Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nusaibah binti Roslan Click to edit Master subtitle style Siti Aisah binti Muhammad Maryam Jamilah binti Md Yusoff
4/17/12
Topic contents
Core characteristics of the environment as a policy problem The traditional policy paradigm Political obstacles to change Achieving policy change Conclusion
4/17/12
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Public goods
Transboundary problems Complexity and uncertainty Irreversibility Temporal and spatial variability Administrative fragmentation Regulatory intervention
4/17/12
1.Public goods
Environmental resources = public goods. Mean that each individuals consumption leads to no subtraction from any other individuals consumption of that good. Both non-rival and non-excludable.
4/17/12
Efforts to protect the environment may encounter significant collective-action problems. Each has the incentive to free-ride on the Type of Problems Challenge problem. joint efforts of others to solve the for
resources policymakers Common-pool (fauna,forest) People benefit from Ensure the these stocks by maintenance of depleting the the overall common pool. stocks. individuals use this How to control resource to dispose their level of of waste materials. pollution.
2.Transboundary problems
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Marine pollution
4/17/12
interdependent relationships between natural and human made phenomena. Policies that deal with one discrete problem may have unintended and damaging consequences elsewhere. Underline the importance of science, scientists and professional expertise in environmental policymaking. Scientific judgements will always be provisional and open to revision.
Make it difficult for policymakers to make 4/17/12 adequate responses to new problems.
4.Irreversibility
Once the Earths carrying capacity is exceeded, then environmental assets may be damaged beyond repair. Scarce resources may be exhausted and species may become extinct. Technological advances may eventually enable solar energy and wind power completely to replace depleted fossil fuels as generators of 4/17/12 energy, but probably only if there is
Spatial and temporal variability mean that the costs of environmental problems, and their solutions, are unevenly distributed. The challenge for governments is to balance competing interests, but this raises important issues of equity and social justice between current and future generations.
4/17/12
6.Administrative fragmentation
The administrative structure of government is usually divided into distinct policy sectors with specific responsibilities. Often engage in narrow sectoral objectives with little consideration for their environmental impact. Eg: the agriculture ministry might encourage intensive farming 4/17/12 methods, while responsibility for
7.Regulatory intervention
Can involve a mix of policy instruments. Impose some kind of cost on key interests in society and may have significant distributive consequences. Provoke howls of outrage from businesses and trade unions. The effectiveness may be limited by this historical tension between 4/17/12 economic growth and environmental
Emerged during the 1970s treated the environment like any other new policy area. Government policies were reactive, piecemeal and tactical. Environmental policy was treated as a discrete policy area. Agencies had few powers over decisions taken in other policy 4/17/12 sectors and there was little policy co-
-cont.
Many policies were prone to an implementation deficit involving a shortfall between policy intent and outcome. Fundamentally flawed in design and practice. The emergence of the alternative paradigm of sustainable development, the traditional 4/17/12 paradigm has proved very resistant
4/17/12
A primary aim of any government is to manage the economy, hence seeks the co-operation of business groups . As insider groups, businesses will usually remain within the law. More influence compared to environmental groups because they have more resources at their 4/17/12 disposal.
4/17/12
2.Administrative fragmentation
Fragmentation of government into sectoral division Most countries, plurastic patterns of environmental policymaking seem to be the exception rather than rule.
4/17/12
IRON TRIANGLE
Congressional committee
4/17/12
argument that sectoral fragmentation of government further entrenches the structural power of producer over many areas of environmental decisionmaking
Cluster of public and private actors connected to each other by resource dependencies
4/17/12
Policy network
Policy communities
Issue network
4/17/12
Agenda setting The advocacy coalition framework Policy communities and exogenous change The rise and fall of nuclear power
4/17/12
Change affect the levels or setting of basic policy instruments, such as adjustments to an emissions standard or tax rate
Second order
Change also sees no change in the overall policy goals, but involves alteration in the instrument used to achieve them, perhaps the replacement of an emissions standard by an eco-tax
Third order
4/17/12
Change is marked by a radical shift in the overall goals of policy that reflects a fundamental paradigm shift. Such radical changes are rare and usually follow a wide-ranging process of societal debate and reflection on past experience, or social learning.
Stage 1 pre-problem: knowledge exist about a problem, experts and interest groups may be worried, but public interest is negligible.
Stage 2 Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm: a dramatic event or discovery makes the public aware of and alarmed by the problem. People demand action and the government promises solutions. Stage 3 counting the cost of progress: both politicians and the public become aware of what 4/17/12 solving the problem will cost in terms of financial
Stage 4 gradual decline of intense public interest: people have second thoughts. Attention is distracted by new issues. Stage 5 post-problem: public interest wanes but the institutions, policies and programmes set up to solve the problem remain in place. 4/17/12
4/17/12
Sebatier(1998) argues that is unrealistic to distinguish agendasetting so sharply from the wider policy process as a major source of policy change. ACF is a comprehensive model of policy process emphasizing the role of ideas, information and analysis as factors contributing to policy change at all stage of the policy process
i. Deep core beliefs are the broad philosophical values that apply to all policy sub-system ii. Policy core beliefs are the fundamental values and strategies across that specific policy sub-system iii. Secondary aspects are the narrower beliefs about specific aspects of the problem and policy implementation 4/17/12
ACF provides considerable insight into the way policy network focus on interest and power. ACF is particularly relevant to issues where there is some technical complexity and open political conflict Can be useful tool for explaining policy outcomes.
4/17/12
Exogenous Factors can play a catalytic role in changing power relations. qFive External Factors seem particularly significant in shaping environmental policy:
q
1. 2.
3.
4.
Click to edit Master subtitle can Changes in external relationsstyle disrupt the structural conditions underpinning a policy community. The emergence of new social movements and pressure groups has contributed to the growing importance of environmental issues on the political agenda.
Political actors,notably ministers,have the capacity to use their despotic power to break up a policy community and to allow access to new groups. q. Nuclear power provides an interesting example of policy change because a combination of exogenous factors has disrupted 4/17/12 established patterns of policymaking to produce a radical reversal
5.
The Rise and the Fall(and rise again?) of Nuclear Late 1950s-1980s,asPower strong pro-nuclear policy
communities developed,most industrialised nations invested heavily in the expansion of nuclear energy. Since the 1980s,an extraordinary coincidence of exogenous factors has profoundly weakened these entrenched policy communities,resulting in a dramatic reversal of the enthusiastic pro-nuclear consensus amongst policy elites. By the mid-1990s,most North American and Western European nations had abandoned all plans to build new nuclear reactors and the industry appeared to be in terminal crisis. A decade on,there is growing evidence of renewed government interest in nuclear power in an ironic new guise:as a carbon-free energy solution to mitigate 4/17/12 climate change.
a) for nuclear powers such as Britain,France and the USA,the military objective to develop nuclear weapons generated a demand for plutonium,which could only be extracted from reprocessed spent uranium(from nuclear power station). b) the belief that nuclear power offered a modern,technological solution to future energy requirements was widespread.All governments,including many with no pretensions to develop nuclear weapons,were persuaded that nuclear power had the potential to provide an abundant supply of cheap energy to underpin future economic growth.
4/17/12
Since the mid-1990s,the nuclear industry has been in deep crisis. In 2001,there were no reactors under construction anywhere in Western Europe or North America,with a moratorium on the construction of new reactors in five out of eight European nations with nuclear power. All 5 exogenous factors identified in the previous section contributed to the destabilisation of pro-nuclear policy communities. Exogenous factors have disrupted established patterns of policymaking,leading many Western countries to call a halt to their nuclear expansion programmes. Even whilst it was in crisis in North America and Europe,several industrialising nations,notably South Korea,China and India were investing heavily in nuclear power.
The longer the nuclear industry in each country can delay the implementation of a serious closure programme,the more chance it has that new exogenous factors may swing the argument back in its favour. 4/17/12 A growing evidence of renewed support for nuclear power among