Globalization and Governance Capacity: Explaining Divergence in National Forest Programs as Instances of "Next-Generation" Regulation in Canada and Europe

New policy initiatives are increasingly embedded in novel governance strategies. These new modes of governance differ from existing policy mixes in that they are specifically designed to reduce the number of instances of counterproductive policy instrument use; to function effectively and meet public policy goals in an era of decreased national state capacity and autonomy; and rely much more heavily than existing instrument mixes have done on the involvement of private actors in both policy formulation and implementation. These instances of contemporary policy design require careful analysis in order to understand where and when such designs may be adopted and, more importantly, prove effective. This article examines efforts made in Europe and Canada to develop “next-generation” forest policy strategies and finds considerable divergence in the new regulatory processes put into place in different countries. Following Knill and Lehmkuhl, this divergence is attributed to changing patterns of domestic actor capacities in the face of weak international regimes.

[1]  Alison Gehring Policy and politics , 2007, The journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health.

[2]  B. Peters,et al.  The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review , 2004 .

[3]  C. Hay Common trajectories, variable paces, divergent outcomes? Models of European capitalism under conditions of complex economic interdependence , 2004 .

[4]  J. Loughlin The "Transformation" of Governance: New Directions in Policy and Politics , 2004 .

[5]  D. Kerwer,et al.  New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective , 2004 .

[6]  Virginia Haufler Private sector international regimes , 2004 .

[7]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Administrative styles and the Iimits of administrative reform: A neo‐institutional analysis of administrative cuIture , 2003 .

[8]  M. Boström How State-Dependent is a Non-State-Driven Rule-Making project? : The Case of Forest Certification in Sweden , 2003 .

[9]  J. Cartwright Environmental groups, Ontario's Lands for Life process and the Forest Accord , 2003 .

[10]  L. Gulbrandsen The evolving forest regime and domestic actors: strategic or normative adaptation? , 2003 .

[11]  A. Jordan,et al.  From High Regulatory State to Social and Ecological Market Economy? New Environmental Policy Instruments in Germany , 2003 .

[12]  H. Schanz National forest programmes as discursive institutions , 2002 .

[13]  M. Howlett,et al.  The Policy Effects of Internationalization: A Subsystem Adjustment Analysis of Policy Change , 2002 .

[14]  C. Pollitt Convergence: The Useful Myth? , 2001 .

[15]  Christopher Pollitt,et al.  CLARIFYING CONVERGENCE. Striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform , 2001 .

[16]  K. Bisang,et al.  Rethinking recent changes of forest regimes in Europe through property-rights theory and policy analysis , 2001 .

[17]  Virginia Haufler A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-Regulation in a Global Economy , 2001 .

[18]  B. Cashore,et al.  Privileging the sub-sector: critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making , 2001 .

[19]  B. Cashore,et al.  Chapter 3. The International-Domestic Nexus: The Effects of International Trade and Environmental Politics on the Canadian Forest Sector , 2001 .

[20]  Michael Howlett Canadian forest policy : adapting to change , 2001 .

[21]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance , 2000 .

[22]  Keith G. Provan,et al.  Governing the Hollow State , 2000 .

[23]  B. Cashore,et al.  Globalization, Four Paths of Internationalization and Domestic Policy Change: The Case of EcoForestry in British Columbia, Canada , 2000, Canadian Journal of Political Science.

[24]  A. Perl,et al.  Internationalized Policy Environments and Policy Network Analysis , 1999 .

[25]  S. Skowronek,et al.  Regimes and Regime Building in American Government: A Review of Literature on the 1940s , 1998 .

[26]  B. Cashore Flights of the Phoenix: Explaining the Durability of the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Dispute , 1997 .

[27]  R. Rhodes,et al.  The New Governance: Governing without Government , 1996 .

[28]  J. Rayner,et al.  DO ideas matter? Policy network configurations and resistance to policy change in the Canadian forest sector , 1995 .

[29]  M. Eisner Discovering Patterns in Regulatory History: Continuity, Change, and Regulatory Regimes , 1994, Journal of Policy History.

[30]  R. Rhodes THE HOLLOWING OUT OF THE STATE: THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE IN BRITAIN , 1994 .

[31]  C. Bennett,et al.  What Is Policy Convergence and What Causes It? , 1991, British Journal of Political Science.

[32]  Michael Howlett The 1987 National Forest Sector Strategy and the search for a federal role in Canadian forest policy , 1989 .

[33]  G. Esping‐Andersen,et al.  Power and Distributional Regimes , 1985 .

[34]  J. Hacker,et al.  Ideas, private institutions and American welfare state ‘exceptionalism’: the case of health and old‐age insurance, 1915–1965 , 2004 .

[35]  Christoph Knill,et al.  Private Actors and the State: Internationalization and Changing Patterns of Governance , 2002 .

[36]  Jeremy Wilson,et al.  Talk and log: wilderness politics in British Columbia, 1965-96. , 1998 .

[37]  Neil Gunningham,et al.  Toward Optimal Environmental Policy: The Case of Biodiversity Conservation , 1997 .