Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
- 3 Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
- 4 Smart (and Not-So-Smart) Mixes of New Environmental Policy Instruments
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
2 - ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
from Part I - Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
By
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
- 3 Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
- 4 Smart (and Not-So-Smart) Mixes of New Environmental Policy Instruments
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
The idea of improving the performance of environmental policies by combining various instruments and approaches in a smart way is attractive. However, from a theoretical perspective, the idea of optimal mixes seems problematic. This chapter starts from the assumption that governance fields (i.e. the multiple institutions, both public and private, that are operating within a given policy arena across multiple levels) can be best described as complex systems, and consequently develops an argument about the usefulness of complexity sciences in studying smart policy mixes. The area of climate change governance after the Paris Agreement serves as our empirical illustration.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 25 - 48Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ayres, I. & Braithwaite, J. 1992. Responsive Regulation. Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, I. & Braithwaite, J. 1994. Responsive Regulation. Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. & Black, J. 2008. ‘Really Responsive Regulation’. Modern Law Review 71(1), 59–94.Google Scholar
Bressers, H. Th. A. & O’Toole, L. J. Jr. 1998. ‘The Selection of Policy Instruments: A Network-Based Perspective’. Journal of Public Policy 18(3), 213–239.Google Scholar
Cafaggi, F. 2014. ‘A Comparative Study Analysis of Transnational Private Regulation: Legitimacy, Quality, Effectiveness and Enforcement’, EUI Working Papers, 2014/12015 http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33591/LAW_2014_15.pdf?sequence=1/handle/1814/16526, www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/a-comparative-analysis-of-transnational-private-regulation-fcafaggi_12062014.pdf.Google Scholar
Curtin, D. & Senden, L. A. J. 2011. ‘Public Accountability of Transnational Private Regulation; Chimera or Reality?’. Journal of Law and Society 38(1), 163–188.Google Scholar
Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J. & Meidinger, E. 2012. ‘Transnational Business Governance Interactions: Conceptualization and Framework for Analysis’, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy, Research Paper No. 29, 2012, available at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/clpe/33.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. 2014. ‘Dynamic Governance Interactions: Evolutionary Effects of State Responses to Non-State Certification Programs’. Regulation & Governance 8(1), 74–92.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. 1999. ‘Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection’. Law & Policy 21(1), 49–76.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. ‘Smart Regulation’. 2017. In Drahos, P. (ed.), Regulatory Theory, Foundations and Applications, Canberra, Australian National University Press, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. 1998. Smart Regulation, Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford socio-legal studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heremans, T. 2012. Professional Services in the EU Internal Market – Quality Regulation and Self-Regulation. Oxford, Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. 1991. ‘Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice’. Policy Studies Journal 19(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M. 2004. ‘Beyond Good and Evil in Policy Implementation: Instrument Mixes, Implementation Styles, and Second Generation Theories of Policy Instrument Choice’. Policy & Society: Journal of public, foreign and global policy 23(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. 2004. ‘(Not so) “Smart Regulation”? Canadian Shellfish Aquaculture Policy and the Evolution of Instrument Choice for Industrial Development’. Marine Policy 28, 171–184.Google Scholar
Joerges, Ch., Schepel, H. & Vos, E. 1999. ‘The Law’s Problems with the Involvement of Non-Governmental Actors in Europe’s Legislative Processes: The Case of Standardization under the “New Approach”’, EU Working Paper LAW, No. 99/9.Google Scholar
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. 1989. ‘Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts’. Journal of Public Policy 9(1), 35–58.Google Scholar
Majone, G. 1976. ‘Choice among Policy Instruments for Pollution Control’. Policy Analysis 2, 589–613Google Scholar
Maxwell, W. J. 2014. ‘Global Privacy Governance: A Comparison of Regulatory Models in the US and Europe, and the Emergence of Accountability as a Global Norm’. In Dartiguepeyrou, C. (ed.), Cahier de Prospective. The Future of Privacy. Paris, Foundation Telecom, 63–70.Google Scholar
Moerel, L. 2012. Binding Corporate Rules, Corporate Self-Regulation of Global Data Transfers. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
NWO. 2013. Smart Governance. Part of the Social Infrastructure Agenda, The Hague, NWO.Google Scholar
Pelkmans, J. 1987. ‘The New Approach to Technical Harmonization and Standardization’. Journal of Common Market Studies 25(3), 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. & Lund, M. S. 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, D.C., Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Scott, C., Cafaggi, F. & Senden, L. 2011. ‘Conceptual and Constitutional Challenges of Transnational Private Regulation’. Journal of Law and Society 38(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Senden, L. A. J. 2013. Transnational private regulation in the area of human rights, Unitreport, available at: http://renforce.rebo.uu.nl/bouwsteenprojecten/private-actoren/.Google Scholar
Senden, L. A. J. 2017. ‘The Constitutional Fit of European Standardisation Put to the Test’. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 44(4), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senden, L. A. J., Kica, E., Hiemstra, M. & Klinger, K. 2015. Mapping Self- and Co-regulation Approaches in the EU-context, explorative study for the European Commission, DG Connect, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/sites/digital-agenda/files/dae-library/mapping_self-and_co-regulation_in_the_eu_context_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Six, F. & Verhoest, K. 2017. ‘Trust in Regulatory Regimes: Scoping the Field’. In Six, F. & Verhoest, K. (eds.), Trust in Regulatory Regimes. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1–36.Google Scholar
Van der Voort, H. 2017. ‘Trust and Cooperation over the Public-Private Divide: An Empirical Study on Trust Evolving in Co-regulation’. In Six, F. & Verhoest, K. (eds.), Trust in Regulatory Regimes. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 181–204.Google Scholar
Van Gossum, P., Arts, B. & Verheyen, K. 2012. ‘“Smart regulation”: Can policy instrument design solve forest policy aims of forest expansion and sustainability in Flanders and the Netherlands’. Forest Policy and Economics 16, 23–34, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.010.Google Scholar
Voermans, W. ‘Legislation and Regulation’. 2017. In Karpen, U. & Xanthaki, H. (eds.), Legislation in Europe. A Comprehensive Guide to Scholars and Practitioners. Portland, Hart Publishing, 17–32.Google Scholar
Walker, W. E., Rahman, S. A. & Cave, J. 2001. ‘Adaptive Policies, Policy Analysis, and Policy-Making’. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 282–289.Google Scholar
Wiener, J. B. & Richman, B. D. 2010. ‘Mechanism Choice’. In Farber, D. A & O’Connell, A. J. (eds.), Research Handbook on Public Choice and Public Law. Northampton, Edward Elgar, 363–396.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by