Hello Everyone,
I can't help but get at least a little involved in this discussion. I
think that the problem is the "p" in GEP. The focus solely on politics
draws the evolution of the field too close to the orthodoxy of the
political science discipline. Back in the late 1970s I contributed an
article to ISQ titled "The Ecological Perspective in the Social
Sciences" (or something close to that). The argument was for a
theoretical perspective that begins with ecological principles and
locates politics in an interdisciplinary framework. To develop a new
discipline means carving out a new space that hasn't been settled by
someone else. The closer that GEP stays to the political science reward
structure, the more difficult it will be to develop a robust
discipline.
Dennis
>>> Paul Wapner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/30/2005 5:23:30 PM >>>
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
