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
already exist 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 theory
supposed 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's essay 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
normative questions 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 (testable
propositions 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 received specific mention in this e-mail
thread, and with regime theory, among others(4). Indeed, it's such a
catholic and appealing survey that I've taken 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 and
themes, 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
Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy
__________________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Wapner
Sent: 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 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
