Neil has provoked a very interesting discussion. My silence on this was driven less by disinterest than by the stage of the (North American) calendar, as we enter that desperate time of the semester....Perhaps this could be continued in a future panel at the International Studies Association or some other forum?
I wonder about the quest for a general theory, eco-political or otherwise. On the one hand, the limitations of mainstream IR theory for understanding eco-political dynamics have been probed by many scholars. (For example, my just-published book, Governing Water, begins with a critique of regime theory, essentially arguing that it holds constant certain configurations of knowledge, authority, and territoriality that are better treated as variables when it comes to thinking about the possible or existing institutional forms of environmental governance.) That said, there is a great deal of insight in regime theory that I would not want to simply toss off. The problem is not that it is "wrong" but that it offers a particularistic explanation-plus-blueprint for international institutional design. I would argue that neither the explanation nor the blueprint can be generalized across types of ecological problems, types of power and authority relations, or for that matter stages of global capitalist development. For an increasingly wide swath of socio-ecological controversies, knowledge can't be stabilized to the necessary degree for regime formation, putatively 'domestic' territory won't sit still for governance, and state-as-authority is increasingly problematic as a way to legitimize power. Who knows, there might have been a brief post-Cold War window when such stabilizations were possible around certain issues, but not now...And if so, we reach the limits of regime approach, either as a 'general' theory or as an effective political strategy. (As an aside, although I don't wish to put words in their mouths, I don't read the best contributions to regime theory as having claimed to offer such a general theory). One could deconstruct other conceptual points of departure (e.g., Hardin's tragedy of the commons, global civil society, political economy approaches) in analogous fashion. Studying environmental politics has made me sensitive to complexity, uncertainty, contingency, authority struggles, the importance of soft/socio-cultural as well as formal/legal-rational institutions, and the importance of contention and conflict as well as cooperation in generating outcomes. Under those circumstances, it seems much easier to specify what isn't going to happen than of what will, of what's not attainable rather than of what is. In my view there is a great deal of very creative work being done in/on global environmental politics. But can it be stitched together into general theory? Toward the end of his life, Kafka was reportedly asked in an interview why his work seemed to suggest hopelessness. "Certainly there is hope," he is said to have replied. "But not for us." Ken Conca >>> "Neil E Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/28/2005 10:06:14 AM >>> Michael: When I was in your position several years ago, trying to build a theoretical framework for my doctoral research on international climate change policy, I used ideas from several domestic and international policy theories. In the domestic realm, for example, I used Kingdon (I liked the sense of serendipity embedded in his windows of opportunity) and in the international I used aspects of then current theory including ideas on regimes. After all, IEP is usually thought of in terms of the regimes that are created. I no longer think that this approach is useful. A more general theory (or perhaps paradigm) of global international politics would better integrate and connect the islands of information created through past research and generate more interesting research questions for future research. More recently, I have found a way of thinking about environmental politics that I believe, when fully developed, will generate a defendable (and testable) general theory of both domestic and international politics on environmental matters, which is ultimately what is needed. Despite the good work of Young especially, I think that deficiencies in the fundamental premises of current IR theory make it an unlikely source useful ideas about international environmental politics. Ecological theory suitably modified, however, is, in my mind, an essential part of a useful general theory of IEP. Good luck with the paper and with your studies. Thank you for your support, Neil -----Original Message----- From: Schoon, Michael L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:40 PM To: Neil E Harrison Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics Neil, My name is Michael Schoon, a soon-to-be doctoral candidate studying under Elinor Ostrom at Indiana University. I am in a jointly administered Ph.D. program split between IU's School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the School of Political Science. My foci in the programs are environmental policy and IR, respectively. I have been struggling with the issues that you mention below and agree with you that there is currently a disconnect between IR and IEP, but I'm not sure that the fault lies with IEP. International relations seems to be excessively focused on conflict, both as a field of study and a method of discourse between scholars. But I am encouraged by the work of people like Oran Young and others who are beginning to bridge the gap between IR and IEP. With regards to the dearth of general theories for the IEP field, I agree and have taken the approach of drawing on either more specific theories (regime theory as appropriate) or more general political science theory (Lasswell's policy sciences for instance) or ecological theory (resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation). While this might not provide much in the way of suggestions going forward, I'm sure that it is one of many responses noting that you are far from alone. I am working with a couple other list members on a paper regarding the challenges of trying to apply IR theory to international environmental issues. If you'd like, I'll let you know how they turn out. Best regards, Michael Schoon Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis Indiana University 513 N. Park St. Bloomington, IN 47405 USA (812) 855-0441 (w) (812) 345-6965 (m) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil E Harrison Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:23 PM To: Maria Ivanova Cc: Geped list (E-mail) Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics Maria: The paucity of responses to my request for sources of work on a general theory in international environmental politics, to my mind speaks volumes about the immaturity and incoherence of the (sub-)field. I received two responses in addition to yours, one from Kate O'Neill and one from Pan Chasek (Pam did not yet answer the question in my response to her), both of which I think went to the whole list. For those who may have missed them, I summarize their suggestions here. Kate O'Neill is working on a manuscript on this topic and suggested three principal sources of discussion on this theory in IEP: Vogler, J. and M. F. Imber, Eds. (1996). The Environment and International Relations. London, Routledge. Redclift, M. and T. Benton, Eds. (1994). Social Theory and the Global Environment. London, Routledge. Paterson, M. (2001). Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Domination, Accumulation, Resistance. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Pam suggested the 4th edition of "Global Environmental Politics" and Regina S. Axelrod, David L. Downie and Norman J. Vig, "The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy," 2nd Ed. You have suggested "Paths to a Green World" by Dauvergne and Clapp. Many other texts may have something to contribute like Eric Laferriere and Peter Stoett, "International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought: Towards a Synthesis" and even Ronnie Lipschutz "Global Environmental Politics: Power, Perspectives, and Practice" but I see a huge need for some theory building to guide the where and how we dig for knowledge on international environmental politics. I have a chapter in Eric Laferriere and Peter Stoett (eds), "Nature and International Relations: Theory and Applications" (forthcoming from UBC Press) that sketches one way to approach a general theory of IEP and other chapters talk to the matter. With respect to your comment that you have to go to the IR literature to deduce theories of success or failure in international environmental politics, I think that you cannot get there from here. In my view, orthodox IR theories are generally inapplicable to the subject matter of IEP. I and several colleagues argue in "Complexity in World Politics" (in press at SUNY) that common IR theories are inappropriate to the study of world politics. Thanks for your interest. It seems to me that there is a need for a collective effort among the small number of us who may be interested in developing a general theory (from ontology to method) of IEP, Cheers, Neil -----Original Message----- From: Maria Ivanova [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 7:54 AM To: Neil E Harrison Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics Dear Neil, I wanted to follow up on your earlier email and suggest Paths to a Green World by Dauvergne and Clapp. It concentrates more on the political economic aspect - trade and environment, investment and environment, etc - but could be a good tool. Pam Chasek's book also covers some theoretical ground and I would be intersted in knowing how she replied to your question regarding the existence of a coherent theory statement. I am myself working on identifying the key theories explaining success and failure in global environmental governance but with little success. Mostly, I have to deduce from the IR literature. If you have any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much, maria Maria Ivanova Department of Government The College of William & Mary Williamsburg, VA 23187 Phone: +1-757-221-2039 Mobile: +1-203-606-4640 Fax: +1-775-908-9340 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wm.edu/government Director, Global Environmental Governance Project Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy New Haven, CT 06511 http://www.yale.edu/gegproject ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil E Harrison Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:34 PM To: Pam Chasek Cc: Geped list (E-mail) Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics Pam: Thanks for your input; you are the first. When you say that the 4th edition "tries to cover this more than the earlier editions" are you suggesting that there are no explicit coherent statements of theory to report or synthesize or that you and your colleagues did not have the space to do this (I have not yet seen this forthcoming book)? Cheers, Neil -----Original Message----- From: Pam Chasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AM To: Neil E Harrison Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics Dear Neil: Did anyone ever respond to your e-mail? The 4th edition of Global Environmental Politics (forthcoming from Westview Press in December) tries to cover this more than the earlier editions did. I also think that David Downie has covered some of this in Regina S. Axelrod, David L. Downie and Norman J. Vig, The Global Environment: Institutions, Law and Policy, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2004) Pam ****************************** Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. Director, International Studies Assistant Professor, Government Manhattan College Riverdale, NY 10471 USA tel: +1-718-862-7248 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****************************** ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil E Harrison Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:50 PM To: Geped list (E-mail) Subject: Theory in International Environmental Politics Gepeders: The recent discussion of bibliographic entries for an Encyclopedia of Green Movements made me think about the ideas that drive gathering of empirical data. I usually have taught the International Environmental Politics class inductively, from case studies with encouragement to the students to think theoretically in drawing generalized conclusions from multiple cases. This latter part of the process is entertaining but not always very fruitful even with my prompting. Perhaps they need some examples of 'meta-theory' in the issue area to chew on much as students in a security course would be fed realism. Do you have any suggestions for a good statement or survey of directly relevant meta-theory for students of international environmental politics to digest? Cheers, Neil Harrison
