Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Alternative names
Publications (3 of 3) Show all publications
Sandström, A., Söderberg, C., Lundmark, C., Nilsson, J. & Fjellborg, D. (2020). Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden. Environmental Policy and Governance, 30(1), 3-13
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden
Show others...
2020 (English)In: Environmental Policy and Governance, ISSN 1756-932X, E-ISSN 1756-9338, Vol. 30, no 1, p. 3-13Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper explores the relationship between different types of multi-level governance systems and policy coherence (i.e., uniformity of goals and rules) through a study of the governance systems for water and large carnivores in Sweden. The study objects represent multi-level governance systems for contested natural resources in the same national context, though in different policy areas and with substantial differences in institutional arrangements. We define the characteristics of each governance system through an institutional analysis of official records and compare their perceived ability to promote coherence through a statistical analysis of survey data. Our empirical results both support and problematize common ideas about how different institutional features relate to policy coherence in multi-level governance. The results clearly indicate that multi-level governance systems are challenged by conflicting goals and rules, both within and across governance systems, and that the capacity to address these difficulties is generally perceived as wanting in both types of systems. The results tentatively suggest that clashes with other governance systems are more prominent in polycentric and ecologically based systems, while internal goal and rule conflicts are more prevalent in centralized and more traditionally organized systems.

The findings contribute to our understanding of the quandaries associated with the design of new governance systems. The study also contributes important insights into what features to focus on in attempts to mitigate the downsides of different institutional arrangements in multi-level governance systems.  

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2020
Keywords
Environmental governance, large carnivore management, multi-level governance, policy coherence, water management
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-76522 (URN)10.1002/eet.1871 (DOI)000498261000001 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas
Note

Validerad;2020;Nivå 2;2020-02-21 (johcin)

Available from: 2019-10-26 Created: 2019-10-26 Last updated: 2020-02-21Bibliographically approved
Jernnäs, M., Nilsson, J., Linnér, B.-O. & Duit, A. (2019). Cross-national patterns of governance mechanisms in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 19(10), 1239-1249
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Cross-national patterns of governance mechanisms in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement
2019 (English)In: Climate Policy, ISSN 1469-3062, E-ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 19, no 10, p. 1239-1249Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The continuous submission and scaling-up of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) constitutes a key feature of the Paris Agreement. In their NDCs, states propose governance mechanisms for implementation of climate action, in turn distinguishing appropriate roles for the state in climate governance. Clarity on Parties’ suggested roles for the state makes explicit assumptions on the premise of climate policy, in turn contributing to enhanced transparency in negotiations on the scaling-up of NDCs. This also speaks to ongoing debates on roles for the state in climate governance literature. This article identifies the governance mechanisms proposed by states in their NDCs and the roles for the state envisioned by those governance mechanisms, and also examines how cross-national patterns of roles for the state break or converge with conventional patterns of international politics. The analysis shows that states propose a plurality of roles, which to different extents may be complementary or conflictual. We conclude that income, region, and the Annexes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are important for understanding suggested roles for the state, but that there are nuances to be further explored. We argue that this paper has three key findings: i) a majority of states rely on market mechanisms to implement their NDCs while rules on implementation and assessment of market mechanisms are still an outstanding issue in the negotiations, meaning that resolving this issue will be essential; ii) the process for evaluating and assessing qualitative governance mechanisms needs to be specified; and iii) increased awareness of differing views on the state’s roles makes explicit different perspectives on what constitutes an ambitious and legitimate contribution to combating climate change.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019
Keywords
Paris Agreement, climate change, nationally determined contributions, governance mechanisms, policy instruments
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-76052 (URN)10.1080/14693062.2019.1662760 (DOI)000486166000001 ()
Note

Validerad;2019;Nivå 2;2019-10-08 (johcin)

Available from: 2019-09-18 Created: 2019-09-18 Last updated: 2019-10-08Bibliographically approved
Nilsson, J. (2015). Local Political Decision-Making: A Case of Rationality or Appropriateness? (ed.). Local Government Studies, 41(6), 917-936
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Local Political Decision-Making: A Case of Rationality or Appropriateness?
2015 (English)In: Local Government Studies, ISSN 0300-3930, E-ISSN 1743-9388, Vol. 41, no 6, p. 917-936Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The party and trustee principles are two representational styles used to describe how politicians make decisions. Swedish politicians have historically relied more on the party principle than the trustee principle. This article studies the decision-making practices of local Swedish politicians by exploring to what extent they rely on these principles when making decisions on two issues that diverge in political dignity: tax level and organisational change in the municipal administration. The study draws on new institutional theory, in which theories from rational choice and sociological institutionalism were used for modelling and performing a large study. The results indicate that, although Swedish politicians still rely on the party principle when making decisions, there is a significant difference as to what extent they do so in regard to the two policy issues. The trustee principle is more frequently used when deciding on organisational change than on tax levels. This result is valid for all Swedish parties, except for a relatively new political party at the extreme right of the ideological spectrum. Future research of the two decision-making principles in relation to other policy issues, as well as research that delves deeper into the deviant results of the different political parties, is encouraged.

National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-15616 (URN)10.1080/03003930.2015.1050094 (DOI)000369889800006 ()2-s2.0-84942822393 (Scopus ID)f280207f-1880-4d76-b64f-9e8bff0ac3ad (Local ID)f280207f-1880-4d76-b64f-9e8bff0ac3ad (Archive number)f280207f-1880-4d76-b64f-9e8bff0ac3ad (OAI)
Note

Validerad; 2015; Nivå 2; 20150609 (jennil)

Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-3038-8419

Search in DiVA

Show all publications