Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Neocorporatism? Transdisciplinary Case Studies as a Means for Collaborative Learning in Sustainable Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Environmental Sociology

Abstract

Stakeholder involvement in political decision processes is sometimes claimed being a corporatist arrangement – generally with a pejorative connotation. Answering this claim, I first review the discussion of neocorporatism. Secondly, I present our own work, the Transdisciplinary Case Study (TdCS). Through this design, we initiate and foster collaborative learning processes in sustainable development. I discuss if the TdCS design can be understood as neocorporatist arrangement. In a literal classical understanding this is not the case. In a broader process understanding, our design resembles a neocorporatist like interest mediation. Yet, it goes well beyond: a larger number of stakeholder groups is involved; the role played by science is emphasized; and it is conceptualized more as learning process than as interest negotiation. I conclude by showing some implications from this macrosociological perspective for our work. I will pay special emphasis to the crucial role(s) science plays.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We follow Chilvers (2007) in distinguishing between stakeholders, who represent interests of groups and publics, who represent primarily themselves but are potentially representative of different societal groups.

  2. 2.

    For a more detailed discussion, please refer to Scholz et al. 2006; Scholz and Tietje 2002.

References

  • Anheier H, Kendall J (2002) Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: examining three approaches. Br J Sociol 53(3):343–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramaniam A, Voulvoulis N (2005) The appropriateness of multicriteria analysis in environmental decision-making problems. Environ Technol 26(9):951–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Pictet J (1997) A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information. Revue des systèmes de décisions 6(3):283–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornschier V (1988) Westliche Gesellschaften im Wandel. Campus, Frankfurt/M

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornschier V (2000) Befähigung zu Sozialkapitalbildung und wirtschaftlichem Erfolg im entwickelten Kapitalismus – neue Evidenzen aus Ländervergleichen 1980–1997. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 26(2):373–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornschier V (2005a) Institutionelle Ordnungen – Markt, Staat, Unternehmung, Schule – und soziale Ungleichheit. Loreto Verlag, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornschier V (2005b) Varianten des Kapitalismus in reichen Demokratien beim Übergang in das neue Gesellschaftsmodell. [Varieties of capitalism in rich democracies in transition. Toward the new societal model.] Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 45: 331–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornschier V (2005c) Culture and politics in economic development. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown K, Adger WN, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K (2001) Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol Econ 37(3):417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers J (2007) Towards analytic-deliberative forms of risk governance in the UK? Reflecting on learning in radioactive waste. J Risk Res 10(2):197–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemens ES, Cook JM (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Ann Rev Sociol 25:441–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crepaz MML (1995) Explaining national variations of air pollution levels: political institutions and their impact on environmental policy-making. Environ Polit 4(3):391–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delhey J, Newton K (2003) Who trusts? The origins of social trust in seven societies. Eur Soc 5(2):93–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes D (1996) Neo-corporatism and environmental policy. Aus J Polit Sci 31(2):175–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood S (2007) Making space for integrative research and teaching. Environ Plann A 39(10):2291–2296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JT (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, Newbury Park, CA/London/New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels TL (2005) Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decis Anal 2(1):4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey P (1998) Building institutional capacity trough collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environ Plann A 30(9):1531–1546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks C (2002) Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: roles, tensions and incentives. Aus J Public Adm 61(1):64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks A, Kenworthy L (1998) Cooperation and political economic performance in affluent democratic capitalism. Am J Sociol 103(6):1631–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks AM, Swank DH (1992) Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, 1960–1982. Am Polit Sci Rev 86(3):658–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes JE (1998) Information in communicative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 64(1):52–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn D (1998) Environmental performance and policy regimes: explaining variations in 18 OECD-countries. Policy Sci 31(2):107–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joubert AR, Leiman A, de Klerk HM, Katua S, Aggenbach JC (1997) Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Ecol Econ 22(2):123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King RF, Borchardt A (1994) Red and green: air pollution levels and left party power in OECD countries. Environ Plann C 12(2):225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R, Salminen R, Hokkanen J (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 26(6):595–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahusen C (2000) The good government: cooperative environmental regulation in a comparative perspective. Eur Environ 10(6):253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws D, Scholz RW, Shiroyama H, Susskind L, Suzuki T, Weber O (2004) Expert views on sustainability and technology implementation. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol 11(3):247–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmbruch G (1979) Liberal corporatism and party government. In: Schmitter PC, Lehmbruch G (eds) Trends towards corporatist intermediation. Sage, London, pp 147–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart A, Crepaz MML (1991) Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen countries: conceptual and empirical linkages. Br J Polit Sci 21(2):235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes V, Sullivan H (2004) Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: how well do local partnerships and public participation go together? Local Govern Stud 30(1):51–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews MM (2001) Cleaning up their acts: shifts of environment and energy policies in pluralist and corporatist states. Policy Stud J 29(3):478–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL, Gregory R (2004) Learning as an objective within a structured risk management decision process. Environ Sci Technol 38(7):1921–1926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL, Trousdale W (2005) Resource compensation and negotiation support in an aboriginal context: using community-based multi-attribute analysis to evaluate non-market losses. Ecol Econ 55(2):173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Théoret A (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Adm Sci Q 21(2):246–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina O, Rhodes M (2002) Corporatism: the past, present, and future of a concept. Ann Rev Polit Sci 5:305–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer E (2003) Are left-wing party strength and corporatism good for the environment? Evidence from panel analysis of air pollution in OECD countries. Ecol Econ 45(2):203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuissl H (2005) Trust in a ‘post-socialist region’. A study of East German ICT entrepeneurs’ willingness to trust each other. Eur Urban Reg Stud 12(1):65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez C (1983) Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems. Futures 15(5):357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts J (2004) Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management. J Risk Res 7(2):115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploger J (2001) Public participation and the art of governance. Environ Plann B 28(2):219–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1999) A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management. Environ Sci Technol 33(18):3049–3055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HW, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sager T (1994) Communicative planning theory. Avebury, Aldershot, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter PC (1974) Still the century of corporatism? Rev Polit 36(1):85–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter PC (1979) Still the century of corporatism? In: Schmitter PC, Lehmbruch G (eds) Trends towards corporatist intermediation. Sage, London, pp 7–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter PC, Lehmbruch G (eds) (1979) Trends towards corporatist intermediation. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW (2000) Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In: Scholz RW, Häberli R, Bill A, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: mutual learning sessions (Vol. 2). Haffmans Sachbuch Verlag AG, Zürich, pp 13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Marks D (2001) Learning about transdisciplinarity. Where are we? Where have we been? Where should we go? In: Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser, Basel/Boston/Berlin, pp 236–252

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Stauffacher M (2007) Managing transition in clusters: Area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss prealpine region. Environ Plann A 39(10):2518–2539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Mieg HA, Oswald JE (2000) Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management: towards mutual learning of science and society. Water Air Soil Pollut 123(1–4):477–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Wiek A (eds) (2002) Landschaftsnutzung für die Zukunft: der Fall Appenzell Ausserrhoden. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2001. Rüegger und Pabst, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Krütli P (eds) (2004) Mobilität und zukunftsfähige Stadtentwicklung: Freizeit in der Stadt Basel. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2003. Rüegger und Pabst, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Lang D, Wiek A, Walter A, Stauffacher M (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustainability High Educ 7(3):226–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Stauffacher M, Bösch S, Krütli P, Wiek A (2007) Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg – Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2006. Rüegger, Zürich, Chur

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs L (1999) Institutions and environmental performance in seventeen western democracies. Br J Polit Sci 29(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs L (2001) Is there really a link between neo-corporatism and environmental performance? Updated evidence and new data for the 1980s and 1990s. Br J Polit Sci 31(4):686–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecol Manage 207(1–2):171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn T (2002) The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Soc Stud Sci 32(4):599–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn T (2005) New sources of radical innovation: research-technologies, transversality and distributed learning in a post-industrial order. Soc Sci Inf 44(4):731–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shonfield A (1965) Modern capitalism: the changing balance of public and private power. University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Siaroff A (1999) Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: meaning and measurement. Eur J Polit Res 36(2):175–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M (2006) Beyond neocorporatism: new practices of collective decision making. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means for societal learning in sustainable development. Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M, Scholz RW (2008) Erfahrungen in Grenzgebieten: transdisziplinäre Fallstudien als Lehrforschungsprojekte an der ETH Zürich. In: Darbellay F, Paulsen T (eds) Herausforderung Inter- und Transdisziplinarität. Konzepte, Methoden und innovative Umsetzung in Lehre und Forschung. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes (PPUR), Lausanne, pp 135–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M, Walter A, Lang D, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006) Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary case study approach. Int J Sustainability High Educ 7(3):252–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008a) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaborative planning: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss pre-alpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008b) Gesellschaft und radioaktive Abfälle: Ergebnisse einer schweizweiten Befragung. Rüegger, Zürich, Chur

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck W, Kenworthy L (2005) Theories and practices of neocorporatism. In: Janoski T, Alford RR, Hicks AM, Schwartz MA (eds) A handbook of political sociology: states, civil societies and globalization. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 441–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Streit ME (1988) The mirage of neo-corporatism. Kyklos 41(4):603–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek AH, Binder CR, Scholz RW (2006) Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 38(7):740–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Volker Bornschier for his challenging but extremely fruitful ideas how to link my work at ETH Zürich with sociological thinking. Further, I would like to thank all those who contributed to the still ongoing developmental process of the TdCS design: Pius Krütli, Roland W. Scholz, Daniel Lang, Thomas Flüeler and Arnim Wiek.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI), Universitätsstr. 22, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

    Michael Stauffacher

Authors
  1. Michael Stauffacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Stauffacher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Umweltforschung GmbH (UFZ), Dept. Stadt- und Umweltsoziologie, Helmholtz-Zentrum für, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany

    Matthias Gross

  2. Inst. Umweltkommunikation, Universität Lüneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, Lüneburg, 21335, Germany

    Harald Heinrichs

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stauffacher, M. (2010). Beyond Neocorporatism? Transdisciplinary Case Studies as a Means for Collaborative Learning in Sustainable Development. In: Gross, M., Heinrichs, H. (eds) Environmental Sociology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8730-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation