Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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