book1

organisa� ons to ins� tu� onalise strong suprana� onal agreements is noted
as being par� cularly evident in rela� on to the environment. 8 Emergent
contemporary social ini� a� ves and movements around the environment are
a response to this lack, and are triggering more inclusive forms of global
governance to compensate, which are based on the “dynamic interplay
between civil society, business and public sector over the issue of corporate
social responsibility.” 9
Without oversta� ng the point, public policy scholars that focus more on
governance at the na� onal and suprana� onal levels tend to show a greater
interest in its processes than more globally oriented theorists. Despite
their analy� cal orienta� on around the ac� vi� es of governments within
the na� on-state they are nevertheless also interested in governance at the
interna� onal level. This is partly on account of the growth of collec� vi� es
such as the European Union (EU), since compara� ve poli� cal studies have
been inevitably drawn into discussions regarding mul� -level governance. 10
The environment is one policy arena where divergent groups (both state and
non-state) are drawn together in a kind of vigourous pluralism. 11 The need to
properly address environmental problems has resulted in the replacement
of old state/society rela� ons by new forms of public/private interac� on. 12
This shi� is a consequence of the percep� on of the lack of eff ec� veness
of purely public regula� on in tackling the environmental crisis. Complexity
has reduced the ability of governments to act unilaterally, requiring the
coordina� on of inter-dependent players in a way that ensures coopera� on
instead of the exercise of the power of obstruc� on, where adversarial
and non-coopera� ve behaviour obstructs economic and environmental
outcomes. 13 ‘New’ governance, by contrast to previous approaches, is
envisaged as a posi� ve process of learning, where all are involved in the
management of structural change and the nego� a� on and exchange of
informa� on between par� es results in them learning to trust -- as opposed
to mistrust -- each other. 14 The interac� ons between par� cipants is occurring
within democra� cally self-regula� ng systems, in which environmental policy
is the product of processes of internal refl ec� on. These systems are replacing
exis� ng, more legalis� c, mechanisms. 15
Public policy theorists, like their IR/IP counterparts, also ques� on the
8. Sonnenfeld and Mol, “Globaliza� on and the Transforma� on of Environmental Governance”,
p. 1323.
9. Ruggie, “Taking Embedded Liberalism Global”, p. 95.
10. Van Kersbergen and Van Waarden, “‘Governance’ as a Bridge Between Disciplines”, pp.
149-150; Kjaer, Governance, p. 6.
11. William M. Laff erty and James Meadowcro� , “Democracy and the Environment: Prospects
for Greater Congruence”, Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects, ed.
William M. Laff erty and James Meadowcro� (Cheltenham and Lyme: Edward Elgar, 1996),
pp. 256-272 at p. 257.
12. Daniel J. Fiorino, “Rethinking Environmental Regula� on: Perspec� ves on Law and
Governance”, The Harvard Environmental Law Review 23(2) (1999) pp. 441-469 at p. 443.
13. Van Vliet, “Environmental Regula� on of Business”, pp. 107-110.
14. Van Vliet, “Environmental Regula� on of Business” pp. 108-111.
15. Fiorino, “Rethinking Environmental Regula� on”, pp. 443-447.
104
Changing paradigms of aid eff ec� veness in Nepal