GY 420 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: IMPLEMENTING POLICY (Full unit) GY465 CONCEPTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Michaelmas Term half unit

) Course Manager: Dr Michael Mason (S510) Other teachers: Professor Judith Rees (S503), Dr Richard Perkins (S413)Mr James Van Alstine (S509), Dr Mark Zeitoun (V901) Availability GY420 is a compulsory course for all MSc Environmental Policy and Regulation students. It is also available to be taken by students on other MSc programmes in accordance with the relevant programme regulations, both as a full unit and as a Michaelmas Term half unit, GY465. Aims and Objectives This course will develop a critical understanding of the factors that shape the various stages of the environmental policy process – from agenda setting through formulation, implementation, enforcement and evaluation. It will consider different perspectives on the rationale for policy interventions and regulation and the factors that shape the influence of different interest groups on the environmental policy making agenda. It will also consider the factors that shape the rationality of governmental decision-making, the performance of different policy instruments and institutional arrangements. It will consider the influence of implementing agencies and different regulatory styles and the factors that shape the impacts of environmental policy. The course will conclude with an evaluation of the institutional conditions which affect the capacity for policy reform, the scope for policy learning and policy transfer. Teaching Arrangements Weekly lectures and fortnightly seminars throughout the Michaelmas Term. For GY420 students only there are lectures in Weeks 1-2 in the Lent Term followed by student-led seminars in Weeks 3-10. Assessment GY420 will be assessed through a 3,000 word essay which accounts for 25% of the overall mark and a 3-hour unseen examination [answering 3 from 9 questions] which accounts for the remaining 75% of the marks. GY465, the half-unit, will be assessed through a 2-hour unseen examination [answering 2 from 5 questions] accounting for 100% of the marks.

1

Michaelmas Term Programme Week 1 Environmental policy and regulation Week 2 The institutions of policy and regulation Week 2 Seminar – theory and policy change Week 3 Policy objectives, instruments and the policy mix I Week 4 Policy objectives, instruments and the policy mix II Week 4 Seminar – traditional vs. new approaches in environmental policy Week 5 The organisations for policy development and implementation Week 6 Government to governance Week 6 Seminar – cooperative and voluntary policy approaches Week 7 Implementation, enforcement and regulatory styles Week 8 Politics and power Week 8 Seminar – policy implementation Week 9 Outcomes, impacts and evaluation Week 10 Policy reform and change Week 10 Seminar – transferability of environmental policy Lent Term Programme Lectures Week 1 Multi-level governance I - the challenge of regulatory coordination Week 2 Multi-level governance II – the challenge of public participation Seminars Week 3 Collective action problems I: incentives and rationalities Week 4 Collective action problems II: the role of social capital Week 5 Governance beyond the state I: private environmental governance Week 6 Governance beyond the state II: civil regulation Week 7 Scientific knowledge and environmental policy processes Week 8 Ethical valuation and environmental policy processes Week 9 Environmental dispute resolution Week 10 The justice of environmental regulation

2

Lecture Programme - Michaelmas Term

Week 1 Lecture Environmental policy and regulation The lecture will begin by examining the meaning and nature of environmental regulation from different analytical perspectives, ranging from regulation as a broad socio-economic and political process to regulation as the actions of an individual environmental regulator. It will then go on to consider different views on why regulation occurs: regulation in the public interest to deal with market, property or state failures; regulation to serve private or political party interests; and regulation as knee-jerk reaction to crises (the tombstone theory). Consideration will be given to the questions of who regulates the consumption, use and provision of environmental services within the so-called regulatory space and who benefits from regulation. Throughout the lecture, the diversity of perspectives will be stressed. Key readings: Baldwin et al (1998), Bromley (1989), Fiorino (1999) or (2006) chapter 1, Ogus (2004) chapters 1-3, Weale (1992) chapters 1 & 2. Week 2 Lecture The institutions of policy and regulation In this lecture, the idealised state-centric and hierarchical, rational policy model will be critically analysed, followed by an introduction to the institutional approach to policy analysis and the understanding of policy and regulatory change. Institutions will be defined and their nature discussed: institutions are typically path-dependent (current institutions cannot be divorced from history) and are embedded within a cultural, social, economic and political context. These characteristics are important because they not only affect real world policy and regulatory options but also affect the outcomes from any attempted policy change. Consideration will also be given to the institutional environment within which policy formulation take place (the legal, political and socio-economic rules of the game) and to the institutional arrangements (organisations, governance structures) through which policy implementation takes place. Institutions which affect the use of environmental resources are multiple, complex and extend well outside the jurisdictional boundaries of environment ministries, resource development agencies or environmental regulators. This often means that for environmental objectives to be met, multiple policy/regulatory interventions are necessary, many of which fall outside the regulatory box. Key readings: Andersen (1994) chapters 1 and 2, Carter (2001) chapter 7 or (2007) chapter 7, Connelly & Smith (2003) chapter 2, Keohane et al (1998), Majone (1976) & (1990), North (1990), Ostrom (1990 & 2005), Ostrom et al. (1993), Rees (1990) chapter 9, Saleth and Dinnar (2005 – E).

3

Week 2 Seminar: How can theory help us to understand policy change? Readings: Hill (2005, chapters 2-5). Note, eight copies are available in the library’s Course Collection. Questions: (a) What is the value of theory in the social sciences? (b) How are the four theories introduced in the readings (pluralist, rational choice, policy networks and institutional approaches) different from one another? How are they similar? (c) How might the theories apply in the particular case of environmental policy and regulation? Hill, M. (2005) The Public Policy Process, 4th edition, Pearson Longman, Harlow (Course Collection, H97 H19) Week 3 and 4 Lectures Policy objectives, instruments and the policy mix The state has multiple roles in environmental management and regulation and has multiple objectives. It follows that several policy tools may appropriately be employed in a complementary policy mix. The outcomes derived from any particular tool depend critically on implementation practice and the socioeconomic, cultural and political contexts in which they are employed. In the lectures we will cover classical command and control regulation. Market tools, and introduce the discussion of ‘new’ instruments, such as voluntary regulation, participation and negotiated agreements. Tools are not only relevant to policy attempts to influence the use of environmental goods and services but also to encourage the provision of services, promote coordination between providers and measure their performance. Key readings: Andersen (1994); Andersen & Sprenger (2000), Connelly & Smith (2003) chapter 6, Fiorino (1999), Gouldson & Murphy (1998) chapters 4, 5 & 6, Grabosky (1995), Keohane et al (1998), Majone (1976; 1990), Prakash and Kolman (2004 – E), Tews et al (2003), Tietenberg (1998). Week 4 Seminar: Are the alleged shortcomings of ‘traditional’ environmental policy approaches – vis-à-vis ‘new’ approaches - exaggerated? Readings: Carter (2007, pgs. 329-341), Fiorino (2006, chapter 3 & 7), May (2005), Prakash and Kollman (2004). Questions: (a) How do ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ environmental regulatory policy approaches differ? Relevant here are actors, incentives and mechanisms. (b) How do we evaluate the “success” and “failure” of environmental policy? (c) What are the strengths and weaknesses of traditional policy approaches? (d) Why have traditional approaches not always achieved their underlying goals?

