Neil has provoked a very interesting discussion. My silence on this was
driven less by disinterest than by the stage of the (North American)
calendar, as we enter that desperate time of the semester....Perhaps
this could be continued in a future panel at the International Studies
Association or some other forum?
I wonder about the quest for a general theory, eco-political or
otherwise. On the one hand, the limitations of mainstream IR theory for
understanding eco-political dynamics have been probed by many scholars.
(For example, my just-published book, Governing Water, begins with a
critique of regime theory, essentially arguing that it holds constant
certain configurations of knowledge, authority, and territoriality that
are better treated as variables when it comes to thinking about the
possible or existing institutional forms of environmental governance.)
That said, there is a great deal of insight in regime theory that I
would not want to simply toss off. The problem is not that it is "wrong"
but that it offers a particularistic explanation-plus-blueprint for
international institutional design. I would argue that neither the
explanation nor the blueprint can be generalized across types of
ecological problems, types of power and authority relations, or for that
matter stages of global capitalist development. For an increasingly wide
swath of socio-ecological controversies, knowledge can't be stabilized
to the necessary degree for regime formation, putatively 'domestic'
territory won't sit still for governance, and state-as-authority is
increasingly problematic as a way to legitimize power. Who knows, there
might have been a brief post-Cold War window when such stabilizations
were possible around certain issues, but not now...And if so, we reach
the limits of regime approach, either as a 'general' theory or as an
effective political strategy. (As an aside, although I don't wish to put
words in their mouths, I don't read the best contributions to regime
theory as having claimed to offer such a general theory).
One could deconstruct other conceptual points of departure (e.g.,
Hardin's tragedy of the commons, global civil society, political economy
approaches) in analogous fashion. Studying environmental politics has
made me sensitive to complexity, uncertainty, contingency, authority
struggles, the importance of soft/socio-cultural as well as
formal/legal-rational institutions, and the importance of contention and
conflict as well as cooperation in generating outcomes. Under those
circumstances, it seems much easier to specify what isn't going to
happen than of what will, of what's not attainable rather than of what
is. In my view there is a great deal of very creative work being done
in/on global environmental politics. But can it be stitched together
into general theory? Toward the end of his life, Kafka was reportedly
asked in an interview why his work seemed to suggest hopelessness.
"Certainly there is hope," he is said to have replied. "But not for
us."
Ken Conca
>>> "Neil E Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/28/2005 10:06:14 AM >>>
Michael:
When I was in your position several years ago, trying to build a
theoretical framework for my doctoral research on international
climate
change policy, I used ideas from several domestic and international
policy theories. In the domestic realm, for example, I used Kingdon (I
liked the sense of serendipity embedded in his windows of opportunity)
and in the international I used aspects of then current theory
including
ideas on regimes. After all, IEP is usually thought of in terms of the
regimes that are created. I no longer think that this approach is
useful. A more general theory (or perhaps paradigm) of global
international politics would better integrate and connect the islands
of
information created through past research and generate more
interesting
research questions for future research.
More recently, I have found a way of thinking about environmental
politics that I believe, when fully developed, will generate a
defendable (and testable) general theory of both domestic and
international politics on environmental matters, which is ultimately
what is needed. Despite the good work of Young especially, I think
that
deficiencies in the fundamental premises of current IR theory make it
an
unlikely source useful ideas about international environmental
politics.
Ecological theory suitably modified, however, is, in my mind, an
essential part of a useful general theory of IEP.
Good luck with the paper and with your studies.
Thank you for your support,
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoon, Michael L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:40 PM
To: Neil E Harrison
Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics
Neil,
My name is Michael Schoon, a soon-to-be doctoral candidate studying
under Elinor Ostrom at Indiana University. I am in a jointly
administered Ph.D. program split between IU's School of Public and
Environmental Affairs and the School of Political Science. My foci in
the programs are environmental policy and IR, respectively.
I have been struggling with the issues that you mention below and
agree
with you that there is currently a disconnect between IR and IEP, but
I'm not sure that the fault lies with IEP. International relations
seems to be excessively focused on conflict, both as a field of study
and a method of discourse between scholars. But I am encouraged by
the
work of people like Oran Young and others who are beginning to bridge
the gap between IR and IEP.
With regards to the dearth of general theories for the IEP field, I
agree and have taken the approach of drawing on either more specific
theories (regime theory as appropriate) or more general political
science theory (Lasswell's policy sciences for instance) or ecological
theory (resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation).
While this might not provide much in the way of suggestions going
forward, I'm sure that it is one of many responses noting that you are
far from alone. I am working with a couple other list members on a
paper regarding the challenges of trying to apply IR theory to
international environmental issues. If you'd like, I'll let you know
how they turn out.
Best regards,
Michael Schoon
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
Indiana University
513 N. Park St.
Bloomington, IN 47405
USA
(812) 855-0441 (w)
(812) 345-6965 (m)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil E
Harrison
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Maria Ivanova
Cc: Geped list (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics
Maria:
The paucity of responses to my request for sources of work on a
general
theory in international environmental politics, to my mind speaks
volumes about the immaturity and incoherence of the (sub-)field. I
received two responses in addition to yours, one from Kate O'Neill and
one from Pan Chasek (Pam did not yet answer the question in my
response
to her), both of which I think went to the whole list. For those who
may
have missed them, I summarize their suggestions here.
Kate O'Neill is working on a manuscript on this topic and suggested
three principal sources of discussion on this theory in IEP:
Vogler, J. and M. F. Imber, Eds. (1996). The Environment and
International Relations. London, Routledge.
Redclift, M. and T. Benton, Eds. (1994). Social Theory and the Global
Environment. London, Routledge.
Paterson, M. (2001). Understanding Global Environmental Politics:
Domination, Accumulation, Resistance. Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Pam suggested the 4th edition of "Global Environmental Politics" and
Regina S. Axelrod, David L. Downie and Norman J. Vig, "The Global
Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy," 2nd Ed.
You have suggested "Paths to a Green World" by Dauvergne and Clapp.
Many other texts may have something to contribute like Eric Laferriere
and Peter Stoett, "International Relations Theory and Ecological
Thought: Towards a Synthesis" and even Ronnie Lipschutz "Global
Environmental Politics: Power, Perspectives, and Practice" but I see a
huge need for some theory building to guide the where and how we dig
for
knowledge on international environmental politics. I have a chapter in
Eric Laferriere and Peter Stoett (eds), "Nature and International
Relations: Theory and Applications" (forthcoming from UBC Press) that
sketches one way to approach a general theory of IEP and other
chapters
talk to the matter.
With respect to your comment that you have to go to the IR literature
to
deduce theories of success or failure in international environmental
politics, I think that you cannot get there from here. In my view,
orthodox IR theories are generally inapplicable to the subject matter
of
IEP. I and several colleagues argue in "Complexity in World Politics"
(in press at SUNY) that common IR theories are inappropriate to the
study of world politics.
Thanks for your interest. It seems to me that there is a need for a
collective effort among the small number of us who may be interested
in
developing a general theory (from ontology to method) of IEP,
Cheers,
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Maria Ivanova [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Neil E Harrison
Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics
Dear Neil,
I wanted to follow up on your earlier email and suggest Paths to a
Green
World by Dauvergne and Clapp. It concentrates more on the political
economic
aspect - trade and environment, investment and environment, etc - but
could
be a good tool. Pam Chasek's book also covers some theoretical ground
and I
would be intersted in knowing how she replied to your question
regarding
the
existence of a coherent theory statement.
I am myself working on identifying the key theories explaining success
and
failure in global environmental governance but with little success.
Mostly,
I have to deduce from the IR literature. If you have any suggestions,
I
would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you very much,
maria
Maria Ivanova
Department of Government
The College of William & Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23187
Phone: +1-757-221-2039
Mobile: +1-203-606-4640
Fax: +1-775-908-9340
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wm.edu/government
Director, Global Environmental Governance Project
Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy
New Haven, CT 06511
http://www.yale.edu/gegproject
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil E
Harrison
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Pam Chasek
Cc: Geped list (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics
Pam:
Thanks for your input; you are the first.
When you say that the 4th edition "tries to cover this more than the
earlier
editions" are you suggesting that there are no explicit coherent
statements
of theory to report or synthesize or that you and your colleagues did
not
have the space to do this (I have not yet seen this forthcoming book)?
Cheers,
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Pam Chasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AM
To: Neil E Harrison
Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics
Dear Neil:
Did anyone ever respond to your e-mail? The 4th edition of
Global
Environmental Politics (forthcoming from Westview Press in December)
tries
to cover this more than the earlier editions did. I also think that
David
Downie has covered some of this in Regina S. Axelrod, David L. Downie
and
Norman J. Vig, The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy,
2nd
Ed.
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2004)
Pam
******************************
Pamela Chasek, Ph.D.
Director, International Studies
Assistant Professor, Government
Manhattan College
Riverdale, NY 10471 USA
tel: +1-718-862-7248
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************************
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil E
Harrison
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:50 PM
To: Geped list (E-mail)
Subject: Theory in International Environmental Politics
Gepeders:
The recent discussion of bibliographic entries for an
Encyclopedia
of Green Movements made me think about the ideas that drive gathering
of
empirical data. I usually have taught the International Environmental
Politics class inductively, from case studies with encouragement to
the
students to think theoretically in drawing generalized conclusions
from
multiple cases. This latter part of the process is entertaining but
not
always very fruitful even with my prompting. Perhaps they need some
examples
of 'meta-theory' in the issue area to chew on much as students in a
security
course would be fed realism. Do you have any suggestions for a good
statement or survey of directly relevant meta-theory for students of
international environmental politics to digest?
Cheers,
Neil Harrison
