hi all Likewise, an interesting discussion I think. I think Paul's points towards the end of his mail are particularly pertinent. I would (re)read them as saying that when we ask a question 'is there some sort of 'meta-theory' of IEP', one of the things at stake is what is the question to which such a theory ought to be the answer? in Paul's treatment, I would see two sort of questions - a narrow one which starts from the tragedy of the commons metaphor and then analyses its political dynamics, and a broader one 'about explaining the causes of environmental harm and the governing mechanisms that could possibly respond'. I think Paul is right that the narrower one is still for many the defining element in the field, but he is wrong to suggest in essence that the narrower one can be regarded as simply a narrower resolution of the broader one in a particualr manner. i.e. the dominant version precisely does not try to 'explain the causes of environmental harm', but rather precisely abstracts away from such causes. To my mind, we absolutely have to try to be explicit about such causes, as it makes an enormous difference to how we evaluate differing governance mechanisms which 'could possibly respond'.
More prosaically, to respond to Neil Harrison's original question, I would point to Julian Saurin's pieces, both in the Vogler and Imber edited collection mentioned, and a piece called "Global environmental degradation, modernity and environmental knowledge." Environmental Politics. 2:4 1994. Cheers Mat > 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 upon > certain 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 most appropriate for studying world politics, as each starts > from a different set of assumptions about the world. Certain schools have > been more dominant than others (at least in the US)--e.g. neo-variants of > realism and liberalism--and some have always been marginal--marxism and > world order studies. 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 > interaction and so forth have been broken down into questions of > inter-state behavior. How do we account for outcomes among states? The > various schools of thought offer 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 > > > > >
