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
36. Miller C. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2001, 26:478-500.
37. Miller C., Edwards P. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance 2001, MIT Press, Cambridge.
38. Mooney C. Storm World: Hurricane, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming 2007, Harcourt, Orlando, FL.
39. Nowotny H. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 2003, 30:151-156.
40. Olsen, K., Fenhann, J., 2006. Sustainable Development Benefits of Clean Development Projects. In: Working Paper no. 2. UNEP URC Center, Copenhagen.
41. Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups 1965, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
42. Ostrom E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 2010, 20:550-557.
43. Ostrom E. Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. Theories of the Policy Process 1999, 35-71. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. P. Sabatier (Ed.).
44. Ostrom E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 1998, 92:1-22.
45. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
46. Ostrom V. Polycentricity-part 1. Polycentricity and Local Public Economies 1999, 52-74. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, FL. Michael McGinns (Ed.).
47. Oye K. Explaining cooperation under anarchy. Cooperation under Anarchy 1986, 1-24. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Kenneth Oye (Ed.).
48. Parker J., Crona B. On being all things to all people: boundary organization and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science 2012, 42:262-289.
49. Patt A. Effective regional energy governance - not global environmental governance - is what we need right now for climate change. Global Environmental Change 2010, 20:33-35.
50. Provan K.H., Milward B. A preliminary theory of interorganizational effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 1995, 40:1-33.
51. Rod M., Paliwoda S. Multi-sector collaboration: a stakeholder perspective on a government, industry and university collaborative venture. Science and Public Policy 2003, 30:273-284.
52. Sandler T. Global Challenges: An Approach to Environmental, Political and Economic Problems 1997, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53. Sarewitz D. Curing climate backlash. Nature 2010, 464:28.
54. Sarewitz D. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 2004, 7:385-403.
55. Schneider A. Why do some boundary organizations result in new ideas and practices and others only meet resistanceα. American Review of Public Administration 2009, 39:60-79.
56. Shackley S., Wynne B. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology & Human Values 1996, 21:275-302.
57. Star S., Griesemer J. Institutional ecology, 'translation' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 1989, 19:387-420.
58. Strang D., Meyer J. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society 1993, 22:487-511.
59. Streck C. New partnerships in global environmental policy: the clean development mechanism. Journal of Environment and Development 2004, 13:295-322.
60. Sunstein C. Of Montreal and Kyoto: a tale of two protocols. Harvard Environmental Law Review 2007, 31:1-65.
61. Susskind L. Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating more Effective Global Agreements 1994, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
62. Thacher D. The normative case study. American Journal of Sociology 2006, 111:1631-1676.
63. Thompson A. Management under anarchy: the international politics of climate change. Climate Change 2006, 78:7-29.
64. Tolba M. Global Environmental Diplomacy 2008, MIT Press, Cambridge.
65. Weber E., Khademian A. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review 2008, 68:334-349.
66. Weible C., Moore R. Analytic and beliefs: competing explanations for defining problems and choosing allies and opponents in collaborative environmental management. Public Administration Review 2010, 756-766.
67. Wiener J. Think globally, act globally: the limits of local climate policies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2007, 155:1961-1979.
68. Yin R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods 1994, Sage, Beverly Hills.
69. Zollo SF M., Winter S. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 2002, 13:339-351.