Dear colleagues If we claim there is a separate GEP theory, could we also alienate ourselves from the IR field - when other IR academics declare that we cannot generalize our theory outside GEP and therefore cannot inform them in their work?
Before we do so, let us consider: Is global environmental politics an issue area of IR so distinct that requires a separate theory of IR? If this is the case, what makes it idiosyncratic? A strong view of its distinctness would be that GEP is so different that IR theoretical propositions generated elsewhere are inapplicable. That is, GEP is not affected by power, configurations of interests or ideational change. A milder and more credible view would be that GEP is affected by other factors AS WELL AS by classical factors. In either case, the central question is what makes GEP different from the politics of human rights or security. This would likely lead us into the literature on issue-characters. Radoslav S. Dimitrov Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Western Ontario Social Science Centre London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2 Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023 Fax +1(519) 661-3904 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:40 pm Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics To: 'Paul Wapner' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Geped list (E-mail)'" <[email protected]> > Paul is right. This is an interesting discussion. > > I'm not altogether sure, however, that it confirms the "immaturity and > incoherence" of the sub-field that Neil boldly asserted last > Sunday. In > fact, some remarkably mature and coherent points of departure that > alreadyexist in the literature make it fairly clear, I think, that > Neil's dream of > a general theory of IEP (or GEP), based on widely (universally?) > accepted"first principles" (Neil's second message to the list on > Monday last) and > capable of generating a "defendable and testable" set of theoretical > propositions (Neil's first message on Monday last) is a distant > prospect. > Take, for example, the notion of a general theory. What is this > theorysupposed to be about? Oran Young has recently written, with > great sympathy > but not much hope for immediate progress, about a general theory of > environmental governance(1). But in the same volume that carries > Young'sessay Peter Dauvergne(2) projects, with evident approval, > that the study of > GEP (or IEP) will quickly move away from a focus on/preoccupation with > explaining governance (or the lack of it) to a focus on explaining > environmental change (and, presumably, what if anything governance > arrangements have to do with that change). > > Dauvergne, based on his analysis of the history of and trends in > research on > GEP, as well as a review of the contents of the handbook he > edited(3), also > anticipates, again with evident approval, that much future research > will not > be empirical in its orientation but normative. An interest in > normativequestions does not, at all, preclude an interest in > empirically testable > propositions. But neither is it, at least as far as Dauvergne is > concerned,an index of immaturity in the sub-field where he and > Neil, and many others, > work. > > I'm also struck by the value of setting a concern for analysis > (testablepropositions derived from a general theory) against a > concern for synthesis > (premised on an acceptance of the view that interesting theories > come in > different shapes and sizes). The two co-exist very happily and, I > think,very productively in an award-winning essay published in > Science at the end > of 2003 and dealing with problems of the global commons, which have > receivedspecific mention in this e-mail thread, and with regime > theory, among > others(4). Indeed, it's such a catholic and appealing survey that > I'vetaken the liberty of attaching a pdf copy. (If it turns out > that the list > doesn't accept and transmit attached files, ask me for a copy). > > Geoffrey. > > (1) Oran Young, Why is there no unified theory of environmental > governance?HANDBOOK OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS 170-184 (Peter > Dauvergne ed. > 2005). > > (2) Peter Dauvergne, Research in global environmental politics: > history and > trends, id. at 8-32. > > (3) Peter Dauvergne, Global environmental politics: handbook topics > andthemes, id at 3-7. > > (4) Thomas Dietz, Elinor Ostrom and Paul Stern, The struggle to > govern the > commons, 302 SCIENCE 1907-1912 (2003). > ---------------------------------- > Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith > Emeritus Professor of Political Science > University of California > Associate Editor/Reviews Editor > <http://www.jiwlp.com/> Journal of International Wildlife Law and > Policy > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul > WapnerSent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:24 PM > To: Ben Cashore > Cc: Geped list (E-mail); Maria Ivanova; Neil E Harrison; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics > > > Hi All, > This has been an interesting discussion. It has made me > think about > analogies in other subfields--is there a grand theory of IPE, Security > Studies, International Ethics? More generally, is there a grand > theory of > IR? > > I've always seen IR as having schools of thought that draw > uponcertain theoretical traditions--e.g., realism, liberalism, > marxism--without > a single, overarching theoretical orientation. The lack of a single > orientation has allowed decades-long debates about which school is > mostappropriate for studying world politics, as each starts from a > different set > of assumptions about the world. Certain schools have been more > dominantthan others (at least in the US)--e.g. neo-variants of > realism and > liberalism--and some have always been marginal--marxism and world > orderstudies. These schools of thought direct us toward certain > phenomena and > questions rather than others. > > Historically, IR has been interested in the relations between > states. Inter-state behavior has traditionally been the > discipline's object > of analysis. The great questions of interstate war, economic > interactionand so forth have been broken down into questions of > inter-state behavior. > How do we account for outcomes among states? The various schools of > thoughtoffer different explanations. (This is not to say that > there aren't other > questions but simply to recognize that the meat of much IR has > always been > interstate conflict, cooperation and so forth.) > > As I see it, IEP has a similar object of analysis. It is > concerned,fundamentally, with inter-state interactions around > environmental issues. > Its founding story is the tragedy of the commons and this has > generated an > industry of thinking about international regimes. Various schools of > thought have tried to explain international environmental regimes, > and these > schools seem to be derivative of those that inform IR more generally. > Regime analysis has produced many useful insights and provides the > point of > departure for many other orientations to IEP. > > To be sure, many have taken issue with this way of framing IEP > (e.g., Paterson, Conca, Lipschutz, etc.) but, to the degree that it > represents a foil against which to argue about how to see global > environmental affairs, it appears as a pretty dominant orientation. > (This > doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't other things to focus on in > global environmental affairs. At the grandest level, I think the > field is > about explaining the causes of environmental harm and the governing > mechanisms that could possibly respond. This inspires many to > focus on > corporate actors, social movements and epistemic communities as > well as > forces like capitalism, patriarchy, anthropocentrism and the like. > Nonetheless, in my view, the center of the field still seems to be > about the > tragedy of the commons and inter-state behavior.) > > One last thing: in saying that IEP has a core object of > analysis is > not to imply that it has a single, overarching theoretical > orientation.Like IR more generally, I'm doubtful that a singular > theoretical frame could > be developed. Moreover, I'm convinced that, even if we could dream > one up, > it would be a mistake to develop it. > > Just some thoughts, > > Paul > > Paul Wapner > Associate Professor > School of International Service > American University > 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW > Washington DC 20016 > (202) 885-1647 > > > > Ben Cashore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 11/28/05 10:48 AM > > > To > "Neil E Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Maria Ivanova" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > cc > "Geped list \(E-mail\)" <[email protected]> > > Subject > RE: Theory in International Environmental Politics > > > > > > > Hi Neil, > > All very interesting. Is there a chapter or paper you could send > that > highlights your argument in "Complexity in World Politics"? > > I think the timing is right to undertake, as you suggest, a > collective effort towards a theory of IEP. > > Best > > Ben > > > > > At 03:23 PM 11/27/2005, Neil E Harrison wrote: > >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 > > Ben Cashore, Associate Professor > School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University > 230 Prospect Street, Room 206, New Haven, CT 06511-2104 > 203 432-3009 (w); 203 464-3977 (cell); 203 432-0026 (fax); > www.yale.edu/environment/cashore; www.yale.edu/forestcertification > > > > > > Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Western Ontario Social Science Centre London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2 Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023 Fax +1(519) 661-3904 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
