Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:03:09.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

For critical social-ecological system studies: integrating power and discourses to move beyond the right institutional fit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2012

FLORIANE CLEMENT
FLORIANE CLEMENT*
Affiliation:
International Water Management Institute (IWMI)c/o ICRISAT, 502324 PatancheruAndhra Pradesh, India
*
*Correspondence: Dr Floriane Clement Tel: +91 4030 713730 Fax: +91 4030 713074 e-mail: f.clement@cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Overcoming the ‘panacea problem’ has been a major challenge for scholars devoted to the study of social-ecological systems (SESs). Panaceas are overly simplified institutional prescriptions, which have recurrently misguided natural resource policies across the world. To address this challenge, SES-scholars have focused their efforts on identifying the right institutional fit for a particular system, and a major initiative to refine the analysis of human-environment interaction has been the development of a multi-tiered interdisciplinary framework, called the SES framework. SES studies and analytical frameworks need to go beyond their current focus on finding the right institutional fit by positing power and discourses as key components of the analysis of SESs.

Type
Comment
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. (2003) ‘Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods, and politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, D.R. (2003) Traditional agroecological knowledge, adaptive management and the socio-politics of conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 30: 79–90.Google Scholar
Armitage, D.R. (2008) Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons 2: 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F. (1999) Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bryant, R.L. (1998) Power, knowledge and political ecology in the Third World: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 22: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, F. (2010) Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a ‘politicised’ IAD framework. Policy Sciences 43: 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwall, A. & Eade, D., eds (2010) Deconstructing Development Discourse. Buzzwords and Fuzzwords. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, T. (2003) Critical Political Ecology. The Politics of Environmental Science. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1975) Surveiller et Punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris, France: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1976) Histoire de la Sexualité, vol. 1: La volonté de savoir. Paris, France: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Franks, T. & Cleaver, F. (2007) Water governance and poverty: a framework for analysis. Progress in Development Studies 7: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, M.J., Nadasdy, P. & Turner, M.D., eds (2011) Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M.J. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M.J. & Versteeg, W. (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7: 175–184.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Li, T.M. (2007) The Will to Improve. Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC, USA and London, UK: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (2005) Power: A Radical View, Second edition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosse, D. (2005) Cultivating Development. An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. New Delhi, India: Vistaar Publications.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1999) Institutional Rational Choice. An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In: Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, P.A., pp. 35–71. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 104: 15181–15187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostrom, E. (2009) A general framework for analysing the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419–422.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. & Cox, M. (2010) Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37: 451–463.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. (1994) Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerer, K.S. & Bassett, T.J. (2003) Political Ecology. An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-development Studies. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

CLEMENT supplementary material

Summary

Download CLEMENT supplementary material(File)
File 11 KB