Abstract
Based on the findings and analyses in the previous chapters, this chapter suggests some key areas around which the Integrative SDG Governance (ISG) framework could be developed. This is in line with the question ‘Which theoretical pillars (cross-cutting themes) and competences can be drawn from existing literature and the case studies together on the areas in which Integrative SDG Governance should be more encompassing than extant sustainability governance?’ The indicator areas or ‘frames’ are grouped around the three pillars of power, knowledge and norms because the literature review, interviews and case studies together show the importance of (the interplay between) these themes as ultimate drivers for sustainability governance (Conventional strategies for sustainable development operate on the ‘proximate drivers’ of governance, namely technology, demographics and institutions. These proximate drivers are mainly responsive to short-term intervention. The ultimate drivers for sustainable development are power, knowledge, norms and culture (Raskin et al. 2002). These drivers are subject to long-term systemic processes.). However, there is not much research available on sustainability governance that looks into the role of all three of these theoretical pillars. Still, much of the existing literature on power, knowledge and norms is problematic in the context of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research fields (such as sustainability science) and tends to reach high levels of abstraction and terminological subtleties.
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 subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The draft negotiating text for the Paris Climate Agreement which came out of UNFCCC COP 20 in Lima (available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a01.pdf), in Paragraph 29, Option 1 states: ‘Monitoring and evaluation of, reporting on, and learning from plans, policies and programmes shall (…) consider indicators for governance and planning’.
- 2.
Following Termeer et al. (2013: 4–5), I define governance capability as ‘the ability of policy-makers to observe wicked problems (also see Annex 7) and to act accordingly, and the ability of the governance system to enable such observing and acting’. Every capability should include the three dimensions of acting, observing and enabling.
- 3.
Capacities are defined as the ability of individuals, institutions and societies to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner (UNDP 2007).
- 4.
Power, knowledge and norms are examples of family resemblance concepts. The term family resemblance concept originates in Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language (Haugaard 2002: 3). A typical example of a ‘family resemblance concept’ is the word ‘game’: its meaning inherently depends on the context in which it is used. The ‘playfulness’ of a card game played at home starkly contradicts with the ‘seriousness’ of a political game. All possible meanings of the word ‘game’ partly overlap and partly contradict each other, hence making it impossible to agree on one all-encompassing definition.
- 5.
This is also due to the fact that whereas ‘power’ in the English language mostly covers a number of meanings, in other languages such as Dutch, German and French, there are separate words for these separate meanings. Dutch language for example in general distinguishes between ‘macht’ (might) and ‘kracht’ (force).
- 6.
Further, influence and impact can be arbitrary and unintentional. This is related to the distinction between affecting and effecting. While ‘affecting’ refers to altering or impinging on something in any kind of way, ‘effecting’ is about accomplishing something.
- 7.
Similarly, power relations can be categorized based on the nature of the interactions between actors into three types based on classic institutional economics (Commons 1934) and social anthropology (Mauss 1923): ‘negotiation transactions’ (as usually observed in market transactions), ‘directive transactions’ (often in hierarchical relations) and ‘reciprocity transactions’ (as in networks).
- 8.
- 9.
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management holds that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
- 10.
National energy policies are difficult to compare for example in terms of nuclear power and risk acceptance. For example, in the USA, nuclear power is seen as a way to address climate change. Several European countries on the other hand decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. EU environmental policy is based on the precautionary principle (paragraph 2 of Article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty). Restriction in the EU on using hormones for growing meat faster and on the use of genetically modified organisms are also based on the precautionary principle and have led to trade disputes with the USA.
- 11.
86% of respondents to the WEF's Survey on the Global Agenda 2014 agreed that there is a leadership crisis in the world today.
- 12.
In September 2015 Environment Minister Mochizuki announced that he was considering the introduction of a national ETS. In October 2015, he was dismissed following opposition from the private sector and Premier Abe’s renewed drive for regaining economic growth.
- 13.
Meaning-making can be defined as the ability to integrate challenging or ambiguous situations into a framework of personal meaning using conscious, value-based reflection (van den Heuvel et al. 2009).
- 14.
- 15.
For Castells (2009), power is exercised through networks. He sees four different forms of power:
-
1.
Networking Power: the power of the core actors and organizations included in the networks
-
2.
Network Power: the power resulting from the standards required to coordinate social interaction in the networks.
-
3.
Networked Power: the power of social actors over other social actors in the network.
-
4.
Network-making Power: the power to program networks according to the interests and values of the programmers.
-
1.
- 16.
Actors with a higher than average number of ‘links’ with other actors.
- 17.
In the case of the trade remedy measures that the EU wanted to take on imports of solar panels from China, China also threatened with taking retaliatory measures on products (wine and luxury cars) that would mainly impact two of the EU’s core member states: France and Germany. A more explicit link between the climate and trade regimes is that the EU used its economic power when it made its approval of Russia's accession to the WTO contingent upon Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Also see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/22/environment.russia.
- 18.
Intrinsic task motivation ‘involves positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly from a task’ resulting from the cognitions about a task that produce motivation and satisfaction (Thomas and Velthouse 1990: 668).
- 19.
To deliver and build the social dialogue for a just transition, the International Trade Union Confederation and its partners have established a Just Transition Centre. Also see https://www.ituc-csi.org/just-transition-centre.
- 20.
E.g. though the ESRI platform for the SDGs, anyone can follow how specific areas of the world perform in terms of the SDGs based on a Geographic Informations System (GIS): http://sdg.esri.com/.
- 21.
IPCC assessment reports are compiled and reviewed by leading scientists, but the politically more relevant ‘Summaries for Policy makers’ (SPMs) have to be agreed upon by all delegates from participating countries.
- 22.
Meuleman (2012a) sees in this context the statement of a former Dutch Environment minister as illustrative when she says that ‘I will not accept any more mistakes from the IPCC. As a politician, I must be able to have blind trust in what science says’.
- 23.
For one of many investigations on whether a scientific consensus exists on climate change, see Oreskes (2004), available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.
- 24.
Gramsci contended that the modern prince ‘cannot be a real person or concrete individual’ but ‘can only be an organism, a complex element of society in which a collective will, which has already been recognized and has to some extent asserted itself in action, begins to take concrete form’ (Hoare and Nowell-Smith 1971: 129). Similarly, Olsson et al. (2014) suggest that a theory on the role of agents in sustainability transformations may involve moving the focus from the role of individual leaders to interacting key individuals. Mental and social learning processes could further trigger public participation in collective cultural change and a mass transformation of human understanding through public participation and improved decision making. Cognitive science and philosophy of science is exploring in this context the concept of ‘distributed cognition’ (Giere and Moffat 2003; Hutchins and Klausen 1996; Nersessian 2006), which means that collective learning can take place through objects occurring outside individual minds, (e.g. through the use of a computer) in order to address complex problems more distributively.
- 25.
Legitimacy, broadly understood, can rest on a range of qualities and characteristics including law, but also authenticity, responsiveness, and problem-solving capacities (Ansell 2011: 149–50).
- 26.
The rule of law is in general considered as important for sustainable development, but legal frameworks can conflict with adaptive approaches. For example, Kemal Derviş (former head of UNDP and member of the IMF mission to Greece) in a meeting in Geneva in May 2015 said that even though the Troika approach to the financial crisis in Greece was understood not to work much earlier, there were agreements that had to be respected so that it was difficult to perform adaptive governance.
- 27.
For example, Jan Ossenbrink, interview in person with Roland-Jan Meijer (Global Solar Council) in Brussels on 16 October 2013.
- 28.
Small events that trigger changes that are impossible to reverse.
- 29.
Gladwell (2000) defines a tipping point as ‘the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point’ and describes three types of people that are crucial in the creation and spread of social tipping points: Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen. Connectors are the social equivalent of computer network hubs; they know people across social, cultural, professional, and economic communities and introduce people who function in different circles. Mavens are information specialists and knowledge brokers. Salesmen are charismatic people with strong negotiation skills who can persuade others.
- 30.
Events that produce immense consequences across scales, systems and time.
- 31.
- 32.
The term ‘reflexivity’ is used by Giddens to refer to the ability of an agent to consciously alter his or her place in the social structure; thus globalization and the emergence of the ‘post-traditional’ society might be said to allow for ‘greater social reflexivity’. Social and political sciences are therefore important because social knowledge, as self-knowledge, is potentially emancipatory.
- 33.
Cultural self-reflexivity is the critical examination of the collective, cultural, or intersubjective elements of the worldview that one is embedded in.
- 34.
The three major strands in the Western philosophy of ethics are
-
consequentialism/utilitarianism (ends can justify a certain action);
-
virtue ethics (the action is justified because a specific person is acting); and
-
Deontology (an action is justified through the way it is implanted) (García‐Rosell and Moisander 2008).
-
- 35.
Ethics are important in scientific research (research ethics). Whereas the origins of research ethics lie in medical science and are based on protecting a weaker research object (patient) from a powerful doctor, in social science the roles can be reversed often when a researcher has powerful objects as research subject.
- 36.
Procedural justice is concerned with fairly including people and communities in decision-making about energy systems.
- 37.
Distributive justice entails equitably sharing the benefits and burdens of, e.g. energy production and consumption across individuals and societies.
- 38.
UNESCAP (2008) found that poorer households paid 171% more (relative to their income) for cooking fuels and 120% more for transportation, 67% more for electricity, and 33% more for fertilisers when compared to the expenditures on energy from middle- and upper-class households.
- 39.
Renewable energy can make people more independent if they do not need access to the grid any more, for example, and are less dependent on centralised utilities. Gaining liberty through renewables is one reason why in the US state of Georgia, the Tea Party cooperated with the Sierra Club to lobby for distributed solar power. Also see http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/green-tea-party-solar.
- 40.
Sovacool (2009) suggests that energy technologies can be read as congealed culture: ‘The social interests of those designing the electric utility system get built into the system, rather than becoming a latent or unintended result. The system thus redistributes social power and entrenches established practices and methods of reasoning that have grave consequences for society, including the emission of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants’.
- 41.
This is why politically, the Energiewende was originally a Socialist-Green Party initiative but also gained support from the conservative Christian Democrat Party CDU (the party favoured in general by German farmers).
An unintended side-effect of the Energiewende is that subsidized renewables undercut relatively climate-friendly natural gas on price. Therefore, traditional utilities have turned to coal-powered electricity generation. Thus, prices of electricity have gone up in Germany and the use of renewable sources has expanded, but Germany ended up emitting more carbon until the year 2014.
- 42.
Social capital is the aggregate trust that individuals in a group of community have in one another. Social capital is crucial for the workings of a society and for sustainability governance as it allows diverse participants to work together towards sustainability transitions in heterogeneous networks. Institutional capacities fall under four categories: intellectual, social, material and political (Huppé and Creech 2012).
- 43.
Reciprocity refers to a relationship whereby the behaviour of one actor occurs in the justified belief of another actor behaving in a certain way (e.g. positive actions by one actor are reciprocated by positive action by another).
- 44.
Mutuality is the recognition of mutual interdependence and common interest between actors. Interdependence creates a strong motive for collaboration, and is seen as the starting point for any networked governance process (Imperial 2005). Trust, mutuality and reciprocity are built upon interactions and a certain history of collaboration, in what is often understood as an iterative, virtuous cycle of communication, trust, commitment, understanding and outcomes (ibid.). Trust between interdependent actors is likely to lead to reciprocating positive behaviour and to mutually beneficial outcomes—outcomes that subsequently generate a higher level of trust among relevant actors (Ostrom 2000).
- 45.
A major advance in understanding the role of values in networks is provided by Hajer (1995) as he examines the role of values in networks and describes norm creation within networks.
- 46.
A mental frame of perception contains the actor’s knowledge, assumptions, interests, values and beliefs and determines what they see as being of interest, and what interests they perceive as conflicting with others (Schön and Rein 1994; Fischer 2000), and thus has an important impact on the actor’s construction of meaning of information, shaping his or her policy positions and attitudes towards the policy-making process (Kolkman et al. 2005).
- 47.
- 48.
For Ansell and Gash (2007: 544) collaborative governance is ‘A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets’.
- 49.
Trust in politicians has always been volatile, but in recent decades trust in politicians in both Europe and the USA has declined (Pew Research Center 2014) available at http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government/.
- 50.
The benefit of a global MBM in terms of transparency could be showing the emissions of individual airlines and airports. This raises awareness, and makes airlines more comparable and competitive in terms of lowering emissions.
- 51.
Studies on product development (e.g. Lester and Piore 2004) show that radical innovation involves combinations across different fields (e.g. smart grids draw on ICT and traditional network technologies, medical devices draw from basic life sciences and clinical practice, aviation technologies draw from defence and aerospace technologies). Friction between different systemic frames and discourses can thus challenge the status quo (Stark 2009). Engagement between different fields can also support innovation by redistributing risk and enabling innovation by communal absorption of risks taken by innovative actors. But this tool also has limits, as the example of innovative banking in the financial crisis shows.
- 52.
Luhmann (1995) distinguished three types of social systems: interactions (conversations), organizations and function systems (the systems of communication that fulfil a function in (global) society at large, e.g. law, economy, politics, religion, science and education). This conceptualization of social systems rejects the idea that systems should be based on hierarchical relations and control from higher levels. Luhmann argues that society is a polycentric collection of interacting social systems.
- 53.
Many well-known models of value patterns, like Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, have a strong Western bias. In Maslow’s model, individualist self-actualisation constitutes the top of the pyramid, whereas in collectivist countries (e.g. China) the basic need is belonging and self-actualisation concerns societal needs (Gambrel and Cian-ci 2003). The individualist/collectivist divide is one of the five indexes with which intercultural differences have been explained by Hofstede (2001).
- 54.
For policy development, it is a still a widely neglected phenomenon that an understanding of the concept of time depends on one’s cultural background. Cote and Tansuhaj (1989) formulated the challenge as follows: ‘If we ask someone about their future behaviour, the respondent must have some conception of ‘future’ for their answer to be meaningful. Westerners have relatively little difficulty conceiving the ‘future’. This is not true of all cultures. Different cultures often have different perceptions about time (McGrath and Rotchford 1983). Graham (1981) identifies three general orientations toward time, linear-separable, circular-traditional, and procedural-traditional. Linear time is most similar to western perceptions of a past, present and future stretching to infinity. Time is also seen as being separable into discrete units along this line. People with a circular time orientation perceive time relative to repeated patterns such as cycles of the sun, moon and seasons. They have no perception of time stretching into the future and therefore, expect the future to be like the past. Instead they focus on the present. People with a procedural time orientation view time as being irrelevant. Behaviour is activity driven rather than time driven.
- 55.
- 56.
One might claim that the climate change discourse split the climate change community in two ‘discourse coalitions’ (Hajer 1995) in the 1990 and 2000s: one is alarmistic, proclaiming a climate crisis, dramatic ecological consequences, the collapse of civilization (e.g. Brown 2009, 2011) and the need for immediate, hierarchical and strong mitigation action (e.g. by limiting consumption and building wind turbines). Originally, this discourse was promoted by climatologists, NGOs, but increasingly main stream institutions like the OECD, IMF, the UNFCCC and the World Bank are promoting this discourse. The other discourse coalition is focused on energy, economic rationality, and development space (e.g. industry and self-proclaimed ‘experts’ like Lomborg).
- 57.
Noell-Neuman’s theory of the ‘spiral of silence’ (1984) suggests that those who perceive themselves to be in a minority will refrain from voicing their perspective.
- 58.
Ideological amplification is psychological behaviour that occurs when people with similar views engage and subsequently develop their views to a further extreme. It can unify and solidify the group, and move the group to excessive positions that none of the members individually would likely have reached on their own.
- 59.
In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members.
- 60.
Annex 26 discusses the trade-offs between different governance arrangements in terms of input and output legitimacy further.
References
Adger WN (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr 79:387–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adler PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organ Sci 12:215–234. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117
Ahn TK, Ostrom E (2002) Social capital and the second-generation theories of collective action: an analytical approach to the forms of social capital. Boston
Aleklett K (2012) Peeking at peak oil. Springer, New York
Alfredsson E, Wijkman A (2014) The inclusive green economy: shaping society to serve sustainability: minor adjustments or a paradigm shift?. The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, Mistra, Stockholm
Alsop (2006) https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6980/350320Empowerm1ctice01OFFICIAL0USE1.pdf?sequence=1
Andonova LB, Mitchell RB (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35:255–282. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-100809-125346
Ansell C, Gash A (2007) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theor 18:543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Ansell CK (2011) Pragmatist democracy: evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Appadurai A (2013) The future as cultural fact: essays on the global condition. Verso, London
Avelino F (2011) Power in transition: empowering discourses on sustainability transitions. Dissertation, Erasmus University
Avelino F, Rotmans J (2009) Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. Eur J Soc Theor 12:543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431009349830
Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environ Politics 6:50–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50
Bass BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Org Dyn 18:19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Beinhocker ED (2006) The origin of wealth: evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
BIC (Bahá’í International Community) (1995) The realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. Bahá’í International Community, Geneva
Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J et al (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreements 10:277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3
Biermann F, Gupta A (2011) Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework. Ecol Econ 70:1856–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.008
Boons F, Van Buuren A, Gerrits L, Teisman GR (2009) Towards an approach of evolutionary public management. In: Teisman G, Van Buuren A, Gerrits L (eds) Managing complex governance systems: dynamics, self-organization and co-evolution in public investments. Routledge, London, pp 231–250
Brooks N, Adger WN, Mick Kelly P (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob Environ Change 15:151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006
Brown LR (2009) Plan B 4.0: mobilizing to save civilization. W.W. Norton and Company, New York
Brown LR (2011a) World on the edge: how to prevent environmental and economic collapse. Earthscan, London
Brown BC (2011b) Conscious leadership for sustainability: how leaders with a late-state action logic design and engage in sustainability initiatives. Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University
Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob Environ Change 10:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0
Castells M (2009) Communication power. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cheng ECK (2014) Knowledge management for school education. Springer, New York
Cherp A, Jewell J, Goldthau A (2011) Governing global energy: systems, transitions, complexity. Global Policy 2:75–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00059.x
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8059–8061. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100
Clemens ES, Cook JM (1999) Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Ann Rev Sociol 25:441–466
Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our global neighbourhood: the report of the commission on global governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Commons JR (1934) Institutional economics: its place in political economy. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway
Coser LA (1977) Masters of sociological thought: ideas in historical and social context. Harcourt, San Diego
Cote JA, Tansuhaj PS (1989) Culture bound assumptions in behavior intention models. Adv Consum Res 16:105–109
Dahl AL (2010) Life: a systems approach: reflections on multiple dimensions of sustainability
Dahlberg S, Holmberg S (2014) The importance of electoral and judicial trust for regime support. QOG (The Quality of Government Institute), University of Gothenburg, Goteborg
Dano N (2013) Networked environmental governance in a deliberative system: polycentric, collaborative and discursive. Dissertation, Australian National University
Davidson DJ, Frickel S (2004) Understanding environmental governance: a critical review. Organ Environ 17:471–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026603259086
Dewulf A, Gray B, Putnam L et al (2009) Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Hum Relat 62:155–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708100356
Djalante R (2012) Adaptive governance and resilience: the role of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:2923–2942. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-2923-2012
Djalante R, Holley C, Thomalla F (2011) Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-011-0015-6
Douglas H (2009) Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh
Drake (2012) http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/locating_accountability.pdf
Drake LE, Donohue WA (1996) Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research 23:297–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023003003
Dreyer SJ, Walker I (2013) Acceptance and support of the australian carbon policy. Soc Justice Res 26:343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0191-1
Dryzek JS, Stevenson H (2012) The discursive democratisation of global climate governance. Environ Politics 21:189–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.651898
Edelenbos J, Eshuis J (2009) Dealing with complexity through trust and control. In: Teisman G, Van Buuren A, Gerrits L (eds) Managing complex governance systems: dynamics, self-organization and coevolution in public investments. Routledge, London, pp 193–212
Edelenbos J, Klijn E-H (2007) Trust in complex decision-making networks: a theoretical and empirical exploration. Adm Soc 39:25–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399706294460
Ellis G, Weekes T (2008) Making sustainability ‘real’: using group-enquiry to promote education. Environ Edu Res, 14:482–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802308287
Elmes M, Smith C (2001) Moved by the spirit contextualizing workplace empowerment in american spiritual ideals. J Appl Behav Sci 37:33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886301371003
Epsom R (2017) Can Blockchain help us achieve the global sustainable development goals? In: WSP Group. http://www.wsp-pb.com/en/WSP-UK/Who-we-are/Newsroom/features/Can-Blockchain-help-us-achieve-the-global-sustainable-development-goals-/. Accessed 4 Apr 2017
EU (European Union) (2012) Global trends 2030: citizens in an interconnected and polycentric world. Institute for Security Studies of the European Union, Paris
Evans PB (2012) Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Evans WR, Carson CM (2005) A social capital explanation of the relationship between functional diversity and group performance. Team Perform Manage 11:302–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590510635170
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, London
Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York
Frantzeskaki N, Loorbach D (2009) Transitions governance: towards a new governance paradigm. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen
Fuchs DA (2007) Business power in global governance. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Fukuyama F (1995) Trust: human nature and the reconstitution of social order. Free Press, New York
Galluccio M (ed) (2014) Handbook of international negotiation: interpersonal, intercultural and diplomatic perspectives. Springer, New York
Gambrel PA, Cian-ci R (2003) Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: does it apply in a collectivist culture? J Appl Manag Entrep 8:143–161
Garcia JMR (2001) Scientia potestas est: knowledge is power: Francis Bacon to Michel Foucault. Neohelicon 28:109–121. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011901104984
García-Rosell J-C, Moisander J (2008) Ethical dimensions of sustainable marketing: a consumer policy perspective. Europ Adv Consum Res 8:210–215
Giere RN, Moffatt B (2003) Distributed cognition: where the cognitive and the social merge. Soc Stud Sci 33:301–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127030332017
Gladwell M (2000) The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown, Boston
Goldthau A, Sovacool BK (2012) The uniqueness of the energy security, justice, and governance problem. Energy Policy 41:232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.042
Graham RJ (1981) The role of perception of time in consumer behavior. J Consum Res 7(March):335–42
Greenhalgh E (2013) How Sandy affected New York City’s long-term planning. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-case-studies/how-sandy-affected-new-york-city%E2%80%99s-long-term-planning. Accessed 13 Feb 2017
Gupta J, Van der Zaag P (2009) The politics of water science: on unresolved water problems and biased research agendas. Global Environ Politics 9:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.14
Hahn T, Preuss L, Pinkse J, Figge F (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad Manag Rev 39:463–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341
Hajer MA (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Halle M, Wolfe R, Beaton C (2012) Session 3: an inclusive process for trade policymaking: looking back, looking forward: civil society contributions to WTO accountability. Geneva
Halls AS, Arthur RI, Bartley D, et al (2005) Guidelines for designing data collection and sharing systems for co-managed fisheries: part 1: practical guide. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organizaton of the United Nations), Rome
Haugaard M (ed) (2002) Power: a Reader. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Heifetz RA (1994) Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Hertin J, Jordan A, Turnpenny J, et al (2009) Rationalising the policy mess? Ex-ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin
Hoare Q, Nowell Smith G (eds) (1971) Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Lawrence and Wishart, London
Hoberg G (1992) Pluralism by design: environmental policy and the american regulatory state. Greenwood Publishing Group, New York
Hofstede GH (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks
Hufty M (2011) Investigating policy processes: the governance analytical framework (GAF). In: Wiesmann U, Hurni H (eds) Research for sustainable development: foundations, experiences, and perspectives. University of Bern, Bern, pp 403–426
Huh T (2014) Dynamics and discourse of governance for sustainable development in South-Korea: convergent or divergent? J Environ Planning Policy Manage 16:95–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.819779
Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hunt A, Vlahakis M (2015) Measuring change in women’s participation and leadership under the SDGs: why indicators must be ambitious. Global Policy J. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/01/10/2015/measuring-change-women%E2%80%99s-participation-andleadership-under-sdgs-why-indicators-must
Huntington SP (2000) Cultures count. In: Harrison LE, Huntington SP (eds) Culture matters: how values shape human progress. Basic Books, New York, pp xiii–xxxiv
Huppé GA, Creech H (2012) Developing social capital in networked governance initiatives: a lock-step approach. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), Winnipeg
Hutchins E, Klausen T (1996) Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In: Engstrom Y, Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 15–32
Imperial MT (2005) Using collaboration as a governance strategy lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration and Society 37:281–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705276111
In ‘t Veld RJ (2011) Transgovernance: the quest for governance of sustainable development. IASS (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies), Potsdam
In ’t Veld RJ (2013) Sustainable development within knowledge democracies: an emerging governance problem. In: Meuleman L (ed) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York, pp 3–35. https://www.springer.com/fr/book/9783642280085
Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
Jasanoff SS (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Jessop B (2003) Governance and meta governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In: Bang HP (ed) Governance as social and political communication. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 101–116
Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M et al (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2:732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev 8:12–30. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007372
Kim T-B (2010) Collaborative governance for sustainable development in urban planning in South-Korea. Dissertation, University of Birmingham
Klinksy S, Dowlatabadi H (2009) Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Clim Policy 9:88–108. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2008.0583b
Klinsky S (2014) Towards constructive fairness: applying the social-psychology of fairness to climate policy. In: de Coninck H, Lorch R, Sagar AD (eds) The way forward in international climate policy: key issues and new ideas 2014. CDKN (Climate and Development Knowledge Network), London, pp 10–15
Kofinas GP (2009) Adaptive co-management in social-ecological governance. In: Chapin FS III, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) Principels of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, New York, pp 77–101
Kolkman MJ, Kok M, Van der Veen A (2005) Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Phys Chem Earth 30:317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2005.01.002
Kormann C (2015) Greening the tea party. The New Yorker
Krasner SD (1983) International regimes. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Landemore H (2013) Democratic reason: politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A (2010a) Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Glob Environ Change 20:369–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.008
Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A (2010b) Dynamic sustainabilities: technology, environment, social justice. Earthscan, London
Leary T (1957) Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: a functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene
Leiserowitz AA, Kates RW, Parris TM (2006) Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: a review of multinational and global trends. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:413–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102505.133552
Lertzman R (2012) Researching psychic dimensions of ecological degradation: notes from the field. Psychoanal Cult Soc 17(1):92–101. https://doi.org/10.1057/pcs.2012.1
Lester RK, Piore MJ (2004) Innovation: the missing dimension. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Luhmann N (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Lukes S (2005) Power: a radical view. Macmillan, London
Manuel-Navarette (2010) https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/geography/research/Research-Domains/Contested-Development/Manuel-NavaretteWP32.pdf
Mauss M (1923) Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés Archaiques. L’Année Sociologique 1:30–186
McGrath JE, Rotchford NL (1983) Time and Behavior in Organizations, Res Organ Behav 5:57–101
McKibben B (2011) 10,000 surround White House to protest Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Democracy now!
Meadows D (1998) Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four Corners
Meadowcroft J (2007) Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. J Environ Planning Policy Manage 9:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701631544
Meuleman L (2012a) Cultural diversity and sustainability metagovernance. In: Meuleman L (ed) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York, pp 37–81
Meuleman L (ed) (2012b) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York
Moran P (2005) Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance. Strateg Manag J 26:1129–1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.486
Myerson G, Rydin Y (1996) The language of environment: a new rhetoric. UCL Press, London
Najam A, Papa M, Taiyab N (2006) Global environmental governance: a reform agenda. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), Winnipeg
Naustdalslid J (2011) Climate change: the challenge of translating scientific knowledge into action. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 18:243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.572303
Nersessian NJ (2002) The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In: Carruthers P, Stich S, Siegal M (eds) The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–153
Nersessian NJ (2006) Model-based reasoning in distributed cognitive systems. Philos Sci 73:699–709. https://doi.org/10.1086/518771
Nisbet MC (2014) Disruptive ideas: public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Clim Change 5:809–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.317
Noelle-Neumann E (1984) Spiral of silence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Nordic Council of Ministers (2017) Trust: the Nordic gold. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen
Norton BG (2015) Sustainable values, sustainable change: a guide to environmental decision making. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Nye JS (2004) Power in the global information age: from realism to globalization. Routledge, London
Nye JS (2011) The future of power. Public Affairs, New York
O’Brien KL (2009) Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change adaptation? In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 164–180
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010) Indicators of “societal progress”: lessons from international experiences. OECD, Paris
Olsson P, Galaz V, Boonstra WJ (2014) Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecol Soc 19: https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06799-190401
Oreskes N (2004) The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306:1686–1686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14:137–158. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703857114
Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Change 20:550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
Pahl-Wostl C (2006) The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol Soc 11. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10/
Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manage 21:49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4
Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Change 19:354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Pantazidou M (2012) What next for power analysis?. A review of recent experience with the powercube and related frameworks, IDS (Institute of Development Studies), Brighton
Papa M, Gleason NW (2012) Major emerging powers in sustainable development diplomacy: assessing their leadership potential. Glob Environ Change 22:915–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.003
Parsons T (1967) Sociological theory and modern society. Free Press, New York
Partnerships for SDGs The world social capital monitor invites the citizens of 193 countries to scoring their local social goods. In: Trust your place. http://trustyourplace.com/. Accessed 14 Sep 2017
Petersmann E-U (2012) International economic law in the 21st Century: constitutional pluralism and multilevel governance of interdependent public goods. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Pew Research Center (2014) Public trust in government: 1958–2014. http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government/. Accessed 14 Nov 2016
Plummer R, Fitzgibbon J (2004) Co-management of natural resources: a proposed framework. Environ Manage 33:876–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-3038-y
Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom, Munchen
Powell R (1994) Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate. Int Org 48:313–344. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028204
Putnam H (2004) The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rammel C, Van den Bergh JCJM (2003) Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising. Ecol Econ 47:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00193-9
Rappaport J (1987) Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory for community psychology. Am J Community Psychol 15:121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275
Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, et al (2002) Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute), Boston
Rauschmayer F, Bauler T, Schäpke N (2013) Towards a governance of sustainability transitions: giving place to individuals. Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Leipzig, Helmholtz
Rauschmayer F, Bauler T, Schäpke N (2015) Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions: linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecol Econ 109:211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.018
Reed M, Fraser E, Morse S, Dougill A (2005) Integrating methods for developing sustainability indicators that can facilitate learning and action. Ecology and Society 10:r3
Rockström J (2015) The climate pope. Project Syndicate
Rothstein B (2005) Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Saarikoski H (2000) Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:681–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00059-7
Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (2012) Experimentalist governance. In: Levi-Faur D (ed) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–185
Sachs and Santarius (2007) http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/F/bo20849176.html
Sinek (2009) Third most watched TED talk ever. https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action
Schein EH (1987) Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Franscico
Schmidt F (2013) Governing planetary boundaries: limiting or enabling conditions for transitions towards sustainability? In: Meuleman L (ed) Transgovernance: advancing sustainability governance. Springer, New York, pp 215–234
Schön DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York
Sen AK (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Senge PM (2001) Leadership in living organizations. In: Hesselbein F, Goldsmith M, Somerville I (eds) Leading beyond the walls: how high-performing organizations collaborate for shared success. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken
Slaughter AM (2009) America’s edge: power in the networked century. Foreign Affairs 88:94–113
Sovacool BK (2009) Rejecting renewables: the socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 37:4500–4513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.073
Spitzeck H, Hansen EG (2010) Stakeholder governance: how stakeholders influence corporate decision making. Corp Gov 10:378–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011069623
Spreitzer GM, De Janasz SC, Quinn RE (1999) Empowered to lead: the role of psychological empowerment in leadership. J Organ Behav 20:511–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<511:AID-JOB900>3.0.CO;2-L
Standard and Poor’s (2014) Climate change is a global mega-trend for sovereign risk. McGraw Hill Financial, New York
Stark D (2009) The sense of dissonance: accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Stirling A (2011) Pluralising progress: from integrative transitions to transformative diversity. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1:82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.03.005
Sunstein CR (2002) The law of group polarization. J Polit Philos 10:175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148
Sunstein CR (2007) Ideological amplification. Constellations 14:273–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2007.00439.x
Tallis H, Lubchenco J (2014) Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515:27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/515027a
Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Breeman G, Stiller SJ (2013) Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Adm Soc 47:680–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712469195
The Economist (2018) Men and women in economics have different opinions. The Economist, print edition of 15 February 2018
The Worldcom Group (2017) 5 Strategies for effectively managing stakeholders. In: The Worldcom Group. https://worldcomgroup.com/5-strategies-for-effective-stakeholder-management. Accessed 6 Mar 2017
Thomas KW, Velthouse BA (1990) Cognitive elements of empowerment: an “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Acad Manag Rev 15:666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926
Thompson GF (2004) Is all the world a complex network? Economy and Society 33:411–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225725
Tutu D (2004) God has a dream: a vision of hope for our times. Random House, New York
UN (United Nations) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), New York
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007) Towards inclusive governance: promoting the participation of disadvantaged groups in Asia-Pacific. UNDP, Bangkok
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2014) Governance for sustainable development: integrating governance in the post-2015 development framework. UNDP, New York
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012) 21 Issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. UNEP, Nairobi
UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) (2008) Energy security and sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCAP, Bangkok
UNFCCC (2014) Addendum: part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its twentieth session. UN (United Nations)/UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), Lima
UNSDSN (United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network)/IDDRI (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations) (2014) Pathways to deep carbonization. UNSDSN/IDDRI, Paris
Van Assche K, Verschraegen G, Salukvadze J (2010) Changing frames: citizen and expert participation in Georgian planning. Planning Practice and Research 25:377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503431
Van den Heuvel M, Demerouti E, Schreurs BHJ et al (2009) Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Development and validation of a new scale. Career Development International 14:508–533. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910997277
Verbong G, Loorbach D (2012) Governing the energy transition: reality, illusion or necessity?. Routledge, London
Voss J-P, Bornemann B (2011) The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecol Soc 16:9
Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9:5
Walsh NP (2004) Putin throws lifeline to Kyoto as EU backs Russia joining WTO. The Guardian
Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science 6:203–218
Wilkinson RG, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Bloomsbury Press, London
Williams C, Fenton A, Huq S (2015) Knowledge and adaptive capacity. Nature Climate Change 5:82–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2476
World Social Capital Monitor (2012) http://trustyourplace.com/
Zenger J, Folkman J (2013) What inspiring leaders do. Harvard Business Review
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Monkelbaan, J. (2019). Governance Pillars and Competences: Power, Knowledge and Norms as Cross-Cutting Issues in Governance for the SDGs. In: Governance for the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0474-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0475-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)