Oxfam GB

Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

Author(s): Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi and Khalid Edizadehi
Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May 2012), pp. 385-399
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23214541
Accessed: 29-08-2022 15:56 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23214541?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Development in Practice

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 11 Taylor & Francis Croup

Mechanisms and instruments of

sustainable development

Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi,

and Khalid Edizadehi

The present study aimed to aid government sector managers in Iran in their understanding of
sustainable development mechanisms. Research was undertaken with 338 managers selected
randomly from seven government ministries. The findings revealed that the rules and devices
of public participation, voluntary environmental certification systems, scientific cooperation,
and education were all priorities for moving towards sustainable development. The results
also showed that institutional development, social capital and education, economic instruments
for environmental protection, monitoring and informing, a clean development mechanism, and
sustainable government are key means for encouraging sustainable development in Iran.

Mécanismes et instruments du développement durable

La présente étude cherchait à aider les responsables de secteur du gouvernement iranien à
mìeux comprendre les mécanismes du développement durable. Des recherches ont été entre
prises avec 338 responsables sélectionnés au hasard panni sept ministères gouvernementaux.
Les résultats ont révélé que les règles et les dispositifs relatifs à la participation du public, aux
systèmes volontaires de certification environnementale, à la cooperation scientifique et à l'édu
cation étaient autant d'éléments prioritaires pour parvenir au développement durable. Les
résultats ont aussi montré que le développement institutionnel, le capital social et l'éducation,
les instruments économiques pour la protection de l'environnement, le suivi et I 'information, un
mécanisme de développement propre et un gouvernement durable sont des moyens clés
d'encourager le développement durable en Iran.

Mecattismos e instrumentos de desenvolvimento sustentàvel

O presente estudo visou auxìliar gerentes do setor governamental no Irà a compreender os
mecanismos de desenvolvimento sustentàvel. Foi realizada urna pesquisa com 338 gerentes
selecionados aleatoriamente de 7 ministérios de governo. Os resultados revelaram que
regras e mecanismos da participagào publico, sistemas voluntàrios de certificando ambientai,
cooperagào cientifica e educagào foram todos considerados prìoritàrios para se avangar em
diregào ao desenvolvimento sustentàvel. Os resultados também mostraram que desenvolvi
mento institucional, capital social e educagào, instrumentos economicos para protegào
ambientai, monitoramento e informagào, além de um mecanismo claro de desenvolvimento e
um governo sustentàvel sào formas essenciais de se estimular o desenvolvimento sustentàvel
no Irà.

ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364-9213 Online 030385-15 © 2012 Taylor & Francis

Routledge Publishing http://dx.doi.org/!0.1080/09614524.2012.664624

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

Recursos e instrumentos para el desarrollo sostentile

El objetivo de este estudio consistió en apoyar a funcionarios gubernamentales de Iran para
que conocieran con mayor profundidad los recursos del desarrollo sostenible. Se realizó una
investigation entre 338 cargos medios de siete ministerìos del gobierno seleccionados de
manera aleatoria. Los resultados muestran que las norrnas y las modalidades de participation
publica, los sistemas de certification ambientai voluntaries, la cooperation cientifica y la edu
cation son prioridades para lograr el desarrollo sostenible. Los resultados también muestran
que otros factores importantes para incrementar el desarrollo sostenible en Iran son: el desar
rollo institutional, el capital social y la education, las estrategias económicas para la protec
tion ambientai, el monitoreo y la divulgation, una estrategia de desarrollo transparente y un
gobierno estable.

Key Words: Aid; Environment; Governance and public policy; Methods; Arab States

Introduction

In order to implement Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 on the 'Integration of environment and devel

opment into decision making', countries are required to develop a national sustainable devel
opment strategy (NSDS) (Brodhag and Talière 2006). By 2006, 40 per cent of UN member
countries had developed and/or partly implemented NSDS (Silveira 2006). This demonstrates
that, although the urgent need for NSDS is widely acknowledged, workable procedures for
implementing sustainable development are still in their infancy. For instance, research on mech
anisms of governance of sustainability as part of a platform of sustainable development is at an
early stage owing to the lack of long-term experience and relevant data. Most studies are
focused on governance for an individual aspect (economic, social, or environmental) of sustain
ability. They are also typically restricted to a certain form (contract, cooperative, industry
initiative, public programme), a management level (firm, ecosystem), or a particular location
(region) (Hrabrin 2009). It is widely recognised that achievement of the economic, social,
environmental, intra- and inter-generational goals of sustainable development requires an
effective social order (governance) and coordinated actions at various levels (individual, organ
isational, community, regional, national, transnational). However, it is also understood that the
effective forms of governance of sustainable development are rarely universal and there is a
large variation among different countries, regions, and subsectors, according to the specific
governing structures. Therefore, much depends upon how planners or policymakers understand
and interpret the concept and the nature of the mechanisms of sustainable development
(Quaddus and Siddique 2002). In view of this, in the present article we incorporate managers'
viewpoints about means and mechanisms as a set of rules and devices designed to bring about a
certain outcome and suggest mechanisms of governance of sustainable development in Iran. We
also believe that mechanisms of sustainable development determined here can be employed by
the planners and actors of the country's fifth five-year development plan.

Theoretical background
Development has been taken to mean different things at different times, in different places, and by
different people in different professions and organisations. The dominant meanings have been those
attributed by economists and used in economics. Development has then often been equated with
economic development and economic development, and in turn, with economic growth (Chambers

386 Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

2005). In many countries, economic development policies have not yielded benefits for the poor.
Instead, they have resulted in rapid short-run economic gain for a few, at the expense of wider
social justice and long-term environmental security. The 1980s' concern for the environment
and social justice produced a new concept in development thinking - people-centred development
(Davidson et al. 1992). This brings social and economic advances but also safeguards the environ
ment and its resources so that options are not closed for the future. Sustainable development is a
dominant notion in this approach, because it is an alliance of three essential elements - people,
their environment, and the future - by bridging the traditional gulf between environmental and
developmental thinking. The Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Devel
opment 1987) defined sustainable development as follows: 'Humanity has the ability to make devel
opment sustainable - to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs '.
Putting a commitment to sustainable development into practice requires a substantial tran
sition not just to a broader understanding and more ambitious set of objectives, but also to
more coherently inter-related institutional structures and processes of planning, administration,
markets, tradition, and choice at every scale (Gibson 2001). Clearly, this transition cannot be
achieved quickly or easily. The challenge is to show how such a transition can be accomplished
and to develop a core set of tools that would make governance for sustainability manageable
(Kemp et al. 2005). Few efforts to promote sustainable development focus on determining
the mechanisms and instruments that are required for sustainable development. In what
follows, we present an overview of various attempts to articulate sustainable development
mechanisms as a set of rules and devices designed to bring about a certain outcome.
In this context, Agenda 21 forms the basis for a global partnership to encourage cooperation
among nations as they support a transition to sustaining life on earth. Each of its 40 chapters
describes a programme area and comprises four parts: the basis for action; objectives; activities;
and means of implementation. Section Four (the means of implementation) in Chapters 33-40
examines the basic resources necessary to push forward this global partnership for sustainable
development. It includes: financial resources and mechanisms (Chapter 33); transfer of envir
onmentally sound technology (Chapter 34); science for sustainable development (Chapter
35); and promoting education, public awareness, and training (Chapter 36).
Clive and Kirkpatrick (2006) also addressed the idea that strategic planning mechanisms are
the appropriate basis for developing national sustainable development strategies. These are:
change management mechanisms, including pilot activities; prioritisation; planning and
decision-making mechanisms; participation mechanisms; negotiation and conflict management;
information systems; monitoring and accountability mechanisms; communication and aware
ness-raising mechanisms; financial resource mobilisation and allocation; strategic planning
mechanisms; national development plans and other national planning processes; and inter
departmental coordinating processes.
Swanson et al. (2004) argue that these mechanisms typically have to consist of the national
budgeting process, national development plans and other national planning processes, and inter
departmental coordinating processes, with links to sub-national and local strategy processes.
Meyer (2000) explored the sustainable development mechanisms from their social aspect -
namely social security instruments and the stock of social capital. Social security instruments
include pension schemes, while unemployment insurance and health insurance enhance econ
omic productivity by creating social stability. This stability can be enjoyed by everyone without
their own contributions as long as someone else provides some kind of social security system
(Meyer 2000). Social capital, which comprises relations of trust, reciprocity, common rules,
norms and sanctions, and connectedness in institutions, in the form of local institutions and
NGOs, has indirect effects on productivity so that an individual can employ their social

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 387

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

capital (i.e. the sum of its social ties) to carry out (economic) transactions. Social capital is a
substitute for the market, the usual carrier for such economic exchanges. The market can be con
ceived either as an institution provided by the state or a private organisation, which is open to
everyone willing to pay the entiy fee. The entry fees are mostly diminishingly low so that allo
cative efficiency gains easily outweigh these fees. Therefore, the individual must always decide,
which transactions they will carry out by using the market and for which transactions they will
use social capital.
From an economic perspective, Dresdeen (2006) addressed the most important economic
instruments of sustainable development, which are price-based, quantity-based, and informa
tional-based instruments. Price-based instruments fall into three basic categories: those offering
negative incentives; positive incentives; or mixed incentives. Negative incentives essentially
tax environmental destruction, thereby encouraging better environmental practice, through
measures such as eco-taxes and pollution tax. Positive incentives enable those improving
their environmental practices to earn money for doing so, such as through government subsidies
to reduce the private costs of specified goods, services or behaviour. Mixed incentives combine
negative and positive incentives like deposit-refund systems, for example, the UK's landfill
charge which reduces the volume of waste and helps fund environmental restoration of
former dump sites. Tradable environmental rights, or environmental benefits trading, offer
the best example of a quantity-based economic incentive measure, as opposed to a price
based measure. With price-based instruments, government sets the price by creating incentives
to reduce it. This government action leaves the private sector free to decide what quantity of
pollution reduction to offer in response. In contrast, when government enacts a quantity
based instrument, such as an environmental benefit trading programme, it is the government,
not the private sector that determines the requisite quantity of emission reductions. The
private sector retains some control over the price through its ability to choose techniques to
meet the quantitative limit. For example, in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, Denmark
was the first European country to legislate for a limited trading system for C02 quotas
among the country's largest electricity producers. Most scholarly treatments of economic incen
tive measures include information-based programmes, not just price- and quantity-based instru

Figure 1: Mechanisms of sustainable development

Source: Author.

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

ments, as examples of economic incentive programmes. Right-to-know programmes in numer

ous countries require polluters to report the amount of pollution emitted into various media,
while voluntary environmental certification systems and eco-labelling are examples of an infor
mation programme.
The clean development mechanism is another important mechanism for achieving the objec
tives of the UN Millennium Development Goals (Lorraine 2009). This mechanism provides
market incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while investing in clean energy tech
nologies (Schroeder 2009) to move toward sustainable development. Finally, Lawn (2006) con
centrated on ecological tax reform (ETR) as a policy designed to tax such 'bads' as resource
depletion and pollution and to reduce tax impositions on such 'goods' as labour and income.
The aim of ETR is relatively straightforward: (1) taxing depletion and pollution should decrease
the rate of resource throughput per unit of economic activity and relieve any growing pressure
on the natural environment; (2) reducing tax rates on labour and income should encourage the
employment of labour and reward value-adding in production.
Based on the above-mentioned literature, the authors have developed a model in Figure 1 that
has divided the mechanisms of sustainable development into three categories:

1. Social mechanisms - a collection of instruments, rules, and devices that develop individual
and social capacity among communities and people to be able to move towards sustainable
development. These are: education, participation, and social security systems.
2. Economic mechanisms - instruments, rules, and devices that are often contrasted to
command and control policy approaches that determine pollution reduction targets and
allowable control technologies, through laws or regulations (UN Environment Programme
2002). Here, these are divided into three categories: quantity-based instruments, price
based instruments, and information-based instruments.
3. Environmental mechanisms (or clean development mechanisms) - these represent one of
the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol developed as a means to reduce greenhouse
gases and are mainly tools to lead investment in clean energy technologies. In this research,
green technology, green consumption, and green production are considered as environ
mental instruments, rules, and devices which contribute to sustainable development by pro
moting renewable energies (Schroeder 2009).

Sustainable development is a complete and multidimensional concept, the achievement of

which requires the integration, identification, coordination, and continuous improvement of
goals, strategies, and mechanisms. Therefore, a group of mechanisms alone cannot promote sus
tainable development. For this, in practice, it is important to consider the interaction between
instruments and create new categories and infrastructural concepts based on the nature of the
instruments. Hence, our model is suppositional and to achieve the real model according to field
work in Iran, this model was tested through factor analysis.

Research methods
A descriptive survey research method was used to collect data from managers of seven govern
ment ministries (Education; Interior; Housing and Urban Development; Health and Medical
Education; Science, Research and Technology; Energy; and Agriculture). To identify the sus
tainable development mechanisms, a questionnaire was administered with 25 variables (the
rules and devices of sustainable development) adapted from studies by Meyer (2000), Panayo
tou and Tòpfer (1998), Clayton and Bass (2002), McKeown (2002), and Kelly et al. (2004). The
final instrument consisted of 25 items measured on a seven-point scale using the following
bands: strongly disagree (mean = 1.00-1.49); disagree (mean = 1.50-2.49), tend to disagree

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 389

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hadi Veisi, Hutnman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

(mean =2.50-3.49); average (mean = 3.50-4.49); tend to agree (mean = 4.50-5.49); agree
(mean = 5.50-6.49), strongly agree (mean = 6.50-7.00). The maximum weight was given
for 'strongly agree' in the case of a favourable attitude and for 'strongly disagree' in the
case of an unfavourable attitude. A total of 360 managers were randomly selected to represent
the population; of this sample, 338 responded as the result of the original mailing and follow-up
mailing. A response rate of 92 per cent was obtained. The instrument was assessed for content
and face validity by development policymakers, academic staff, and state supervisors in the area
of sustainable development.
Reliability of the instrument was 0.85 (Cronbach's alpha coefficient); according to Hair et al.
(1995), the commonly used coefficient limiting value of acceptable reliability is 0.85. Based on
the data in this research, this indicator can be considered relatively reliable in measuring
mangers' understanding of sustainable development mechanisms. Minor revisions were made
to the questionnaire to improve the clarity and internal consistency. The data were processed
using SPSS software. Analyses of data were accomplished using factor analysis, which was uti
lised to reveal the latent diminutions behind the rules and devices as mechanisms of sustainable
development. A 0.4 level of significance was selected. The results that follow are based on the
responses to the survey. The appropriateness of the data for factor analysis was evaluated using
Bartlett's test of sphericity (BTS).

Results

Demographics of the sample group

The demographic characteristics collected included age, years of working experience, gender,
and organisation. This information is provided to give the reader an overview of the type of
managers that were included in the sample and who were the source of information for the
factors. The average age of the state managers was 43 years (SD = 5.2) and they had
worked as a manager an average of 18.0 years (SD = 7.0); 84.6 per cent were male and 14.4
per cent were female. Participants were drawn from different government organisations and
ministries. The largest number of mangers as respondents concentrated their work in the area
of agriculture (20.7 per cent), followed by education (16.27 per cent). Other respondents
were from the Ministries of Interior (13.3 per cent); Housing and Urban Development (8.8
per cent); Health and Medical Education (10.35 per cent); Science, Research and Technology
(11.83 per cent); and Energy (9.9 per cent), respectively.

Mechanisms of sustainable development

To aid greater understanding of manager's attitudes towards the rules and devices of sustainable
development mechanisms, means and standard deviations for individual items are depicted in
Figure 2. As can be seen, mean scores ranged from 4.08 to 6.31 which would indicate managers
frequently agreed or strongly agreed with the items (rules and devices) listed rather than those
choosing a response of average, tend to agree, agree, and strongly agree. Based on these findings,
the mean scores were then categorised into three types: a favourable attitude represented by mean
scores of greater than 5.50; a slightly favourable category with mean scores ranging from 4.50 to
5.49; and an unfavourable attitude category comprising mean scores of less than 4.49.
Mangers presented mean scores of greater than 5.50 for 12 items related to: public
participation; voluntary environmental certification systems; scientific cooperation; education;
appropriate spheres of economy; responsible entrepreneurship; international agenda and
agreement; inter-sectoral cooperation; clean production and consumption; negotiation and

390 Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

Developing voluntary environmental certification systems (n=325)

Promoting the ability of negotiation and conflict..

Gathering the information of changing trends of natural, financial

Making available the basic sciences of social and...

Reporting the amount of pollution emitted in various media..
Setting the prices by government as incentives to reduce the..
Encouraging clean production and consumption (n=3B6)
Existing the appropriate general spheres of faraway economic
Changing the trends of energy consumption to rebuild the..

Taxing depletion and pollution to decrease the rate of...

Persuading responsible entrepreneurship towards SD by
Including international agenda and agreements in the national
Playing active role in the international institutes like WTO(n=325)
Formal and informal education for all of people{n=326)
Encouraging and improving relationships and cooperation among.
Enhancing cooperation among people and governmental..
Directing subsidies towards green activities and new...
Eco-labels as a tool to change behavior of consumers and..
Increasing price on the pollution which causes global warming
Reducing the costs of pollution control by assembling the.
Developing and enforcing Hie policies and the procedures to pay...
Promoting public participation and raising awareness to strength
Reducing tax rates on labour and income that encourage the...
Integrating social, economic and cultural backgrounds of society
Enhancing professional and scientific ability of development..

Figure 2: Importance of the rules and devices of sustainable development (data presented as mean values
with error bars representing standard deviation)
Notes: Mean is expressed as a change in agreement with importance of rules and devices: strongly
disagree (M = 1.00-1.49); disagree (M = 1.50-2.49); tend to disagree (M = 2.50-3.49);
average (M = 3.50-4.49); tend to agree (M = 4.50-5.49); agree (M = 5.50-6.49); strongly
agree (M = 6.50-7.00).
Source: Author.

conflict management; making available the basic sciences; and revealing a favourable attitude
with these sets of rules to achieve sustainable development.
The attitude of managers was less positive (slightly favourable) on the following ten
items, with scores ranging from 4.50 to 5.49: integrating social, economic and cultural
backgrounds; reducing tax rates; recycling; pollution control of industrial units; pollution
cost; eco-labelling; green subsidies; energy consumption; media; and monitoring. Finally, man
agers provided mean scores of less than 5.49, representing an unfavourable response, to items
related to: taxing depletion and pollution and setting the prices by government as incentives to
reduce the quantity of pollution.

Factor analysis

The appropriateness of the data for factor analysis was evaluated using BTS. The Kaiser -
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test measures the adequacy of a sample in terms of the distribution of
values for the execution of factor analysis (Geourge and Mallery 1999). The acceptable
values should be greater than 0.5. BTS determines if the correlation matrix is an identity
matrix; if there exists an identity matrix, factor analysis is meaningless (Field 2000). BTS
Ok2 = 3315.632, P < 0.001) suggested that the bivariate correlations among the scale items
were significantly different from zero and, therefore, appropriate for factor analysis. Further,

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 391

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

Table 1: Internal consistency analysis and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test.

Test Statistic

KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.905

Bartlett's test of sphericity Approx. x2. 3315.632

df 300

P <0.001

Table 2: Extracted values of various factor analysis parameters for sustainable development mechanisms.

Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Eigenvalue Variance % Eigenvalue variance %

1 8.740 34.959 34.959 4.023 16.093 16.093

2 1.987 7.947 42.906 3.602 14.407 30.499

3 1.432 5.726 48.632 2.792 11.168 41.668

4 1.179 4.716 53.347 1.735 6.939 48.606

5 1.033 4.133 57.480 1.638 6.552 55.158

6 1.014 4.057 61.537 1.595 6.379 61.537

the sampling adequacy, as evaluated by the KMO measure of sampling adequacy, appeared to
be acceptable, at a value of 0.905. Both tests indicated the suitability of the variables for factor
analysis (see Table 1).
Table 2 shows all the factors extractable from the analysis along with their eigenvalues, the per
centage of variance attributable to each factor, and the cumulative variance of the factor and the
previous factors. The results indicated that there were six factors (the construct of mechanisms
of sustainable development) to measure about 61.53 per cent of variances in the data (Table 3).

Factor 1 - institutional development: Institutional development, or capacity building for sustain

able development, accounted for 16.09 per cent of the total variance. Six variables represented the
significant loadings of this factor. This factor represents institutional development and capacity
building as the most important means to achieve sustainable development. It associates insti
tutional development of sustainable development with the professional and scientific ability of
development stakeholders and the existence of appropriate general spheres of faraway economic
crises and tensions. This factor also discloses that establishing institutional and individual
capacities is a precondition for comprehensive planning to achieve sustainable development.
The importance of this factor is underlined by the following statement:

The sustainable development requires effective governing and enforcement mechanisms includ
ing a significant public involvement in market and private activities at local ( the private and col
lective actions of individuals), national, transnational and global levels (agreements,
assistance, pressure). The institutional 'development' associated with the modernization
and I or redistribution of the existing rights; and the evolution of new rights and the emergence
of novel (private, public, hybrid) institutions for their enforcement. (Hrabrin 2009: 7)

Factor 2 - social capital and education: Social capital and education contributed to 14.41 per
cent of the total variance and addressed education and social ties as instruments of capacity

392 Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

Table 3: Factor loading and values for variables included in rotated factors matrix.

Variance
Variable included in the factor Factor explained
Factor Factor interpretation (abbreviated items) loading (%)
1 Institutional Promoting the ability of negotiation and 0.74 16.09

development conflict management

Making available the basic social and 0.56

experimental sciences

Enhancing professional and scientific 0.59

ability of development stakeholders

using research findings in decision
making of sustainable development

Providing the appropriate general 0.66

spheres of faraway economic crises and

tensions

Playing active role in the international 0.71

institutions like WTO

Integrating social, economic and 0.77

cultural backgrounds of society in

planning for sustainable development

Including international agendas and 0.50

agreements in the national development

plans

2 Social capital and Encouraging and improving 0.55 14.41

education relationships and cooperation among
scientific societies and decision-makers

Enhancing cooperation among people 0.53

and governmental developers

Reducing tax rates on labour and 0.50

income that encourage the employment

of labour and reward value-adding
production

Formal and informal education for all 0.82

people

Promoting public participation and 0.79

raising awareness to strengthen the role

of the NGO and other civil society
sections in development programmes

Persuading responsible 0.69

entrepreneurship towards sustainable

development by developing job security
and social insurance

3 Economic instruments Changing the trends of energy 0.63 11.16

for environmental consumption to rebuild the economic
protection system

Directing subsidies towards green 0.67

activities and new energies

(Continued)

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hadi Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

Taxing depletion and pollution to 0.48

decrease the rate of resource throughput

per unit of economic activity and
relieve any growing pressure on the
natural environment

Eco-labels as a tool to change behaviour 0.67

of consumers and producers

Increasing tax on the pollution which 0.62

causes global warming and

environmental degradation
4 Monitoring and Gathering the information of changing 0.73 6.93

informing trends of natural, financial and human

resources that are available, and
monitoring these

Reporting the amount of pollution 0.78

emitted in various media

Developing voluntary environmental 0.79

certification systems

5
Clean development Reducing the costs of pollution control 0.74 6.55
mechanism by assembling the industrial units

Encouraging clean production and 0.57

consumption

6 Sustainable government Setting the taxes by government as 0.80 6.37

incentives to reduce the quantity of

pollution

Developing and enforcing the policies 0.53

and the procedures to pay money for

recycled matters by government
61.53

building in the planning process for sustainable development. In this regard, it contained a
combination of six variables with a strong loading: (1) encouraging and improving relation
ships and cooperation among scientific societies and decision-makers; (2) enhancing
cooperation among people and governmental developers; (3) reducing tax rates on labour
and income to encourage the employment of labour and reward value-adding in production;
(4) formal and informal education for all; (5) promoting public participation and raising aware
ness to strengthen the role of NGOs and other civil society sectors in development pro
grammes; and (6) persuading responsible entrepreneurship towards sustainable development
by developing job security and social insurance. The importance of this factor is underlined
by the following statements:

A national sustainability plan can be enhanced or limited by the level of education attained
by the nation's citizens. Nations with high illiteracy rates and unskilled workforces have
fewer development options. For the most part, these nations are forced to buy energy
and manufactured goods on the international market with hard currency. To acquire
hard currency, these countries need international trade; usually this leads to exploitation

394 Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

of natural resources or conversion of lands from self-sufficient family-based farming to

cash-crop agriculture. An educated workforce is key to moving beyond an extractive
and agricultural economy. (McKeown 2002)

Social capital captures the idea that social bonds and social norms are an important part of
the basis for sustainable livelihoods. It encourages productive activities and facilitates co
operation. People have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that
others will also do so. The social and human capital is also necessary for sustainable and
equitable solutions to natural resource management comprise a m ix of existing endowments
and that which is externally-facilitated. External agencies or individuals can act on or work
with individuals to increase their knowledge and skills, their leadership capacity, and their
motivations to act. They can act on or work with communities to create the conditions for the
emergence of new local associations with appropriate rules and norms for resource manage
ment. If these then lead to the desired natural capital improvements, then this again has a
positive feedback on both social and human capital. (Pretty and Ward 2001: 212)

Factor 3 - economic instruments for environmental protection: Economic instruments for

environmental protection explained 11.16 per cent of the total variance. This section contained
five variables with a strong loading: (1) changing the trends of energy consumption to rebuild
the economic system; (2) directing subsidies toward green activities and new energy; (3) taxa
tion on depletion and pollution that decreases the rate of resource use; (4) eco-labels as a tool for
changing behaviour of consumers and producers; and (5) increasing the price of pollution which
causes global warming and environmental degradation. This factor reveals that sustainable be
haviour as a mechanism of sustainable development is possible through instruments such as
eco-labelling, certification systems, and pollution taxing: 'Economic instruments for environ
mental protection are policy approaches that encourage behaviour through their impact on
market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or
methods or resource use' (Stavins 2001: 1).

Factor 4 - monitoring and informing: Monitoring and informing accounted for 6.93 per cent of
the total variance. This factor consisted of: (1) gathering information on changing trends of
natural, financial and human resources and monitoring; (2) reporting the amount of pollution
emitted in various media; and (3) developing voluntary environmental certification systems.
The factor links the monitoring process with that of informing to assess the current situation
of resources and disseminate the findings to development stakeholders. This is highlighted in
the following statements: 'Reporting and dissemination of the findings of monitoring is
crucial so that key messages can be fed back to stakeholder key groups, enabling them to con
tinuously improve their understanding and behaviour, the strategy itself and its component
activities' (Clayton and Bass 2002: 325);

Policy development and planning for sustainable development and coherent environ
mental management demands information on the state of the environment. Ai assessments
and analyses become multi-sectoral, the need for integrated information increases. This
demands organisational infrastructures for the acquisition, integration, analysis and
dissemination of data and information. (Simpson 2002: 123)

Factor 5 - clean development mechanism: The clean development mechanism contributes to

6.55 per cent of the total variance. It contained a combination of two variables with a strong
loading: (1) reducing the costs of pollution control by assembling industrial units; and (2)
encouraging clean production and consumption. This factor places an emphasis on positive

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 395

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hadì Veisi, Humman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

incentives (gathering together factories), green production with environmentally friendly

technologies and sustainable consumption as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
cost-effectively. This is highlighted in the following statement:

CDM [clean development mechanism] was leveraging new investments in new types of
projects... that had increased the institutional capacity... to deal with climate change
and had built capacity in terms of human resources. The projects had achieved important
innovation though the development of new technologies and processes and had resulted in
additional benefits, such as job generation, less environmental impact, less local pollution,
less consumption of energy and improved energy efficiency. (UN 2007: 2)

Factor 6 - sustainable government: Sustainable government accounted for 6.37 per cent of the
total variance. This factor contained a combination of two variables: (1) setting prices by
government as an incentive to reduce the quantity of pollution; and (2) developing and
enforcing policies and procedures for paying money for recycled materials by government. It
emphasises the key role government plays in achieving sustainable development through
creating the policies, the strategies and the procedures that offer incentives for reducing pollution.

