摘要 :
When regulators are faced with practical challenges, policy instrument choice theories can help them find the best solution. However, not all such theories are equally helpful. This paper aims to offer regulators a better alternat...
展开
When regulators are faced with practical challenges, policy instrument choice theories can help them find the best solution. However, not all such theories are equally helpful. This paper aims to offer regulators a better alternative to the current policy instrument choice theories. We will specifically address the shortcomings of "smart regulation theory" and present an alternative that keeps the best of that theory while remediating its weak points. Some authors (Bocher and Toller 2003; Baldwin and Black 2008) say that smart regulation theory does not address institutional issues, compliance type-specific response, performance-sensitivity and adaptability of regulatory regime. We have resolved these problems by merging the smart regulation theory with the policy arrangement approach and the policy learning concept. We call the resulting approach "regulatory arrangement approach" (RAA). The central idea of the RAA is to constrain the almost infinite "smart" regulatory options by: the national policy style; adverse effects of policy arrangements of adjoining policies; the structure of the policy arrangement of the investigated policy and competence dependencies of other institutions. The reduction can be so drastic that the potential governance capacity falls below the smart regulation threshold. In other words, no smart regulatory arrangement can be developed in that institutional context unless policy learning occurs. In addition, a "smart" regulatory arrangement is no guarantee that the policy will succeed. For this reason, the performance of the regulatory arrangement is measured and evaluated. Performance below a certain threshold indicates that the regulatory arrangement needs to be adapted, which then results in policy learning.
We illustrate the usefulness of this new approach with a secondary analysis of the Flemish sustainable forest management policy.
收起
摘要 :
European agri-environment programmes are based on the common principle that farmers deliver environmental services for which society pays. Due to the voluntary nature of agri-environment measures (AEM), the issue of farmers' motiv...
展开
European agri-environment programmes are based on the common principle that farmers deliver environmental services for which society pays. Due to the voluntary nature of agri-environment measures (AEM), the issue of farmers' motives or reasons for participation has been an important topic of investigation in past years. The present paper examines farmers' rationale for participation in AEM against the backdrop of continued debate over whether to develop relatively simple measures that can be readily applied by many farmers or give greater priority to measures that are more targeted - i.e. to the specific management requirement of particular habitats or species - but are often more complex. The paper draws on empirical material from a case study in the Dyle valley, Belgium, including in-depth interviews, expert consultations and a mail survey. It was sought not only to identify and quantify the importance of separate reasons for participation, but also to reveal how these reasons and other elements of relevance were logically interrelated in the explanation that farmers themselves give for their participation. As a result, six modes or styles of participation were identified: opportunistic, calculative, compensatory, optimising, catalysing and engaged. The analyses suggest that there were notable differences in that both separate reasons for and modes of participation do vary with the complexity of the measures' requirements. Overall, the study demonstrates that participation in AEM is not simply a matter of weighing the money against the effort for adoption. Whereas money is an important driver for participation (in particular, for those adopting complex AEM) it plays widely differing roles depending on the level of farmers' reasoning (farm enterprise, single practice or landscape feature) and the importance they give to other considerations (environmental effect, production potential of land, goodness of fit, etc.). Practical implications are drawn for both policy makers and programme managers who develop and make available tailor-made support.
收起
