Paul Burger

Governing Towards Sustainability—Conceptualizing Modes of Governance

There is a growing scientific debate regarding the suitability of certain modes of governance for promoting sustainable development (SD). However, thus far there is neither agreement on ways to meaningfully distinguish and understand governance modes nor a foundation of the aspects to be chosen for this endeavour. In order to overcome this conceptual vagueness, this paper presents a meta-framework for a sound conceptualization of governance modes. Founded on a reinterpretation of the discourse ‘from government to governance’, we argue that only a multi-dimensional approach giving consideration to political processes (politics), institutional structures (polity) and policy content (policy) adequately captures the complexity of governance phenomena. We furthermore highlight possible key features for exploring these dimensions and compare three recently published frameworks for modes of governance. By offering a sound conceptual clarification of governance modes, we facilitate both their meaningful differentiation and a more systematic understanding of their inherent complexity. In so doing, we inform both theoretical and empirical research on governance for SD. We pave the way not only for making more differentiated theoretical statements on the relationship between governance modes and SD but also for empirically exploring this relationship on a profound basis.

A Sustainability-Fitting Interpretation of the Capability Approach: Integrating the Natural Dimension by Employing Feedback Loops

Combining the Capability Approach (CA) with Sustainable Development (SD) is a promising project that has gained much attention. Recently, scholars from both perspectives have worked on narrowing gaps between these development approaches, with a focus on the connection between the CA as a partial justice theory and SD as a concept embracing justice and ecological fragility and relative scarcity. We argue that to base an SD conception on the CA, the CA must be further developed. To provide the rationale for this claim, we begin by clarifying how we look upon the relation between SD and the CA and how we understand SD (1). We then argue for an integration of the natural dimension in the CA (2). By analyzing similarities of recent contributions integrating the natural dimension, we identify how the CA structure may be developed to include the recursive relation between the human and natural dimensions and especially to include the circumstances of justice relevant to SD (3). Finally, we argue that a new recursive and dynamic CA structure is related to the debate on criteria for ‘valuable’ in the term ‘valuable functionings’ and that this points to an expansion of the CAs evaluative space (4).

Advances in understanding energy consumption behavior and the governance of its change : outline of an integrated framework

Transforming today’s energy systems in industrialized countries requires a substantial reduction of the total energy consumption at the individual level. Selected instruments have been found to be effective in changing people’s behavior in single domains. However, the so far weak success story on reducing overall energy consumption indicates that our understanding of the determining factors of individual energy consumption as well as of its change is far from being conclusive. Among others, the scientific state of the art is dominated by analyzing single domains of consumption and by neglecting embodied energy. It also displays strong disciplinary splits and the literature often fails to distinguish between explaining behavior and explaining change of behavior. Moreover, there are knowledge gaps regarding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the governance of individual consumption behavior and its change. Against this backdrop, the aim of this paper is to establish an integrated interdisciplinary framework that offers a systematic basis for linking the different aspects in research on energy related consumption behavior, thus paving the way for establishing a better evidence base to inform societal actions. The framework connects the three relevant analytical aspects of the topic in question: (1) It systematically and conceptually frames the objects, i.e. the energy consumption behavior and its change (explananda); (2) it structures the factors that potentially explain the energy consumption behavior and its change (explanantia); (3) it provides a differentiated understanding of change inducing interventions in terms of governance. Based on the existing states of the art approaches from different disciplines within the social sciences the proposed framework is supposed to guide interdisciplinary empirical research.

Creating values for sustainable development

Over 20 years ago the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) brought together two hitherto separate global discourses, the discourse on global justice and the discourse on the growing long-term risks stemming from the scarcity of natural resources. The basic idea behind the suggested new role model, ‘sustainable development’, was quite unambiguous: societal development should allow for substantial improvements in global justice without compromising the opportunity for future generations to achieve a good life. The correlative major risks were identified from overexploitation of natural resources. Neither addressing poverty alleviation (i.e. justice) nor addressing global ecological problems was innovative in itself in the 1980s. However, merging these two global issues and bringing long-term perspectives in terms of intergenerational justice into the global mind-set was innovative and has led to a huge variety of global processes under the new umbrella term ‘sustainable development’. If we, however, examine mainstream sustainability research, we might gain a picture of sustainable development issues that seems to contradict the above statements. For a long time, research on sustainable development has been strongly focused on environmental topics. We have a huge amount of literature on water, soil, climate, biodiversity, ecotoxicology, landscapes, etc. from an environmental science perspective as well as from a technological perspective (cleaner production, more eco-efficient technologies, etc.). Moreover, we also have a huge amount of economic literature on costs and benefits, risks, how to monetarize ecological values, discounting, etc. More recently, debates on corporate sustainability or on corporate responsibility have drawn attention to both the possible and the expected contribution of business to sustainable development and to corporate responsibility to achieve a just society. Astonishing, however, social issues, particularly issues concerning justice, are not seen as major topics within sustainability research. The best evidence to support this claim stems from the fact that there is almost no mutual relation between what is known as a capability approach (Sen 1990; Nussbaum 2000) in development policy and the sustainability discourse. In particular, there are two problems that greatly indicate the need for more adequate representation of social topics within sustainability research. First, it has become generally accepted that progress in dealing with long-term environmental risks will not be exclusively achieved by technological innovations or cleaner production approaches alone. Accordingly, research has more recently started to pay attention to agents, structures, action spaces, cultural frames, and especially values, both in the sense of actionguiding settings and advantages gained from sustainable development innovations. In addition to, and in accordance with, research on governance, sustainability policy is increasingly analysed in terms of top-down and bottom-up policies (networks, grassroots, public–private initiatives, etc.), hence addressing societal agents. Moreover, concerns on justice become increasingly relevant in different fields. We not only have a worldwide discussion on fair distribution of emission rights, but justice also draws substantially on questions regarding sustainability strategies, e.g. for high wage countries in contrast to low wage countries. Second, challenges in sustainability assessment are increasingly attracting scientists for at least two reasons. On the one hand, it has become evident that even assessment of the ecological domain does not rely on a single generally accepted base. Although the four basic environmental management rules might function as a common foundation, we have different types of systems for assessing them on an empirical basis. By striving not only for environmental, but also for societal sustainability assessment, we additionally face a number of difficulties concerning social, political and other important aspects. Accordingly, there exist numerous proposals for sustainability assessment methodologies and systems.Moreover, sustainability assessment is not primarily conducted for scientific reasons, but also for practical reasons. Sustainability assessments are thought to provide information for societal agents. They should function as steering instruments for decision-making. However, they will only be able to fulfil this task if they are adjusted to the action spaces of relevant stakeholders. In other words, sustainability assessments not only face difficulties concerning assessment criteria – what type of values should be considered – but also need to be adjusted to what stakeholders are actually able to decide upon. Hence, agents, structures, action spaces, cultural frames, and especially values enter the field not only in analysis of means to achieve more sustainable societies but also within the domain of establishing tools and methods for sustainability assessments. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Vol. 17, No. 1, February 2010, 1–3

Ecological regimes : towards a conceptual integration of biophysical environment into social theory

Due to their view of the constitution of the ‘social’, social sciences tend to exclude the biophysical environment from their subject matter. In order to prevent naturalistic explanations, only social explanantia have been taken up in explanatory approaches to social facts. However, increasing environmental problems and the discourse on sustainable development cast severe doubts regarding the exclusion of the biophysical environment. Accordingly, several approaches strive to integrate biophysical aspects into existing social theory. Most of these theoretical approaches are, however, limited to either focusing upon the level of individual action or on the macro level. The institutional level largely remains underexposed. In respect of this research desideratum the paper presents the concept of “ecological regimes”, which provides an innovative contribution to integrate the biophysical environment into existing social theory on level of aggregated action.

Sustainability, Sustainability Assessment, and the Place of Fiscal Sustainability

Although the societal discourse on sustainable development has become more and more prominent and agenda setting, the scholarly work on it is still highly diverse. This is why the chapter steps back first to position the topic within the broader scientific discourse on sustainable development. An outline of the most influential sustainability conceptions is given to get options for discussing fiscal sustainability. As “sustainable” is understood as an evaluative term for development, the chapter takes account of methodological foundations for sustainability assessment as a second step. The chapter finally argues that fiscal sustainability should be treated as a part of the broader sustainability discourse as it is about “ensuring the state’s action and reaction potential”. However, it deals with an instrumental, not an intrinsic, good.