Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
- 3 Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
- 4 Smart (and Not-So-Smart) Mixes of New Environmental Policy Instruments
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
1 - Introduction
The Concept of Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
from Part I - Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- 1 Introduction
- 2 ‘Smart’ Public-Private Complementarities in the Transnational Regulatory and Enforcement Space
- 3 Smart Mixes and the Challenge of Complexity
- 4 Smart (and Not-So-Smart) Mixes of New Environmental Policy Instruments
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
An important presumption underlying the smart mixes approach is that ‘complementarity’ adds to the ‘smartness’ of an instrumental mix; however, the questions of what complementarity actually means, in what forms it may occur, and when it can be said to be smart must be answered. This chapter focuses on these questions, considering complementarity between public and private actors in the regulatory and enforcement space from both theoretical and practical perspectives by looking into the goals, nature and dynamics of public-private interaction in several areas. It also assesses when and how public-private complementarity may contribute to an effective smart mix and what contextual factors may affect this. However, public-private regulatory and enforcement regimes will only be truly smart and effective when they are perceived as legitimate – and consequently followed up on – by those affected by them. This chapter argues the importance of taking greater account of the role of the law in this regard, not only to fully explain public-private complementarity, but to fully assess whether this represents a smart mix or not and how the law may impact on the shaping of a smart mix both now and in future, inducing certain limits so as to secure its legitimacy.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 3 - 24Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abbott, K. 2012. ‘The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30, 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K., Levi-Faur, D. & Snidal, D. 2017. ‘Introducing Regulatory Intermediaries’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 670(1), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. & Snidal, D. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Regulation through Transnational New Governance: Overcoming the Orchestration Deficit’. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42, 501–576.Google Scholar
Alter, K. & Meunier, S. 2009. ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’. Perspectives on Politics 7, 13–24.Google Scholar
Auld, G. 2014. Constructing Private Governance: The Rise and Evolution of Forest, Coffee, and Fisheries Certification. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Auld, G., Renckens, S. & Cashore, B. 2015. ‘Transnational Private Governance between the Logics of Empowerment and Control’. Regulation & Governance 9(2), 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R. & Black, J. 2008. ‘Really Responsive Regulation’. The Modern Law Review 71(1), 59–94.Google Scholar
Bartley, T. 2011. ‘Transnational Governance as the Layering of Rules’. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 12, 517–542.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. & Cashore, B. 2007. ‘Can Non-state Global Governance Be Legitimate? An Analytical Framework’. Regulation & Governance 1(4), 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., Betsill, M., Gupta, J., Kani, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H. & Siebenhüner, B. 2009. Earth System Governance: People, Places and the Planet, Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Bonn, The Earth System Governance Project.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. 2010. The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. A. & Risse, T. 2010. ‘Governance without a State: Can it Work?’. Regulation & Governance 4(2), 113–134.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A. & Risse, T. 2016. ‘Dysfunctional State Institutions, Trust, and Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood’. Regulation & Governance 10(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. & Lindblom, C. 1953. Politics, Economics and Welfare. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Eberlein, B., Abbott, K., Black, J., Meidinger, E. & Wood, S. 2013. ‘Transnational Business Governance Interactions: Conceptualization and Framework for Analysis’. Regulation & Governance 8, 1–21.Google Scholar
Faure, M. G. 2012. ‘Effectiveness of Environmental Law: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?’. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 36(2), 293–336.Google Scholar
Faure, M. G. 2014. ‘The Complementary Roles of Liability, Regulation and Insurance in Safety Management: Theory and Practice’. Journal of Risk Research 17(6), 689–707.Google Scholar
Garcia, S. M., Rice, J. & Charles, A. 2014. Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. 1996. The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. 2009. ‘Environmental Law, Regulation and Governance: Shifting Architectures’. Journal of Environmental Law 21(2), 179–212.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. 1999. ‘Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection’. Law & Policy 21(1), 49–76.Google Scholar
Gupta, Y. 2011. ‘Regulatory Competition and Developing Countries and the Challenge for Compliance Push and Pull Measures’. In Winter, G. (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change. Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 455–469.Google Scholar
Hanebury, J. 2006. ‘Smart Regulation – Rhetoric or Reality?’. Alberta Law Review 44(1), 33–63.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. 1991. ‘Policy Instruments, Policy Styles and Policy Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice’. Policy Studies Journal 19(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. 2000. ‘Managing the “Hollow State”: Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance’. Canadian Public Administration 43, 412–431.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. 2004. ‘Beyond Good and Evil in Policy Implementation: Instrument Mixes, Implementation Styles, and Second Generation Theories of Policy Instrument Choice’. Policy and Society 23(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. 2004. ‘(Not so) “Smart Regulation”? Canadian Shellfish Aquaculture Policy and the Evolution of Instrument Choice for Industrial Development’. Marine Policy 28(2), 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. 2007. ‘Designing Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in “New Governance Arrangements”’. Policy and Society 26, 1–18.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. & Victor, D. 2011. ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’. Perspectives on Politics 9, 7–23.Google Scholar
Kinderman, D. 2016. ‘Time for a Reality Check: Is Business Willing to Support a Smart Mix of Complementary Regulation in Private Governance?’. Policy and Society 35, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., Faure, M. & Mascini, P. 2017. Environmental Governance of Common-Pool Resources. London, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meidinger, E. 2002. ‘The New Environmental Law: Forest Certification’. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 10, 214–303.Google Scholar
Mintz, J. A. 2013. ‘Assessing National Environmental Enforcement: Some Lessons from the United States Experience’. The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 26, 1–12.Google Scholar
Mintz, J. A. 2014. ‘Measuring Environmental Enforcement Success: The Elusive Search for Objectivity’. Environmental Law Reporter 44(9), 10751–10756.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. 2008. ‘Compliance Theory: Compliance, Effectiveness and Behavior Change in International Environmental Law’. In Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 893–921.Google Scholar
Oikonomou, V. et al. 2014. Understanding Policy Contexts and Stakeholder Behaviour for Consistent and Coherent Environmental Policies: A Synthesis of Results from the APRAISE Project.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., Morin, J. & Young, O. 2013. ‘Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance?’. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 19(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdevest, C. & Zeitlin, J. 2014. ‘Assembling an Experimentalist Regime. Transnational Governance Interactions in the Forest Sector’. Regulation & Governance 8(1), 22–48.Google Scholar
Peeters, M. 2014. ‘Instrument Mix or Instrument Mess? The Administrative Complexity of the EU Legislative Package for Climate Change’. In Peeters, M. G. W. M. & Uylenburg, R. (eds.), EU Environmental Legislation. Legal Perspectives on Regulatory Strategies. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 173–192.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. & Victor, D. 2004. ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’. International Organization 58(2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. 2005. ‘Constructivism’. In Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. & True, J., Theories of International Relations, 3rd edn. Basingstoke, Palgrave, 188–212.Google Scholar
Richards, K. 2000. ‘Framing Environmental Policy Instrument Choice’. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 10, 221–285.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H. (ed.). 1992. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements: A Survey of Existing Legal Instruments. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sands, P. & Peel, J. 2012. Principles of International Environmental Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simões, S., Huppes, G. & Seixas, J. 2015. A Tangled Web: Assessing Overlaps between Energy and Environmental Policy Instruments in Place along Electricity Systems. Environmental Policy and Governance 25(6), 439–458. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/eet.1691.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. B. 2008. ‘Instrument Choice’. In Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 147–181.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. 2012. ‘International Fisheries Politics: from Sustainability to Precaution’. In Andresen, S., Lerum Boasson, E. & Hønneland., G. (eds.), International Environmental Agreements: An Introduction. London/New York, Routledge, 97–116.Google Scholar
Trevisanut, S. 2014. ‘The Role of Private Actors in Offshore Energy: Shifting Models of Participation’. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 29(4), 645–665.Google Scholar
Trubek, D. & Trubek, L. 2006. ‘New Governance & Legal Regulation: Complementarity, Rivalry and Transformation’. Columbia Journal of European Law 13, 539–564.Google Scholar
Underdal, A. 2001. ‘One Question, Two Answers’. In Miles, L., Andresen, S., Carlin, E., Skjaerseth, J., Underdal, A. & Wettestad, J. (eds.), Environmental Regime Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 3–45.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992, (Agenda 21), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.Google Scholar
Van Erp, J. & Huisman, W. 2010. ‘Smart Regulation and Enforcement of the Illegal Disposal of Electronic Waste’. Criminology & Public Policy 9(3), 579–590.Google Scholar
Van Gossum, P., Arts, B. & Verheyen, K. 2010. ‘From “Smart Regulation” to “Regulatory Arrangements”’. Policy and Science 43, 245–261.Google Scholar
Van Rooij, B., McAllister, L. & Kagan, R. A. (eds.). 2010. ‘Pollution Law Enforcement in Emerging Markets’. Law & Policy (special issue) 32(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Vedung, E. 1998. ‘Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories’. In Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. & Vedung, E. (eds.), Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 21–58.Google Scholar
Von Moltke, K., 2011. ‘On Clustering International Environmental Agreements’. In Winter, G., (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change. Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 409–429.Google Scholar
Wiener, J. 1999. ‘Gobal Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context’. Yale Law Journal 108, 677–800.Google Scholar
Winter, G. (ed.). 2011. Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, S. & Johannson, L. 2009. ‘Six Principles for Integrating Non-governance Environmental Standards into Smart Regulation’. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 46(2), 345–395.Google Scholar
Woodside, K. 1986. ‘Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy’. Canadian Journal of Political Science 19, 775–793.Google Scholar
Wurzel, R. K. W., Zito, A. R. & Jordan, A. J. 2013. Environmental Governance in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of New Environmental Policy Instruments. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Young, O. (ed.). 1999. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.Google Scholar