Programme

A one-day research workshop organised by The Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster in collaboration with VetAgroSup Institute, Clermont Ferrand, France and the Leibniz Institute for Ecological, Urban and Regional Development, Dresden, Germany

9.30am Panel 1 – Coordination and evaluation: heterodox approaches (chair: Tassilo Herrschel, University of Westminster)

9.30am – ‘A research agenda rediscovered: Hayek, Lindblom and the epistemological dimension of coordination challenges in governance’ - Dan Greenwood, University of Westminster

10.10am – ‘Heterodox economics, coordination and evaluating NHS governance’ - Tom Mills (University of Westminster)

10.50am – ‘Challenges to the Energy Transition. Evaluating the ‘Coordinative Effectiveness’ of Governance with regard to the siting of wind turbines’ - Gerd Lintz (Institute of Urban, Regional and Ecological Development, Dresden) and Dan Greenwood (University of Westminster)

11.30am Coffee

11.45am Panel 2 – Collective action and property rights (chair: Christophe Depres (VetAgro Sup Institute, Clermont Ferrand)

11.45am - ‘Understanding policy-driven collective action to address challenges of European water management’ Laurence Amblard (Irstea, UMR Métafort, Clermont-Ferrand, France)*

12.25pm – ‘Property rights and environment: Insights from the registered facilities regulation to reduce environmental risk in France’ - Philippe Jeanneaux (VetAgro Sup Clermont-Ferrand, UMR Métafort, France)* (*= co-authored paper – see abstract below)

1.05pm Lunch

2pm Panel 3 – Regional governance (chair: Simon Joss, University of Westminster)

2pm - ‘Governance in city regions - negotiating between local individualism and regional commonality’ - Tassilo Herrschel (University of Westminster)

2.40pm – ‘Regions in crisis? – time and space for reconfiguration’ - Magnus Lindh (Karlstad University) and Marius Guderjan (Manchester Metropolitan University)

3.20pm Coffee

3.40pm: Plenary discussion (chair: Dan Greenwood, University of Westminster)

4.30pm Close

Workshop overview

There is wide recognition of the complex, cross-cutting nature of many current, inter-connected governance and policy challenges. In political science, geography, sociology, public administration, and other social science fields, strong emphasis is placed on the need to consider the inter-relationships between different scales of governance, from international and national to regional and local.

In this context, a vital, emerging question concerns the effectiveness of multi-scale governance processes in achieving coordination. Some significant prior research has focused primarily on providing descriptive analysis of how processes of governance and policy-making address ‘coordination’ challenges, which are sometimes understood in terms of related concepts such as ‘integration,’ (Jordan and Lenschow, 2010) ‘collaboration’ (Hudson, Hardy et al, 1999), ‘associational’ (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Knill, 2001); and ‘joining up ’ (6, Leat et al, 2002). However, the need remains to further develop approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of governance in addressing coordination challenges, through a focus on the inter-relationship between governance and policy processes, policy outputs and outcomes “on the ground” (Jordan 2008).

This workshop explores and compares different understandings of coordination and approaches for assessing the nature, effectiveness and democratic legitimation of governance processes and policy tools in terms of coordination. Paper proposals are welcome which engage with challenges of coordination across a range of policy sectors, such as ecosystem management, health, land use planning and economic development. In particular, the workshop includes a focus on how analysis of governance systems can draw from heterodox traditions in political economy, such as institutional, Austrian and ecological economics. In these traditions, evaluative questions concerning the effectiveness of governance in addressing coordination challenges are an especially prominent focus, where they tend to be more directly addressed than in political science. Hence, there is potential for mutual learning and possible synthesis between these different disciplinary and theoretical approaches.

Paper abstracts

Dan Greenwood (University of Westminster)

A research agenda rediscovered: Hayek, Lindblom and the epistemological dimension of coordination challenges in governance.

There is wide recognition of the need for governance and policy-making to achieve ‘coordination.’ However, use of the term often lacks precision (Klein, Webb, and Challis, 1987, 25) and coordination challenges are rarely the primary focus of political science. It is argued here that there is significant need and potential for assessing contemporary systems of governance and policy-making through a return to the conceptualisations of coordination provided by F.A. Hayek and C.E.Lindblom. Their classic reflections on the effectiveness of politics and markets start from similar philosophical premises concerning the epistemological challenges that arise in the face of complexity. Their understanding of coordination as a type of process can be used to assess a range of institutional arrangements. Each offer contrasting views about politics and markets but the work of both yields insights into how empirical, outcome-orientated assessment of the ‘coordinative effectiveness’ of governance can complement and enrich predominant contemporary approaches in political science.

Tom Mills (University of Westminster)

Heterodox economics, coordination and evaluating NHS governance.

The National Health Service (NHS) is going through a tumultuous period and there are crucial questions to be asked regarding the appropriate roles and inter-relationships between political and market processes. Dominant narratives suggest that the publicly administered NHS was characterised by “command and control” mechanisms and that the current era is one of unprecedented decentralisation. However, in many respects policy has a greater influence over decision-making in the health service than ever before. The current period differs from previous periods because markets are used far more extensively and there is far more central involvement in clinical decisions and performance management. There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of these governance arrangements.

This paper highlights the relevance of heterodox economics for NHS reform and outlines a methodological approach to evaluation based on the concept of coordination. Austrian Economics highlights the difficulties involved in defining and implementing policy, suggesting that problems will arise in relation to the centralising aspects of the reforms. Even where policy does reflect widely-shared values, unintended consequences are expected upon implementation that can compromise policy goals. In contrast, ‘old’ institutionalism focuses on the motivational component of policy and highlights the questionable impacts that can result from excessive reliance on market mechanisms, again in unexpected ways.

Together, these frameworks provide insights into possible coordination problems that can compromise policy. They suggest the need for postpositivist research that appreciates the complexity of the health service and the contested nature of NHS reform. Stakeholder framings might be examined, with a focus on where they identify coordination problems. Evaluative claims regarding the appropriate level of decision-making and appropriate degree of marketisation might be made where there is some level of agreement between framings regarding the causes and significance of coordination problems. Such an approach is discussed in relation to the diabetes pathway, where preliminary research suggests that a more robust national framework for diabetes is required and that the benefits of marketisation are limited due to the complexity of the condition.

Gerd Lintz (Leibniz Institute for Ecological, Urban and Regional Development) and Dan Greenwood (University of Westminster)

Challenges to the energy transition: evaluating the ‘coordinative effectiveness’ of governance with regard to the siting of wind turbines

The transition from fossil and nuclear fuels to renewable energy sources such as wind energy is seen by many as a key precondition to achieve sustainable development. However, as wind turbines become ever bigger (up to 200m) they can cause serious environmental effects themselves, for instance on the landscape scenery, birds and people directly, leading to a conflict. As the use of wind energy grows, it might be expected to become less easy to find new sites, hence the potential for such conflict could potentially increase. Apart from hopes that people learn “to love the landscapes of carbon-neutrality” (Selman 2010), the quality of decision-making and governance arrangements with regard to the siting of wind farms becomes crucial. At least partly, local acceptance of wind turbines depends on the perceived sensitivity, effectiveness and fairness of siting decisions. Achieving this relies on the gathering and generation of knowledge, e.g. about wind turbine technology, costs, economic benefits, environmental effects and people’s preferences with regard to possible sites. This implies the involvement and effective coordination across many policy sectors, policy levels and a wide range of public and private actors. Against this background, drawing from heterodox traditions in economics, the paper aims at discussing the possibility of evaluating the ‘coordinative effectiveness’ of governance with regard to the siting of wind turbines as a basis to improve governance arrangements for fostering the transition to low carbon energy sources. For illustration, the paper refers to Germany and selected German regions and towns.

Laurence Amblard (Irstea, UMR Métafort, Clermont-Ferrand, France), Andreas Thiel (Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany), Sergio Villamayor Tomas (Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA), Ester Blanco (University of Innsbruck, Austria), Dimitrios Zikos (Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany)

Understanding policy-driven collective action to address challenges of European water management

Community management of water resources in the EU is largely influenced by European, national or sub-national policies. The Common Pool Resources literature stresses the importance of governments in recognizing the right of direct users over the management of local resources, but there is still a research gap on more complex drivers of state policy on local collective action. This paper addresses how state intervention interacts with collective action for water quality/quantity management by resource users in European rural areas.

Using game theory, we model the incentive structure of different action situations underlying water management issues (social dilemmas, zero-sum games) to specify how the state may intervene to promote collective action. This analytical framework is then applied to five empirical cases across the EU covering diverse action situations, in terms of collective action purpose (water management operation; decision-making on projects) and spatial scale (local; regional level).

According to a preliminary analysis of the results, we argue that the state promotes cooperation through two main channels: either by lowering transaction costs of coordination and cooperation or/and through the threat of exclusive top-down decision-making. The paper concludes with a research agenda for further research on the topic.

Philippe Jeanneaux (VetAgro Sup Clermont-Ferrand, UMR Métafort, France) and Hai Vu Pham (AgroSup Dijon, UMR Cesaer, France)

Property rights and environment: Insights from the registered facilities regulation to reduce environmental risk in France

Faced with the ecological crisis, societies move towards the consideration that the environment is a common good which is used in incompatible way. When firms produce private goods, they also produce negative external effects damaging environmental common goods. In France, command-and-control policy has long been used to regulate polluting facilities which could be dangerous for the environment. In juridical terms, the regulator has made an inventory of dangerous and obnoxious facilities which are denominated “Registered Facilities to Protect the Environment” (RFPE). There are 500,000 RFPE in France including 50,000 facilities which require an administrative authorisation to be run. The authorisation is issued by the prefectural administration further to an environmental impact evaluation and a public inquiry.

The implementation of this regulation provokes numerous protests against the decision-maker. Due to the multiple functions of rural areas and the diverse stakeholders involved (such as farmers, industrials, nature conservationists, tourists, and inhabitants), collisions between human demands and the capacity of rural areas to satisfy them are becoming daily events. We have carried out a research to understand better how this policy is implemented and particularly why protest against the decision-maker occurs.

Tassilo Herrschel (University of Westminster)

Governance in city regions - negotiating between local individualism and regional commonality

City regions have attracted a lively, varied and extensive debate across disciplinary boundaries, seeking to capture their diverse and complex nature, their main drivers and how best to govern them (refs). Their complexity results from their composite, trans-scalar nature, linking the ‘local’ and the ‘regional’, while needing to respond to national context – societal values, political agendas and political-economic structures and developments. The result is a potential conflictuality of interests between the individual (either personal, institutional or ‘local’), and those of the collective interests and ambitions. The latter, of course, closely interact with the individual interests. This conflictuality underpins the essential nature of city regions as local interests reach out into ‘the regional’ and intersect, at times collide, with other such interests – whether they are equally ‘expansive’ or largely remaining in situ. It is a conflict referred to by Elinor Ostrom (1997) as the relationship between the individual and the commons, and her main focus was on how these different perspectives and appraisals of ‘advantage’ can be governed in an interest- reconciling way. How can/do institutions engage in collective action (Feiock, 2009)?

This paper examines this political dilemma in the power field defined by the two variables mode of regionalisation (associative – consolidative) and nature of regionalisation (‘self-organising’ - ‘hierarchically organised’), leading to different forms of modi operandi of city-regional governance between ‘co-ordination’ and ‘coercion’ as mechanisms of translating local agendas into regional governance. All this manifests particular city-regional governance ‘milieux’, influenced by varying ‘impetus’ from specific – also varying, external and internal factors. Some illustrative references will be made to examples of city-regional governance in Europe and North America.

Magnus Lindh (Karlstad University) and Marius Guderjan (Manchester Metropolitan University)

Regions in crisis? – time and space for reconfiguration

Regional governance has become an important vehicle to drive and implement European and national policy strategies. Most recently, the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the research and innovation strategy for smart specialisation highlight the potential of regional governance on economic development and social innovation. The question is under which conditions regions are able to unfold potential for growth, structural change, skills development, research and innovation. Some European regions have been more successful than others in achieving an effective coordination of such multi-scale governance.

As the European Union promotes the coordination and connection of regions, The paper examines the effectiveness and legitimacy of regions as coordinators of external and internal activities in the context of European policies. The paper looks at two cases of regional deconstruction and reconfiguration: the North West of England and West Sweden. Both Sweden and England represent unitary state structures with traditionally weak regions. Whereas English were subject to top-down policies by central government, the Swedish government takes a flexible approach vis-à-vis regions and encourages bottom-up processes. In the western part of Sweden, an asymmetric process of Europeanisation among local and regional actors has lead to a reconsideration of their engagement in a joint regional office in Brussels called West Sweden. A greater diversity of preferences triggers a bottom-up reconfiguration of regional capacities favouring new structures on a smaller scale. Regional governance in the North West of England used to take a strong role in coordinating and promoting the European priorities of local authorities. After the abolishment of the Regional Development Agencies by central government, Local Enterprise Partnerships have become responsible for strategic development and the delivery of the 2014-2020 ERDF programme. Consequently, the new localist approach reinforces regional asymmetries of effective engagement with European policies. The comparison of both cases shows that the efficacy of regional approaches to European policies is strongly determined by institutional capacities and power structures within states.

For further information about this workshop, please write to Dan Greenwood via email: [email protected].