Discussion and conclusions

Sustainable development is a multidimensional concept in nature that embraces and integrates the
social, economic and environmental objectives for achieving a sustainable society, consisting of
four sub-systems: industry; government; community; and ecosystems. Given the multidimen
sional nature of the concept, the institutional framework within which activities are conceived,
planned, funded, implemented, and managed is a key component of sustainable development
(Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith 1990). Since there is no single model that would be good enough
to plan the sustainability of development, it all depends upon how planners or policymakers
understand and interpret the concept of sustainable development, and on the nature of the mech
anisms prevalent in a country. Results of the present study on the mechanisms of sustainable
development have shown that capacity-building at both institutional and individual levels is
one of the most important mechanisms for achieving sustainable development. This is perhaps
because of the lack of an agenda and also an institutional infrastructure, both public and
private, to track the sustainability objectives in Iran. This finding is supported by the high
mean scores of items (rules and devices) under this factor. Regarding the lack of institutional
infrastructure for sustainable development, the present results are consistent with Brinkerhoff
and Goldsmith (1990), who acknowledged that such institutions are particularly lacking in the
developing world. As a solution, an adaptive management approach is recommended as a struc
tured, iterative process of optimal decision-making in the face of uncertainty, with the aim of
reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring (Murray and Marmorek 2003). It
focuses on the development of new institutions and institutional strategies in balance with scien
tific hypothesis and experimental frameworks. By applying an adaptive management approach to
institutional development, a set of measures performs to provide a social context with flexible and
open institutions and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning and increased adap
tive capacity without foreclosing future development options (Williams et al. 2007). Some of
these measures and actions have been addressed in the remaining mechanisms and factors.
The two next mechanisms determined the content of the capacity building for institutional
development. These mechanisms place their stress on education and social capital to provide
individual and social capital in the form of educated and skilled citizens and local groups to
accept and develop economic instruments for encouraging clean production and consumption

396 Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

patterns and, finally, environmental protection. The remaining mechanisms revealed the role
of government in moving towards sustainable development through an adaptive management
approach. They address, first of all, the fact that governmental activities have to be based on
the sustainability principle. Regarding this, the government should: (1) screen the develop
ment process by gathering information of changing trends in natural, financial, and human
resources and inform people about the current situation; (2) develop projects regarding
green industry and sustainable consumption; and (3) set and enforce the policies and pro
cedures of sustainability in governmental organisations. Second, in this regard, establishing
a sustainability impact assessment system (SIAS) is recommended as an instrument that con
tributes to governments: (1) exploring the combined economic, environmental and social
impacts of a range of proposed policies, programmes, strategies and action plans with the
aim of better regulation and fostering sustainable development objectives; (2) involving
different stakeholder groups (Tscherning et al. 2009) for greater transparency in the policy
process and its underlying assumptions and considerations, and to create more sustainable
and consensual policy solutions (projects); and (3) clearing lines of responsibility in order
to clear who is responsible for which steps in the decision-making process, what methods,
tools, and indicators will be used, which stakeholders and experts have to participate and
in what way, and how the results will be shown, and to whom. Third, developing a SIAS
within the policymaking process may call for several adaptations to the institutional
setting; e.g. stakeholder networks, sustainable information systems, and multi-sector advisory
bodies (OECD 2001). Fourth, later mechanisms to some extent are associated with Lawn's
(2006) ecological tax reform that is a policy designed to tax such "bads' as resource depletion
and pollution and to reduce tax impositions on such 'goods' as labour and income.
It should be noted that above-mentioned mechanisms are conceived for sustainable
development in general, and thus their application to each economic section (e.g. agriculture,
industry, service, and so on) calls for the consideration of contexts and also the conduct of
more studies about the nature of issues and challenges faced. For instance, from an economic
aspect on organic agriculture, Jones (2003) classified mechanisms in the following three
categories:

1. Enabling - e.g. providing certification and labelling frameworks, research, and extension services.
2. Enforcing - e.g. establishing regulations and standards.
3. Encouraging - e.g. providing financial incentives, bringing together agents along the
production chain to establish partnerships and procurement policies.

In more detail, Pretty (1995) listed 25 tools with regard to institutional development for
achieving sustainable agriculture in these three categories including: (1) encouraging
resource-conserving technologies and practices; (2) supporting local groups for community
action; and (3) reforming external institutions and professionals.

References

Brodhag, C. and S. Talière (2006) 'Sustainable development strategies: tools for policy coherence',
Natural Resources Forum 30: 136-45.
Brinkerhoff, D. W. and A. A. Goldsmith (1990) Institutional Sustainability in Agriculture and Rural
Development: A Global Perspective, New York: Praeger.
Chambers, R. (2005) 'For our future: responsible well-being: a personal agenda for development', in R.
Chambers (ed.) Ideas for Development, London: Earthscan Publications.
Clayton, B. D. and S. Bass (2002) Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book,
London: Earthscan Publications.

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hadi Veisi, Hurnman Liaghati, Fakhradin Hashmi, and Khalid Edizadehi

Clive, G. and C. Kirkpatrick (2006) 'Assessing national sustainable development strategies: strengthen
ing the links to operational policy', Natural Resources Forum 30: 146-56.
Davidson, J., D. Myers, and M. Chakraborty (1992) No Time to Waste: Poverty and the global environ
ment, Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
Driesen, D. (2006) 'Economic instruments for sustainable development'. In: B.J. Richardson and S.
Wood, eds. Environmental law for sustainability. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 277-308.
Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advance Techniques for the Beginner,
London: Sage Publications.
Geourge, D. and P. Mallery (1999) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gibson, R. B. (2001) 'Specification of Sustainability-Based Environmental Assessment Decision Criteria
and Implications for Determining Significance in Environmental Assessment', Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency Research and Development Program.
Hair, J. E-, R. E. Anderson, D. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings (4th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hrabrin, B. (2009) 'Mechanisms of Governance of Sustainable Development', MPRA Paper No. 14947,
Munich, Germany: Institute of Agricultural Economics, available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/
14947/ (retrieved 28 October 2010).
Jones, D. (ed.) (2003) Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies, Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing.
Kelly, R., L. Sirr, and J. Ratcliffe (2004) 'Futures thinking to achieve sustainable development at local
level in Ireland', Foresight 6 (2): 80-90.
Kemp, R., S. Parto, and R. B. Gibson (2005) 'Governance for sustainable development: moving from
theory to practice', International Journal of Sustainable Development 8 (1-2): 13-30.
Lawn, P. (2006) 'Ecological tax reform and the double dividend of ecological sustainability and low
unemployment: an empirical assessment', International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employ
ment 2 (4): 332-58.
Lorraine, V. L. (2009) 'Analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism as a Vehicle for Achieving Sani
tation Objectives of the UN Millennium Goals', unpublished Masters' dissertation, Duke University,
Durham NC.
Meyer, E. C. (2000) Social Aspects of Sustainability. In: D. Gustav and F. Boguslaw, eds. Aspects of Sus
tainable Economic Development. Berlin, Peter lang: International Academic Publishers.
McKeown, R. (2002) 'Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit', available at www.esdtoolkit.org
(retrieved 10 April 2009).
Murray, C. and D. Marmorek (2003) 'Adaptive management and ecological restoration', in P. Friederici
(ed.) Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests, Washington, DC: Island Press.
OECD (2001 ) 'The DAC Guidelines: Strategies for Sustainable Development: Guidance for Development
Cooperation', Paris: Development Cooperation Committee, OECD, available at http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/34/10/2669958.pdf (retrieved 16 February 2012).
OECD (2008) 'Promoting Sustainable Consumption Good Practices in OECD Countries. The
Secretary-General of the OECD', available at http://www.oecd.Org/dataoecd/l/59/40317373.pdf
(retrieved 16 February 2012).
Panayotou, T. and K. Topfer (1998) Instruments of Change: Motivating and Financing Sustainable
Development, London: Earthscan Publications.
Pretty, J. N. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture, London: Earthscan Publications.
Pretty, J. N. and H. Ward (2001) 'Social capital and the environment', World Development 29 (2):
209-27.
Quaddus, M. A. and M. A. B. Siddique (2002) 'Modelling sustainable development planning: a multi
criteria decision conferencing approach', Environment International 27 (90): 89-95.
Schroeder, M. (2009) 'Utilizing the clean development mechanism for the deployment of renewable ener
gies in China', Applied Energy 86: 237-42.
Silveira, M. P. (2006) 'National sustainable development strategies: moving from theory to practice',
Natural Resources Forum 30: 86-89.

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mechanisms and instruments of sustainable development

Simpson, D. (2002) 'Capacity Building for Sustainable Development: An Overview of UNEP Environ
mental Capacity Development Initiatives', UNEP Division of Communications and Public Information.
UNEP Office, New York, USA.
Swanson, D., L. Pintér, F. Bregha, A. Volkery, and K. Jacob (2004) National Strategies for Sustainable
Development: Challenges, Approaches and Innovations in Strategic and Co-ordinated Action, Winnipeg,
MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development; Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir
Technische Zusammenarbeit.
Tscherning, K., H. Knig, B. Schoer, K. Helming, and S. Sieber (2008) Ex-ante Impact Assessment (IA)
in the European Commission an overviw. In: K. Helming, P. Tabbush, and M. Perez-Soba (eds).
Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 17-33.
UN (2007) 'Expert Panels at Preparatory Meeting for Sustainable Development Commission: Focus
Debate on Air Pollution, Climate Change Policy Option', New York: Economic and Social Council,
Department of Public Information.
UN Environment Programme (2002) 'Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection', Nairobi,
Kenya: UNEP.
Williams, B. K., C. S. Robert, and D. S. Carl (2007) Adaptive Management: The US Department of the
Interior Technical Guide, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) 'Our Common Future'. New York:
Oxford University Press.

The authors
Hadi Veisi (corresponding author) is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid
Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. <hveisi@gmail.com>

Humman Liaghati is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti
University, Tehran, Iran. <h-liaghati@sbu.ac.ir>

Fakhradin Hashmi is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti
University, Tehran, Iran.

Khalid Edizadehi is a member of the Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti
University, Tehran, Iran.

Development in Practice, Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012 399

This content downloaded from 34.218.38.199 on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:56:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms