Download HKU-USC-IPPA Conference on Public Policy Paper Abstract

HKU-USC-IPPA Conference on Public Policy
Paper Abstract
Abstract Number: T01P09-06
Panel
T01P09 - Multi-level Governance of Common Pool Resources
Author
Professor Zhilin Liu, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Management,
Tsinghua University, China
Co-Authors
Professor George Homsy, Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration,
Binghamton University, United States
Professor Mildred Warner, Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning,
Cornell University, United States
Title
Potential and Limits of Multi-Level Governance as a Policy Framework for
Addressing Environmental Challenges: A Comparison of China and the US
Abstract
Environmental sustainability is becoming a priority for local governments around the
world. Yet scholars and policy makers have continuously debated what may be the
appropriate approach to governing the complex sustainability challenges of today.
One approach, known as the polycentrism governance approach, emphasizes on local
voluntary cooperation to experiment and innovate local solutions that not only address
sustainability issues but also match local economic and ecological conditions (Ostrom,
1990; 2010; 2012). Developed initially as a theory of small-scale common-pool
resource management, the polycentric approach was recently expanded to commons
issues of a larger scale, such as watershed management and air quality.
However, critics have been equally strong in pointing out the limitations of the
polycentrism approach. Even when localities take sustainability initiatives, they
possess dramatically different information, administrative, and financial capability in
reaching their policy goals, leading to uneven policy actions and outcomes across
1
jurisdictions. This governance challenge is more complicated in sustainability issues
that involve long-term goals and cross-border spillover effects. In such cases, there is
a strong need for coordination and sanctioning power to protect common pool
resources (Homsy and Warner 2013; 2014). Even when cities may actively initiate
local sustainability plans, they have to coordinate with policy networks of both state
and non state actors at the regional, national and international scales (Bulkeley &
Betsill, 2005).
Nevertheless, though much is said about the need for multi-level governance, it is not
clear how such a multi-level governance structure should be structured (Hooghe &
Marks, 2003). Specifically, to the extent that polycentricism is not sufficient in
bringing about transformative policy changes in dealing with large-scale sustainability
issues with cross-border spillover effects, and thus certain degree of centralized
coordination is necessary, how does the coordination mechanism be structured to still
allow local innovation and flexibility of a polycentric system?
This paper presents a US-China comparative analysis that explores the key elements
of the central coordination mechanism needed in a multi-level governance framework
for addressing sustainability issues. Characterized with radically different political
and institutional contexts, China and the US present typical cases from two extreme
ends of the continuum of multi-level governance. Yet both countries have suffered
from inadequate, unsatisfactory outcomes from their environmental policy approaches.
We also compare two successful examples of sustainability governance in both
countries that have correctly structured the coordination mechanism – one in
watershed management (US) and the other in air quality management (China). We
conclude that the center’s coordination role should respect local diversity and
innovation, facilitate cross-jurisdictional learning and knowledge exchange, and at the
same time preserve the final sanction power if local actors fail to collaborate. Our
empirical analysis from a most-different case comparison approach (Seawright and
Gerring, 2008, p.306) contributes to the scholarly understanding over how multi-level
governance may incentivize better sustainability policy actions by local governments.
Reference
Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel
governance and the'urban'politics of climate change. Environmental politics, 14(1),
42-63.
Homsy, G. C., & Warner, M. E. (2013). Climate Change and the Co‐ Production of
Knowledge and Policy in Rural USA Communities. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(3), 291310.
Homsy, G. C., & Warner, M. E. (2014). Cities and Sustainability Polycentric Action
and Multilevel Governance. Urban Affairs Review, 1078087414530545.
Hooghe, Liesbet, & Marks, Gary. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how?
Types of multi-level governance. American political science review, 97(02), 233-243.
2
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global
environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557.
Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for
global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales?. Economic
Theory, 49(2), 353-369.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study
Research A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research
Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
Keyword
Multi-level governance, Environmental sustainability, China, US
3