4

(e) Are ‘new’ environmental policy approaches a panacea to the shortcomings of ‘traditional’ approaches? Carter, N. (2007) The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Fiorino, D. J. (2006) The New Environmental Regulation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. May, P. J. (2005) Regulation and compliance motivations: Examining different approaches, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65 (1), pp 31-43 [Electronic Access]. Prakash. A. and Kolman, K. (2004) ‘Policy modes, firms and the natural environment’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 107-28 (Electronic Access]. Week 5 Lecture The organisations for policy development and implementation In this lecture, consideration will be given to the question of what institutions and organisations (agencies) can and should implement various aspects of environmental policy. Answers to this question vary with the management philosophy and disciplinary perspective of the analysts. Some argue that technically competent agencies are required to optimise environmental resource use within natural regions; others stress the need to recognise the interdependencies between different environmental media; still others advocate the development of regulatory bodies capable of employing market tools and coping with the third party effects arising from their use; others stress the failure of the state to provide resource services and protect the environment and advocate privatization and community based systems. Many view environmental policy as a distributive activity requiring organisations which involve stakeholders and communities. In recent years much attention has been paid to the latter view, with notions that the state shifts its role from environmental service provider to enabler. The relationship between the jurisdictional remits, capacities and competence of organisations and policy outcomes will be briefly considered. Key readings: Berkes (1989), Bulkeley (2005 - E), OECD (1997), Potovski and Prakash (2004 – E), Reed (1996), Rees (1990, chapter 9; 2002 - E; 2006 - E), Young (2002), Wade (1987). Week 6 Lecture – Governments to governance As was said in the last lecture, in recent years much attention has been paid to participatory and decentralised organisational structures for environmental and resources management. It is now commonplace to consider governance structures – rather than government structures - to take into account all the non-state actors involved in policy-making, environmental management and regulation; and it is also common for bottomup planning and policy-making to be advocated. In this lecture the reasons for, and the advantages of, the introduction of more decentralised stakeholder-based governance structures will be explored, but it will also be stressed that participation, deregulation, and decentralisation have their limitations, as does the notion of bottom-up planning. These limitations are apparent in many policy domains but are particularly pertinent for the environment, where spatial and temporal interdependencies are the norm.

5

Key readings: Agrawal and Ostrom (2001 - E), Cooke and Kothari (2001), Davidson and Frickel (2004 – E), European Journal of Development Research (2004), Faguet (2004 - E), Holzinger et al. (2006 – E), Ostrom (1993, 2005), Ostrom et al (1993). Week 6 Seminar: Under which conditions are co-operative and voluntary environmental policy approaches most likely to achieve their goals? Readings: Eisner (2004), Lenox and Nash (2003), Norberg-Bohm and De Bruijn (2005), Potoski and Prakash (2006) Questions: (a) What do we mean by voluntary and co-operative environmental policy approaches? (b) Under which conditions are voluntary and co-operative approaches most likely to prove effective? (c) What is the role of government in fostering effective voluntary and cooperative approaches? (d) What do the answers to (b) and (c) above imply for wider debates about government and governance? Eisner, M.A. (2004) ‘Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry self-regulation: toward genuine regulatory reinvention in the United States’, Governance, Vol. 17, pp. 145-67. Lenox, M. J. and Nash, J. (2003) ‘Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A comparison across four trade association programs’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol 12 (6), pp 343-356. Norberg-Bohm, V. and De Bruijn, T. (2005) ‘Conclusions: Lessons for the design and use of voluntary, collaborative, and information-based approaches to environmental policy’ in Norberg-Bohm, V. & De Bruijn, T. (eds.) Industrial transformation: Environmental policy innovation in the United States and Europe. London: MIT Press [Course Collection HC110.E5 I41] Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2006) ‘Institutional design for EMS-based government procurement policies’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol 6 (4), pp13-22. Week 7 Lecture - Implementation, enforcement and regulatory styles This lecture will examine the limits to perfect implementation, the behaviour and objectives of environmental regulators and service providers and the origins and influence of different regulatory styles. In so doing it will examine the dynamics of regulator-industry-stakeholder relations and the scope for regulatory capture. It will also consider the emergence of responsive or risk-based approaches to regulation. Given the interdependencies that exist between environmental resources and the complex interrelations between the environment and most sectors of the economy, it is also important to consider coordination and cooperation between different actors in the policy process Key readings: Ayres and Braithwaite (1992) chs 1-3, Falkner et al. (2004 – E), Fiorino (1999 – E), Gouldson (2004 – E), Gouldson and Murphy (1998), Gunningham and Grabosky (1999) ch 6, Lofstedt and Vogel (2001 – E), Mastenbroek (2005 - E), OECD (1997),

6

Scholz (1991 – E), Steinzor (1998 – E), Watzold et al (2001 – E), Vig and Faure (2004), Vogel (1987) summary. Week 8 Lecture - Politics and power This lecture will examine different perspectives on the distribution of power and its influence on decision-making. It will then examine the ways in which different actors interact and exert influence within policy networks. It will draw upon these theoretical insights to consider the strategies and influence of the green movement. Key readings: Blowers (1984 or 1993), Connolly and Smith (2003) ch 3, Carter (2001) chs 4-6, Doyle and McEachern (2001) chs 5 & 6, Rhodes and Marsh (1992a and b), Poguntke (2002 – E), Smith (2000 – E). Broader reading on the policy process: Parsons (1996) part 2, Hill (2005 Part 2:1‘Theories of power and the policy process’). Week 8 Seminar: Is cooperation between relevant actors (i.e., regulators, regulated parties, etc.) a necessary condition for effective policy implementation? Readings: Gouldson (2004), Hill (2005, chapter 9), Lubell (2004), van Rooij (2006) Questions: (a) What do we mean by policy implementation? (b) Why is it difficult to evaluate the degree of implementation success/failure? (c) How does theory help us understand why environmental policies are implemented/not implemented? (d) Why might cooperation between relevant actors influence implementation? And to what extent is cooperation an important determinant of implementation? (e) What other factors might shape environmental policy implementation? Gouldson, A. (2004) `Cooperation and the Capacity for Control: Regulatory styles and the evolving influence of environmental regulations in the UK’, Environment and Planning C, Vol. 22, pp 583-683 [Electronic Access]. Hill, M. (ed.) (2005) The Public Policy Process, Pearson Longman, London (4th edition) [H97 H19]. Lubell, M. (2004) Collaborative watershed management: A view from the grassroots. Policy Studies Journal, Vol 32 (3), pp 341-361. van Rooij, B. (2006) Implementation of Chinese environmental law: Regular enforcement and political campaigns. Development and Change, Vol 37 (1), pp 5774. Week 9 Outcomes, impacts and evaluation: techniques for policy analysis This lecture will consider the factors that shape the outcomes and impacts of environmental policy. It will examine the relations between different criteria for evaluation – efficacy, efficiency, equitability, accountability for example. It will also examine the significance of interactions between different forms of policy and the significance of regulatory regimes. Taking these factors into account it will consider the roles of top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy analysis.

7

Key readings: Bailey et al (2002 – E), Bohringer and Loschel (2002 – E), Ekins and Speck (1998), Gouldson and Murphy (1998) chs 5 & 6, Sabatier (1986), Skjærseth and Wettestad (2002 - E), Young (2002 – E). Week 10 Policy reform and change This lecture will examine the different forms of policy learning and the scope for policy learning/transfer both within and between different settings. It will also consider the factors which shape the capacity for policy reform and hence the factors that seem likely to influence the evolution of environmental policy in the coming years. Particular emphasis will be placed on the significance of contemporary debates on environmental governance which stress the need for new forms of engagement between government, markets and civil society. Key readings: Bulkeley (2006 – E), Busch et al. (2005 - E), Busenberg (2001 – E); Dolowitz (2003 – E), Jänicke and Weidner (1995; 1997); Jordan et al. (2003 – E), Sanderson (2002 – E), Vogel and Kagan (eds.) (2004). Week 10 Seminar: To what extent are environmental policy institutions, approaches and instruments transferable? Readings: Börzel, T. A. (1999), Harrison (2002), Radaelli (2005), Selin and Vandeveer (2007) Questions: (a) What do we mean by policy transfer? And what is its relevance for understanding policy making and implementation? (b) What are the potential pathways and mechanisms of policy transfer? (c) Under which conditions is policy transfer most likely to take place? (d) How might the notion of “hybridity” enrich our understanding of the nature and outcomes of policy transfer? Börzel, T. A. (1999) ‘Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation to Europeanization in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37 (4), 573-596. Harrison, K. (2002) ‘Ideas and environmental standard-setting: a comparative study of regulation of the pulp and paper industry’, Governance, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 6596. Radaelli, C. M. (2005) ‘Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12 (5), pp 924-943. Selin, H. and Vandeveer, S. D. (2007) ‘Political science and prediction: What's next for U.S. climate change policy?’ Review of Policy Research, Vol. 24 (1), pp 1-27. GY 420/ GY465 - READING LIST Unfortunately there is no one single text that covers all aspects of the course, Although a number of core texts provide a useful introduction to the different

8

aspects of the course, wider reading, particularly of research papers, is essential (a separate Lent Term reading list will be circulated to GY420 students at the end of the Michaelmas Term). Generic readings on the policy process and on regulation

• • • • •

Baldwin, R., Scott, C. and Hood, C. (1998) A Reader on Regulation, Oxford University Press, Oxford [KD4878 R28]. Ham, C. and Hill, M. (1993) The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London (2nd edition) [JF1351 H19]. Hill, M. (ed.) (2005) The Public Policy Process, Pearson Longman, London (4th edition) [H97 H19]. Ogus, A. (2004) Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford (2nd edition) [KD2200 031]. Parsons, W. (1996) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis, Edward Elgar, Aldershot [H97 P27].

Useful books on environmental politics and policy

       • • •

Andersen, M. (1994) Governance by Green Taxes, Manchester University Press [HC79.P55 A54]. Carter, N. (2001) and (2007)(2nd ed) The Politics of the Environment, Cambridge University Press [JA75.8 C32]. Connelly, J. and Smith, G. (2003) Politics and the Environment, Routledge [GE170 C75]. Doyle, T. and McEachern, D. (2001) Environment and Politics, Routledge [GE170 D75]. Dryzek, J. (2005) The Politics of the Earth, Oxford University Press [GE195 D81]. Fiorino, D. J. (2006) The New Environmental Regulation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [KF3775 F52]. Gouldson, A. and Murphy, J. (1998) Regulatory Realities, Earthscan, London [HD69.P6 G69]. Hutter, B. (1997) Compliance: Regulation and the Environment, Clarendon Press, Oxford [KD4879.A7 H98]. Rees, J. (1990) Natural Resources: Allocation, Economics and Policy, Routledge, London (especially Ch 9 – copied in Map Room) [HC79.E5 R32]. Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution, Manchester University Press [HC240.9.P55 W36].

Useful books on the economics of environmental policy

• Kahn, J. R. (1998) (2nd ed) The Economic Approach to Environmental and
Natural Resources, Dryden Press [HC79.E5 K11]. • Jacobs, M. (1991) The Green Economy, Pluto, London [HD75.6 J11]. • Turner, R.K., Pearce, D. & Bateman, I. (1994) Environmental Economics: An Elementary introduction, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London [HC79.E5 P35].

9

Full Reading List

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

Agrawal and Ostrom (2001) ‘Collective action, property rights and decentralisation in resource use in India and Nepal’, Politics and Society, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp [Electronic Access]. Andersen, M. and Sprenger, R. (2000) Market-based Instruments for Environmental Management: Policies and Institutions (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar) [HJ5403.5.M34 and Map Room]. Ayres, R. and Braithwaite, J. (1992) Responsive Regulation: Transcending the De-regulation Debate, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bailey,P., Haq, G. and Gouldson, A. (2002) `Mind the gap! Comparing ex ante and ex post assessments of the costs of complying with environmental regulation’, European Environment, Vol 12, Issue 5, pp 245-256 [Electronic Access]. Baker,S (2006) Busch, P., H. Jörgens and K. Tews (2005): The global diffusion of regulatory instruments: The making of a new international environmental regime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598 (1), pp. 146-167.Sustainable Development, Routledge, London. Beierle, T.C. and Konisky, D.M. (2001) What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes, Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy 2001, Vol. 19, pp 515 – 527 [Electronic Access]. Berkes, F. (ed) (1989) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community based sustainable development (HD75.6.C73). Blowers, A. (1984) Something in the Air: Corporate Power and the Environment, Harper and Row, London. Blowers, A. (1993) ‘Master of Fate or Victim of Circumstance – the exercise of corporate power in environmental policy making’ in Hill, M. (ed.) (1993) The Policy Process: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London. Böhringer, C. and Löschel, A. (2002) `Assessing the costs of compliance: the Kyoto Protocol’, European Environment, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp 1-16 [Electronic Access]. Börzel, T. A. (1999) ‘Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation to Europeanization in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 37 (4), 573-596 [Electronic Access]. Bromley, D.W. (1989) Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy, Basil Blackwell, New York [HB99.5 B86]. Bulkeley, H. (2005) ‘Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks’, Political Geography, Vol. 24, pp 875-902 [Electronic Access]. Busch, P., Jörgens, H. and Tews, K. (2005) ‘The global diffusion of regulatory instruments: the making of a new international environmental regime’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 598, No. 1, pp 146-67 [Electronic access]. Busenberg, G.J. (2001) ‘Learning in organisations and public policy’, Journal of Public Policy Vol. 21, pp 173-89 [Electronic Access]. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed, London.

10

• •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

Davidson and Frickel, S. (2004) ‘Understanding environmental governance: a critical review’, Organization and Environment, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 471-492 [Electronic Access]. Delmas, M. and Terlaak, A. (2002) Regulatory Commitment to Negotiated Agreements: Evidence from the United States, Germany, The Netherlands and France, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4, pp5-29 [Electronic Access]. Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (1996) ‘Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature’, Political Studies 44, 343-57. Dolowitz, D.P (2003) ‘A policy-maker’s guide to policy transfer’, Political . Quarterly 74, 101-08 [Electronic Access]. Dryzek,J et al (2003) Green States and Social Movements, Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway, OUP Eisner, M.A. (2004) ‘Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry self-regulation: toward `genuine regulatory reinvention in the United States’, Governance, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp 145-67 [Electronic Access]. Ekins, P. and Speck, S. (1998) `The impacts of environmental policy on competitiveness: theory and evidence’ in Berker, T. and Kohler, J. (eds) International competitiveness and environmental policies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. European Journal of Development Research (2004) Vol. 16, No. 1: Special Issue on decentralisation. Faguet, J-P. (2004) ‘Does decentralisation increase governmental responsiveness to local needs?’ Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 88, Nos. 34, pp 867-893 [Electronic Access]. Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiber, S. and Treib, O. (2004). 'Non-Compliance with EU Directives in the Member States: Opposition through the Backdoor?' West European Politics, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 452-473 [Electronic Access]. Fiorino, D.J. (1999) `Rethinking Environmental Regulation: Perspectives on Law and Governance’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol 23 [Electronic Access]. Fiorino, D. J. (2006) The New Environmental Regulation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [KF3775 F52]. Gouldson, A. (2004) `Cooperation and the Capacity for Control: Regulatory styles and the evolving influence of environmental regulations in the UK’, Environment and Planning C, Vol. 22, pp 583-683 [Electronic Access]. Grabosky, P. (1995) ‘Counterproductive Regulation’ International Journal of the Sociology of Law, Vol. 23, pp 347-369. Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. (1999) Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (2002). Leaders and laggards: next-generation environmental regulation. Sheffield: Greenleaf, Chapter 9. GE170 G97 Course Collection. Harrision, K. (2002) ‘Ideas and environmental standard-setting: a comparative study of regulation of the pulp and paper industry’, Governance, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 65-96 [Electronic Access]. Holzinger, K., Knill C. and Schäfer, A. (2006) ‘Rhetoric or reality? ‘New Governance’ in EU environmental policy’, European Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 403-20 [Electronic access].

11

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Hutter, B. (1999) Socio-Legal Reader in Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jänicke, M. (1990) State Failure: The Impotence of Politics in Industrial Society, Polity Press, London. Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (eds) (1995) Successful Environmental Policy: A Critical Evaluation of 24 Case Studies, Edition Sigma. Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (eds) (1997) National environmental policies, Springer. Jordan, A. (1999) `The construction of a multilevel environmental governance system’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy Vol. 17, pp 1 – 17 [Electronic Access]. Jordan A., Wurzel R. and Zito A.R. (2003) 'New instruments of environmental governance: patterns and pathways of change’, Environmental Politics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 1-24 [Electronic Access]. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. & Zito, A. (2005) ‘The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government?’ Political Studies Vol. 53, pp 477-496 [Electronic access]. Keohane, N.O., Revesz, R.L., Stavins, R.N. (1998) ‘Choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy’, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 22 [Electronic Access]. Lenox, M. J. and Nash, J. (2003) ‘Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A comparison across four trade association programs’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 (6), pp 343-356 [Electronic access]. Lindblom. C. (1959) `The science of “muddling through”’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, pp 79-99. Lindblom. C. (1979) `Still muddling, not yet through’, Public Administration Review, Vol 39, pp517-526. Löfstedt, R.E. and Vogel, D. (2001) ‘The changing character of regulation: a comparison of Europe and the United States’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No.3, pp 399 [Electronic Access]. Majone, G. (1976) ‘Choice among policy instruments for pollution control’, Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, pp 589 - 613. Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, Yale University Press, Newhaven. Majone, G. (ed.) (1990) Deregulation or Re-regulation? Regulatory Reform in Europe and the United States, Pinter, London. Majone, G. (1996) Regulating Europe, Routledge, London. Mastenbroek, E. (2005). 'EU Compliance: Still a 'Black Hole'?' Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp 1103-1120 [Electronic Access]. May, P. J. (2005) Regulation and compliance motivations: Examining different approaches, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65 (1), pp 31-43 [Electronic Access]. Norberg-Bohm, V. and De Bruijn, T. (2005) ‘Conclusions: Lessons for the design and use of voluntary, collaborative, and information-based approaches to environmental policy’ in Norberg-Bohm, V. & De Bruijn, T. (eds.) Industrial transformation: Environmental policy innovation in the United States and Europe. London: MIT Press [Course Collection HC110.E5 I41]. North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [HB99.5 N86].

12

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

OECD (1997) Managing Across Levels of Government, OECD, Paris, OECD [www.oecd.org]. OECD (1998) Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, OECD [www.oecd.org]. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: Evaluation of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press [HD1286 081]. Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press, New Haven [HF5549.M5 O81]. Ostrom, E. et al (ed) (2002) The Drama of the Commons NAS, USA. (see especially chapters by Berkes and Young). Ostrom E., Schroder L & Wynne, S (1993) – Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development, Westview Press, Boulder [HC59.72.C3 OB1]. Poguntke T. (2002) `Green Parties in national governments: from protest to acquiescence?’ Environmental Politics, Vol. 11, no. 1, pp 133-145(13) [Electronic Access]. Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2004) `The regulation dilemma: cooperation and conflict in environmental governance’ Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, Part 2 (Electronic Access). Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2006) ‘Institutional design for EMS-based government procurement policies’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol 6 (4), pp13-22 [Electronic Access]. Prakash. A. and Kolman, K. (2004) ‘Policy modes, firms and the natural environment’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 107-28 (Electronic Access]. Radaelli, C. M. (2005) ‘Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp 924-43 [Electronic access]. Reed, D. (ed.) (1996) Structural Adjustment, the environment and Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London [HD75.6 S92]. Rees, J. (2002) Risk and Integrated Water Management, TEC Background Paper No. 6 [available at www.gwpforum.org]. Rees, J. (2006) Urban Water and Sanitation Services: An IWRM Approach, TEC Background Paper No. 11 [available at www.gwpforum.org]. Rhodes, R. and Marsh, D. (1992a) `Policy networks in British politics: a critique of existing approaches’ in Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (eds) Policy Networks in British Government, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Rhodes, R. and Marsh, D. (1992b) `New directions in the study of policy networks’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 21, pp 181-205. Sabatier, P. (1986) `Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research’, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 6, pp21-48. Saleth, R.M. and Dinar, A. (2005) ‘Water institutional reforms: theory and practice’, Water Policy, Volume 7, pp. 1-19 [Electronic Access]. Sanderson, I. (2002) ‘Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making’, Public Administration Vol. 80, pp 1-22 [Electronic Access]. Scholz, J. (1991) ‘Cooperative regulatory enforcement and the politics of administrative effectiveness’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, 1, pp115-136 [Electronic access].

13

• • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Selin, H. and Vandeveer, S. D. (2007) ‘Political science and prediction: What's next for U.S. climate change policy?’ Review of Policy Research, Vol. 24 (1), pp 1-27 [Electronic access]. Skjærseth J.B. and Wettestad J. (2002)`Understanding the effectiveness of EU Environmental Policy: how can regime analysis contribute?’ Environmental Politics, Autumn 2002, vol. 11, no. 3, pp 99-120(22) [Electronic Access]. Smith, A. (2000)`Policy networks and advocacy coalitions: explaining policy change and stability in UK industrial pollution policy?’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 18 (1), pp 95-114 [Electronic Access]. Steinzor, R.I. (1998) ‘Reinventing environmental regulation: The dangerous journey from command to self-control’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol 22 [Electronic Access]. Tews, K. Busch P.-O. and Jörgens, H. (2003) ‘The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 42, pp 569-600. Tietenberg. T. (1998) `Disclosure strategies for pollution control’ Environmental and Resource Economics, 11 (3-4), pp 587-602 [Electronic Access]. Vig, N.J. and Faure, M.G. (2004) Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and European Union, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Vogel, D. (1987) National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States, Cornell University Press, Cornell [HC260.E5 V87 and Map Room]. Vogel, D. and Kagan, R. (Eds.) (2004). Dynamics of Regulatory Change: How Globalization Affects National Regulatory Policies, University of California Press, London. [HD3611 D99] Wade, R. (1987) ‘The management of CPR: collective action as an alternative to privatisation or state regulation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp 95-116 [Electronic Access]. Wätzold, F., Bültmann, A., Eames, M., Lulofs, K. and Schucht, S. (2001) `EMAS and regulatory relief in Europe: lessons from national experience’, European Environment Vol 11, Issue 1, pp 37-48 [Electronic Access]. Young, O. (2002) ‘Evaluating the success of environmental regimes: where are we now?’ Global Environmental Change, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 73-77 [Electronic Access]. World Bank (2005) Decentralisation and Service Delivery, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3603, www. Worldbank.org

2007/8 session timetabling
GY420
Lec Lec

Environmental Regulation: Implementing Policy
LT Wks 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2 2,4,6,8,10 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2,4,6,8,10 ST Wks Room All Teachers G108 S75 H202 G212 D206 REES, PROF J A MASON, DR M PERKINS, DR RICHARD MASON, DR M VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

Type Grp Day Start Finish MT Wks L Tue 10:00 11:30 L Tue 13:00 15:00

Sem 1 Mon 13:00 14:00 Sem 1 Tue 10:00 12:00 Sem 2 Tue 09:00 10:00

14

Sem 2 Tue 13:00 15:00 Sem 3 Tue 12:00 13:00 Sem 3 Tue 11:00 13:00 2,4,6,8,10

3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

G212 D703

ZEITOUN, DR MARK VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

D111

GY465
Lec Sem Sem Sem L 1 2 3

Concepts in Environmental Regulation
LT Wks ST Wks Room All Teachers G108 Tue 10:00 11:30 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 Mon13:00 14:00 Tue 09:00 10:00 Tue 12:00 13:00 2,4,6,8,10 2,4,6,8,10 2,4,6,8,10 H202 D206 D703 REES, PROF J A PERKINS, DR RICHARD VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

Type Grp Day Start Finish MT Wks

15

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.