Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A view from the top: State perspectives on legitimacy and the mine development process
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Social Sciences.
2019 (English)In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 4, p. 32-38Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Legitimacy is typically given to an authority by a subject. In most cases, the state. However, different governance structures alter the role of the state and the support of some policy decisions rests on the actions of others. In mine development, government sits in an interesting position. As the permitting authority, government holds the responsibility for determining the paths companies must travel to open and operate a mine. At the same time, mining companies engage in extra-legislative activities to build public support and move the process forward. Therefore, the state may no long control the legitimacy of the mine development process. Conducting interviews with state officials in two jurisdictions, Saskatchewan, Canada and Norrbotten, Sweden, this study investigates whether legitimacy issues exist from the perspective of the authority. Focusing on participation, influence, transparency, accountability, and responsiveness, the study determines first if shared conceptions of these factors exists amongst officials and then whether they viewed the process operating in a manner that matches these shared conceptions. The most significant differences in views occurred in Norrbotten where the results on throughput legitimacy pointed to legitimacy issues from the perspective of the state, particularly with other government agencies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019. Vol. 4, p. 32-38
Keywords [en]
Public policy, Resource development, Policy support, Input legitimacy, Throughput legitimacy
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-72682DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.002ISI: 000474672500004Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85059756844OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-72682DiVA, id: diva2:1282633
Note

Validerad;2019;Nivå 2;2019-01-25 (svasva)

Available from: 2019-01-25 Created: 2019-01-25 Last updated: 2019-08-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Poelzer, Gregory A

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Poelzer, Gregory A
By organisation
Social Sciences
In the same journal
Environmental Science and Policy
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 71 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf