Abstract
The broad topic in this part of the analysis concerns the second part of the question to be dealt with in this thesis:
How have international institutional factors had an impact on domestic biodiversity policies in a developing country? Are the biodiversity policies of Ethiopia consistent with the CBD objectives, and is this consistency a result of deliberate efforts to implement the CBD?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
It should be noted that implementation here is more generally defined, compared to my specific use of the concept when comparing national policy to international commitments. See section 1.2.2 and 1.2.3.
For a discussion of this, see Joel Migdal (1988: 31).
See Arild Underdal (1984).
Again, I must stress that this is obviously not to say that I deem either of the development theories as inherently fruitless or inapplicable for the research focus in this study. Rather I am arguing that as long as I can draw relevant implications from more universal theories, which are not refuted or greatly added to by development theory, I shall refrain from confusing the larger model by a multitude of partly overlapping hypothesis. Parsimonity advises us to choose the more general approach.
See for instance Pressman & Wildaysky (1973).
For an overview; see Najam (1995).
In his article, “Explaining Compliance and Defection: Three models”, Underdal’s Domestic Model B is mainly concerned with ability to implement, while his URA Model A is more concerned with willingness: cost/benefit calculations (Underdal, 1998a).
Jänicke also mentions external shocks and the character of the problem as important factors of environmental change. As these factors are treated elsewhere I shall not repeat them here.
This view seems to be supported by Putnam and Henning (1989:104–14) who argue that dispersed national decision-making is important in enhancing international co-operation, as it allows for transgovernmental coalitions.
When we define human resources as part of state capacity, this indicates that capacity concerns both ability and will. This definition may be ambiguous in light of the misgivings from the South about complying to “the Northern environmental agenda”, which touches on the problematic relationship between power and knowledge.
See Andresen et al. (1995).
The Health of the Planet Survey. A Preliminary Report on Attitudes on the Environment and Economic Growth Measured by Surveys of Citizens in 22 Nations to Date “, the George H. Gallup International Institute, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 1992.
This may lead to what Arild Underdal terms “vertical disintegration”: a state of affairs where the aggregate thrust of micro-decisions deviate more or less substantially from what higher-order policy goals and “doctrines” would seem to require. See Arild Underdal & Kenneth Hanf, (1998).
See also Robert W. Cox (1983).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rosendal, G.K. (2000). A Domestic Implementation Model. In: The Convention on Biological Diversity and Developing Countries. Environment & Policy, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9421-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9421-9_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5488-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9421-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive