Social Capital, Network Governance and Social Innovation: Towards a New Paradigm?

Limited knowledge and empirical evidence exist so far on how governance is related to social capital, and to comprehensively evaluate the effects of collaborative public-private partnerships in rural development actions, and whether these elements foster socially innovative actions. The book chapter begins to address these knowledge gaps. It highlights the conceptual framework linking social capital and network governance and identifies specific approaches to analysing governance. Moreover, it conceptually identifies the key elements for assessing governance mechanisms in the LEADER approach and explains its adoption in the evaluation method proposed in the book. The chapter concludes by outlining how social capital and governance may support social innovation, a topic which is developed more comprehensively in relation to LEADER's specific contribution in the final chapter of the same book

'Transformations towards sustainability':Emerging approaches, critical reflections, and a research agenda

Over the last two decades researchers have come to understand much about the global challenges confronting human society (e.g. climate change; biodiversity loss; water, energy and food insecurity; poverty and widening social inequality). However, the extent to which research and policy efforts are succeeding in steering human societies towards more sustainable and just futures is unclear. Attention is increasingly turning towards better understanding how to navigate processes of social and institutional transformation to bring about more desirable trajectories of change in various sectors of human society. A major knowledge gap concerns understanding how transformations towards sustainability are conceptualised, understood and analysed. Limited existing scholarship on this topic is fragmented, sometimes overly deterministic, and weak in its capacity to critically analyse transformation processes which are inherently political and contested. This paper aims to advance understanding of transformations towards sustainability, recognising it as both a normative and an analytical concept. We firstly review existing concepts of transformation in global environmental change literature, and the role of governance in relation to it. We then propose a framework for understanding and critically analysing transformations towards sustainability based on the existing ‘Earth System Governance’ framework (Biermann et al., 2009). We then outline a research agenda, and argue that transdisciplinary research approaches and a key role for early career researchers are vital for pursuing this agenda. Finally, we argue that critical reflexivity among global environmental change scholars, both individually and collectively, will be important for developing innovative research on transformations towards sustainability to meaningfully contribute to policy and action over time

Deliverable 3.3 applicability of framework part VI : 1st run application of Strait of Sicily case study

This deliverable D2.2 comprises a manual containing the protocol for the application of the generic framework to the MESMA case studies. The generic framework (deliverable D2.1) is the central document for the subsequent work packages of MESMA. It provides a best practice guide for monitoring and evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas (SMA) in seven distinctive and clearly outlined steps which comprise 1) setting the context, 2) collation of existing information and mapping, 3) setting of targets, 4) risk analysis and state assessment, 5) assessment of findings against operational objectives, 6) evaluation of the effectiveness of management measures and 7) adaptation of the current management regime based on the outcome of the assessments (for details see D2.1). Although the framework has been developed as a generic tool for use by a range of people involved in evaluating SMAs, the first version of the manual was specifically tailored (in certain areas) for use by the case studies (WP3 of MESMA). It was designed to be an aid to the case studies applying the framework. Thus, feedback on the performance of the framework and manual is guiding the production of a revised framework and manual (D2.3) to be delivered in November 2012. The revised versions will be made available to the wider scientific community and management bodies. This document is the third version of the original document D2.2. As outlined in more detail in D2.1, we have identified several links between the WP2 framework on the one hand and a structured governance analysis (WP6) on the other. These links are indicated in the respective framework steps. The MESMA generic framework and manual does not accommodate for a comprehensivec governance analysis. Therefore the MESMA case study research has two streams – the MESMA framework and the governance research analysis. Governance issues in all MESMA case studies will be analysed through the WP6 Governance Analytical Structure. Further guidance on governance research has been developed and is available in a separate document entitled ‘Guidelines for MESMA WP6 Governance Research’. The WP6 governance research essentially aims to address the following questions: 1) What are the governance approaches and incentives being adopted in a given existing initiative with spatial elements, and how effective are the incentives and governance approaches in that particular context in achieving a particular priority objective? 2) What are the potential incentives and governance approaches that could be implemented to improve effectiveness in achieving the specific objective of an existing initiative and addressing related conflicts? 3) How do wider issues, such as top-down/bottom-up balance, inter-sectoral integration and power, cross-border issues, justice and different levels of knowledge, affect the effectiveness of existing initiatives? This ‘two stream’ approach will provide a clear way forward for combining the MESMA framework and governance research to the case studies in an integrated and coherent manner. As a result, in depth governance analysis covered by the governance work package is outlined briefly in the introduction of each framework step together with specific actions which will be largely carried out under the governance research. Further details on the WP6 governance analysis and on how the two streams of work will be linked from a WP6 governance perspective can be found in the document ‘Guidelines for MESMA WP6 Governance Research’, and Appendix 1 of this document shows a visualisation of the linkages between the two streams of work. It should be noted that in order to be able to link and integrate WP2 and WP6 research, both of the following conditions should be met: 1) Both WP2 and WP6 research are about analysing an existing initiative. Such an initiative may be an integrated marine spatial plan or part of the integrated plan; or if there is no integrated marine spatial plan in place, an existing initiative with spatial elements (e.g. sectoral management plan with spatial restrictions) which may be linked or offer valuable lessons to the future development of an integrated marine spatial plan. 2) WP2 and WP6 research should focus on the same priority objective for at least one run of the WP2 framework. The practical implementation of the framework is also linked to specific tools which will be identified and developed in WP4 and the data handling standards specified in WP5. A revised version of the manual should then interlink the actions underneath each framework step with a set of practical tools comprising technical and conceptual tools.peer-reviewe

Application of the MESMA framework. Case study : Strait of Sicily

This deliverable D2.2 comprises a manual containing the protocol for the application of the generic framework to the MESMA case studies. The generic framework (deliverable D2.1) is the central document for the subsequent work packages of MESMA. It provides a best practice guide for monitoring and evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas (SMA) in seven distinctive and clearly outlined steps which comprise 1) setting the context, 2) collation of existing information and mapping, 3) setting of targets, 4) risk analysis and state assessment, 5) assessment of findings against operational objectives, 6) evaluation of the effectiveness of management measures and 7) adaptation of the current management regime based on the outcome of the assessments (for details see D2.1). Although the framework has been developed as a generic tool for use by a range of people involved in evaluating SMAs, the first version of the manual was specifically tailored (in certain areas) for use by the case studies (WP3 of MESMA). It was designed to be an aid to the case studies applying the framework. Thus, feedback on the performance of the framework and manual is guiding the production of a revised framework and manual (D2.3) to be delivered in November 2012. The revised versions will be made available to the wider scientific community and management bodies. This document is the third version of the original document D2.2. As outlined in more detail in D2.1, we have identified several links between the WP2 framework on the one hand and a structured governance analysis (WP6) on the other. These links are indicated in the respective framework steps. The MESMA generic framework and manual does not accommodate for a comprehensivec governance analysis. Therefore the MESMA case study research has two streams – the MESMA framework and the governance research analysis. Governance issues in all MESMA case studies will be analysed through the WP6 Governance Analytical Structure. Further guidance on governance research has been developed and is available in a separate document entitled ‘Guidelines for MESMA WP6 Governance Research’. The WP6 governance research essentially aims to address the following questions: 1) What are the governance approaches and incentives being adopted in a given existing initiative with spatial elements, and how effective are the incentives and governance approaches in that particular context in achieving a particular priority objective? 2) What are the potential incentives and governance approaches that could be implemented to improve effectiveness in achieving the specific objective of an existing initiative and addressing related conflicts? 3) How do wider issues, such as top-down/bottom-up balance, inter-sectoral integration and power, cross-border issues, justice and different levels of knowledge, affect the effectiveness of existing initiatives? This ‘two stream’ approach will provide a clear way forward for combining the MESMA framework and governance research to the case studies in an integrated and coherent manner. As a result, in depth governance analysis covered by the governance work package is outlined briefly in the introduction of each framework step together with specific actions which will be largely carried out under the governance research. Further details on the WP6 governance analysis and on how the two streams of work will be linked from a WP6 governance perspective can be found in the document ‘Guidelines for MESMA WP6 Governance Research’, and Appendix 1 of this document shows a visualisation of the linkages between the two streams of work. It should be noted that in order to be able to link and integrate WP2 and WP6 research, both of the following conditions should be met: 1) Both WP2 and WP6 research are about analysing an existing initiative. Such an initiative may be an integrated marine spatial plan or part of the integrated plan; or if there is no integrated marine spatial plan in place, an existing initiative with spatial elements (e.g. sectoral management plan with spatial restrictions) which may be linked or offer valuable lessons to the future development of an integrated marine spatial plan. 2) WP2 and WP6 research should focus on the same priority objective for at least one run of the WP2 framework. The practical implementation of the framework is also linked to specific tools which will be identified and developed in WP4 and the data handling standards specified in WP5. A revised version of the manual should then interlink the actions underneath each framework step with a set of practical tools comprising technical and conceptual tools.peer-reviewe

Navigating new landscapes : the contribution of socio-legal scholarship in mapping the plurality of international economic law and locating power in international economic relations

The evolution of international economic law in the past two decades has been characterised by the growth and diversification of international economic actors, the expansion in the substantive areas governed by international law, and, crucially, the proliferation of multiple sites of international economic governance. This web of multi-layered international economic governance is, in turn, underpinned by complex dynamics of power which structure the legal and economic relations between the subjects of international economic law and other actors impacted by international legal rules and regulation. The challenge for international legal scholarship lay not only in mapping the multiple sites of international economic governance but also in unmasking the power dynamics inherent in international economic relations. Locating and analysing power relations underlying international economic law is to crucial to understanding the cause and effect of international economic rules and institutions for rulemaking. Conventional legal scholarship with its doctrinal focus, while useful in providing the foundational basis for analysis, cannot adequately capture the complexity of contemporary international economic law. Socio-legal approaches may be able to overcome these epistemological limitations by supplying: a) the methodologies to study international economic law beyond a focus on rules and institutions; and b) the critical theoretical lens to understand the power dynamics inherent in international legal relations. The objective of this paper is twofold: firstly, it will seek to identify the contributions of socio-legal approaches to the study of international economic law; and secondly, it will explore how socio-legal scholarship can provide a methodological and theoretical framework to construct an understanding of the pluralistic nature of international economic regulatory regimes and their underlying dynamics of power. In doing so, the paper will also consider the value of juxtaposing an empirical methodology for mapping legal regimes with a critical normative approach for analysing power relations in international economic law

A theoretical framework for analysing the contribution of education to sustainable peacebuilding: 4Rs in conflict-affected contexts

This paper presents the theoretical and analytic framework for a Research Consortium on Education and Peacebuilding supported by UNICEF’s Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy (PBEA) programme which began in July 2014 led by the Universities of Amsterdam, Sussex and Ulster. The consortium seeks to build knowledge on the relationship between education and peacebuilding in conflict‐affected contexts and has emerged out of a long‐standing relationship between the authors, UNICEF and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Netherlands that stretches back to 2006

Examining the interaction between vertical and horizontal dimensions of state transformation

Two dimensions of state transformation often analysed separately can be identified as vertical authority shifts between different levels of government and horizontal authority transfers between state and non-state domains. This article firstly reviews three existing approaches that highlight links between vertical and horizontal state transformation: multi-level governance, policy networks and sections of the rescaling literature. However, these approaches do not yet provide a framework sufficient to enable a more thorough and detailed examination of the relationship between these two dimensions. The article thus proceeds to develop a multifaceted framework in order to facilitate further research into this relationship, a necessity if we are to understand more fully whether vertical and horizontal authority shifts complement or contradict one another within the transformation of the state's role in governing society and economy

Managing technological transitions: prospects, places, publics and policy

Transition management (TM) approaches have generated considerable interest in academic and policy circles in recent years (Kemp and Loorbach, 2005; Rotmans and Kemp, 2003). In terms of a loose definition, a ‘transition can be defined as a gradual, continuous process of structural change within a society or culture’ (Rotmans et al, 2001, p.2). The development of TM, much of which has occurred within the context of the Netherlands, may be seen as a response to the complexities, uncertainties and problems which confront many western societies, in organising ‘sustainably’ various aspects of energy, agricultural, water, transport and health systems of production and consumption. Problems such as pollution, congestion, the vulnerability of energy or water supplies and so on are seen as systemic and entwined or embedded in a series of social, economic, political, cultural and technological relationships. The systemic nature of many of these problems highlights the involvement - in the functioning of a particular system and any subsequent transition - of multiple actors or ‘stakeholders’ across different local, national and international scales of activity. With this in mind, such problems become difficult to ‘solve’ and ‘solutions’ are seen to require systemic innovation rather than individual or episodic responses. The point being that ‘these problems are system inherent and… the solution lies in creating different systems or transforming existing ones’ (Kemp and Loorbach, 2005, p.125). In this paper we critically engage with and build upon transitions approaches to address their ‘applicability’ in the context of the UK. In doing this the paper addresses the prospective potential of transitions approaches, but also their relative neglect of places and publics. Through developing an argument which addresses the strengths and ‘gaps’ of transitions approaches we also analyse the resonances and dissonances between three themes – cities and regions, public participation and national hydrogen strategy – in the transitions literature and the UK policy context