Two Sides of Environmental Governance: Conflict Resolution and/or Problem Solving
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recently “governance” is recognized as a means or a kind of system for conflict resolution. Some argue that representative democracy is not necessarily a good procedure for resolving social conflicts. Especially in many environmental conflicts a lot of stakeholders involve and the boundary of the problem does not coincide with the political one. That is why some insist that an alternative system (“environmental governance”) is needed. Not only the central government and the congress but also some local governments, NGOs, expert groups, special committees and so on should tackle the problem coordinately and in most cases citizen participation is thought to be essential for conflict resolution to make broad consensus. But I think environmental governance is not just for conflict resolution, but for problem solving. Conflict resolution does not always mean problem solving. In truth even if conflict was settled the fundamental problem might not be solved at all. So we must pay attention to two sides of governance, conflict resolution and problem solving. Of course all the governance has both sides and it is often difficult to distinguish them. But theoretically we should distinguish them. If conflict resolution is more important than problem solving, we must design a governance system to settle the conflict better. If problem solving is more important we must establish a system to solve the problem better. For example the scope and scale of citizen involvement, the way and degree of expert participation and the procedure of decision making must be different.
Abstract
Recently “governance” is recognized as a means or a kind of system for conflict resolution. Some argue that representative democracy is not necessarily a good procedure for resolving social conflicts. Especially in many environmental conflicts a lot of stakeholders involve and the boundary of the problem does not coincide with the political one. That is why some insist that an alternative system (“environmental governance”) is needed. Not only the central government and the congress but also some local governments, NGOs, expert groups, special committees and so on should tackle the problem coordinately and in most cases citizen participation is thought to be essential for conflict resolution to make broad consensus. But I think environmental governance is not just for conflict resolution, but for problem solving. Conflict resolution does not always mean problem solving. In truth even if conflict was settled the fundamental problem might not be solved at all. So we must pay attention to two sides of governance, conflict resolution and problem solving. Of course all the governance has both sides and it is often difficult to distinguish them. But theoretically we should distinguish them. If conflict resolution is more important than problem solving, we must design a governance system to settle the conflict better. If problem solving is more important we must establish a system to solve the problem better. For example the scope and scale of citizen involvement, the way and degree of expert participation and the procedure of decision making must be different.
참고문헌 (6)
- Design principles for collaborative governance of natural resources. in: Multi-level Environmental Governance for Sustainable Development, "Inoue, Makoto", MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas, ~, pp.Discussion Paper No.J08 (2008)
- Ostrom, Elinor, "Governing the Commons" (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Page, Scott E., "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies" (2008), Princeton University Press
- Sawyer, R. Keith, "Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration" (2008), Basic Books
- Surowiecki, James, "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations" (2004), Doubleday
- Susskind, Lawrence E., "Breaking Robert’s Rules: The New Way to Run Your Meeting, Build Consensus, And Get Results" (1996), Oxford University Press