Content uploaded by Hans Bressers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hans Bressers on May 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
I
ntegrative
S
ystems and the
B
oundary
P
roblem
Contextual Interaction Theory and the issue of boundary definition:
Governance and the motivation, cognitions and resources of actors
Contribution to theoretical framework ISBP
January 29, 2007
Hans Bressers
January 2007
CSTM
Institute for Governance Studies
University of Twente
The Netherlands
2
Table of contents:
List of figures.................................................................................................2
Preface ...........................................................................................................3
1. Introduction: an interpretation of the ISBP project ................................4
2. Arrows, processes and actors: mapping social domains......................6
3. Contextual Interaction Theory: a layered explanation of social
processes.....................................................................................................11
4. Types of boundary judgments ...............................................................18
5. Studying boundary judgments and their impacts................................22
6. Strategies for managing boundary judgments.....................................25
Glossary.......................................................................................................27
References...................................................................................................29
Appendices..................................................................................................31
List of figures
Figure 1, Basic model ISBP – 1.................................................................................. 4
Figure 2, Basic model ISBP – 2.................................................................................. 5
Figure 3, Basic inputs – process – outputs scheme.................................................... 6
Figure 4, Interactions in an arena form a process....................................................... 7
Figure 5, Interaction process as link between phenomena......................................... 7
Figure 6, Process model with actors out for graphical reasons .................................. 8
Figure 7, Model of a relevant policy domain for environmental consequences of
consumption................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 8, Schematic overview of a domain and (intended) policy action .................... 9
Figure 9, Zooming in into the map of a social domain (graphical representation)..... 10
Figure 10, Process model with the actor characteristics used in Contextual
Interaction Theory..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 11, Dynamic interaction between the key actor-characteristics that drive
social-interaction processes and in turn are reshaped by the process ..................... 12
Figure 12, Layers of contextual factors for actor characteristics............................... 14
Figure 13, Central research model of the Euwareness study................................... 16
Figure 14, Three dimensions of sustainable development that require integration and
are thus relevant for boundary judgments................................................................. 19
Figure 15, Multiple process model as part of an infinite fabric.................................. 20
Figure 16, Domain boundary perceptions:................................................................ 21
3
Preface
This document is the “report on the analytical framework and methodology to be delivered to
WP1”, that was originally foreseen in the ISBP project plan, but later skipped as a
deliverable, since it is risky to promise an official deliverable after only three months.
Nevertheless the agreement was made in Stockholm that a Twente contribution to ISBP’s
theoretical approach would be welcomed at this early stage.
The report integrates some my work on process analysis and the “mapping” of social
domains, the elaboration of a governance concept as an expansion of the concept of policy,
contextual interaction theory (with its roots in policy instruments and implementation
research), methodological features of the Euwareness project, and ongoing studies at
CSTM, predominantly those on water management.
Like our research topics, this document has a domain of its own. Let’s specify some of its
boundaries. While the project as a whole is meant to deliver empirical and practical results,
this report is meant to be largely theoretical. Thereby it is by no means a proposal for a sort
of theoretical constitution for the ISBP project. I see it as complementary and supplementary
to Nick Winder’s excellent ISBP discussion paper. In this respect it’s only purpose is to share
some ideas in the hope it might be one of several sources of inspiration for team members. It
makes explicit some of my current thinking with relevance to the project and in that way
should enable fruitful exchanges with other team members. This implies that the text is not
“finished” and probably never will be. It is more a portfolio of ideas in evolution, with this
ISBP report as an intermediate version. Furthermore it is not my intention that it will
ultimately become a joint ISBP-team document, implying that it’s further development would
be increasingly “negotiated text”.
Nevertheless I welcome any comments, needed clarifications and suggestions and am open
to any suggestions for co-authored papers that can be partially based on this text (and
wherein some “negotiated text” would be just fine).
Hans Bressers
Enschede, January 2007
4
1. Introduction: an interpretation of the ISBP project
ISBP addresses questions like:
- How to make people cooperate when knowledge perception differs?
- How to stimulate convergence of stakeholders towards cohesion and compliance?
- How to set boundaries of social systems and problems without negatively affecting
social cohesion?
Such questions are especially relevant in the empirical domain of conflicting demands on life
support systems, both cultural and natural, where sustainable development issues are at
stake. (The terms in italics are described in the glossary.)
Natural and cultural resources often have rival uses and users. A use is rival to another use
in as far as it decreases the usefulness of the resource for that other use. This rivalry can be
both homogeneous and heterogeneous. A rivalry because of homogeneous use can for
instance occur when upstream farmers use too much water from a river for irrigation, so that
downstream farmers are left with nothing. The same example illustrates heterogeneous
rivalry when one considers nature as a user too. Another example of a possible rivalry is the
heterogeneous use by tourists and worshippers of old churches.
Rivalries as these call for more integrative governance to protect resources while balancing
the manifold stakes of different actors and at different spatio-temporal scales. Challenging
European policy innovations, like the WFD that sets new standards for the protection or even
reconstruction of natural water resources, can only meet compliance when such integrated
governance evolves. While no actor has control of all the resources and behavioural options
that are jointly necessary to answer such challenges, this means that mutual adaptation and
– often negotiated – coordination are prerequisites.
The first basic model of ISBP could therefore be visualised as such:
Figure 1, Basic model ISBP – 1
In the study the emphasis will be on the first identified relationship. In fact the development
of more integral governance regimes that include the innovation is a potential change over
time. This is visualised in the next figure. The second relationship will not be at the core of
the research since there is ample theoretical and empirical support for this assumption.
Nevertheless the case studies will provide many illustrations of the correlation between the
last boxes (or the counterfactuals of course).
The first relationship is elaborated by two intervening factors. The first, the boundary
judgments on the relevant system and problem, is central to the project and is seen as the
Compliance to
or full use of
(policy)
innovation
Convergence:
Integrated
governance
(European
policy)
Innovation
5
basis for the conceptual models with which actors interpret observations as belonging or not
to the system or problem and thus relevant in that respect. Divergent boundary judgments
hamper the inclusion of the (policy) innovation in all elements of governance, beginning with
the cognitive (knowledge) aspects of them. Next, but in interaction with boundary judgments,
the receptivity of actors – people, groups or organisations – influences the way in and the
degree to which the innovation is reflected in governance becoming more integrative (Jeffrey
& Seaton 2003/4). The receptivity is not only dependent on the degree of exposure to new
knowledge, but also more specifically on the way the actor can associate and exploit new
knowledge around existing knowledge, activities and objectives. This requires that the actor
“lets the outside coming in”, opening and regrouping understandings to include reckoning
with the new knowledge. This can be seen as an unbounding and rebounding process, for
which a further cultural context matters. All this leads to figure 2.
Figure 2, Basic model ISBP – 2
Compliance to
or full use of
(policy)
innovation
(European
policy)
Innovation
Convergence:
Change
towards
Integrated
Governance
Organisational
or individual
receptivity
(adaptive
capacity)
Boundary
j
udgments
(definitions of
systems and
problems)
(Other) Cultural determinants
(affecting the degree of cultural lock-in of
relevant actors, like e.g. discourses)
6
2. Arrows, processes and actors: mapping social domains
The sort of “social phenomena” that are addressed in the ISBP project, are still often studied,
like e.g. in many economic studies, with the help of more or less mechanical theories of full
reality, often supported by linear quantitative modelling. In fact there is nothing wrong with
this. I also used boxes connected by arrows to visualise the structure of ISBP in figures 1
and 2. But only as long as one realizes that this is just one of many possible abstractions of
reality that hence has it limitations.
The same in fact holds for more interpretative and social constructivist studies. In fact since
post-modernism and the ‘argumentative turn’ in policy studies this approach can be seen as
dominant is several disciplines. However also these studies have their limitations. There is
no one-size-fits-all in social science.
In this report I choose with the same modesty for an approach that I regard as striving for a
middle position (cf. Quade 1980). Trying to be as parsimonious and deductive as possible,
while also trying not to shut out relevant factors too easily. The main text will display lots of
figures to illustrate my points. There will also be references to separate appendices in which
certain features are more elaborated.
While cause-arrow-effect representations tend to make the reader forget that it are human
beings and their organizations that in fact process “causes” into “effects I choose a process
model for our relations. Below a basic input – process – output scheme:
Figure 3, Basic inputs – process – outputs scheme
The concept of “process” is here not used in one of its two common meanings: “change over
time” (such “processes” are visualised like the Convergence box in figure 2), but in the
meaning of conversion process, like for instance in the famous early political science model
by David Easton. A conversion process is not a change of a phenomenon, but something
that forms the relationship between phenomena
1
.
Several inputs are in such a process “processed” into something new and different. Since in
social reality this conversion is not produced by e.g. production lines, but by activities and
interactions of actors (people, representing themselves and/or organisations), they are
specified as “interaction processes”.
1
Nick Winder’s concept of process seems to encompass both meanings (Winder 2006: 5)
Process
Inputs Outputs
7
Such interactions take place in what is often labelled an “arena”, of which the boundaries –
issues, actors, (inter)actions in a certain space-time “envelope” - are explicitly or implicitly
specified by common agreement or else will be in flux.
Interactions: Arena:
Figure 4, Interactions in an arena form a process
The resulting scheme looks then as such:
Figure 5, Interaction process as link between phenomena
The interactions are visualised here as based on two actors. Of course in many interaction
processes there are more active actors. So to some extent this representation is only
symbolic. On the other hand: while in many processes multiple issues are at stake, in many
cases per issue
there will be two sides, only two groups of actors.
In many of the process models that I use I give the actors separate places outside of the
process box to make it possible to add more actors and specify the relations between them.
Interaction
process
Actor Actor
Inputs Outputs
Process
Actor Actor
8
Figure 6, Process model with actors out for graphical reasons
This can include network actors that do not take part directly in the process, but are relevant
in other ways as background actors, for instance by providing inputs for motivation, sources
of information and interpretation (cognitions) or support with resources (capacity and power).
This is for example done in this model on the possible points of action for integrated policy
schemes for the sake of limiting the environmental implications of consumer behaviour
(Bressers and Ligteringen 2007). Of course that can also be multiple actors attached to each
process.
Figure 7, Model of a relevant policy domain for environmental consequences of consumption
Process
Actor Actor
Producers
Production
Consumers
‘Social Network’
Distributors Collectors Treatment Firms
Products
Buying
&
Selling
Purchased
Products
Use
Used
Products
& Waste
Disposal
&
Collection
Collected
Waste
Waste
Treatment
Context Context Context Context
Context
9
The model also shows the selectivity that arises from its projected use. Of course all
processes identified have more inputs and outputs than specified, that have an impact on
more processes that are not included in the scheme. Making a model is a sort of boundary
judgment. The other way around, boundary judgments can be represented by such mental
“maps”.
In this way it is possible to develop extensive maps of relevant social realities that enable to
indicate the various conceivable domain boundaries. Relevant deliberate interventions by
purposeful actors (for instance, but not exclusively by governments) could be included in
such visualisation by attaching the direct outputs of their action to the targeted processes in
society that the model discerns. This is visualised in figure 8. (A stepwise elaboration of this
method of ‘mapping’ policies and their domain is not yet available in English, only in Dutch).
Figure 8, Schematic overview of a domain and (intended) policy action
The domain is here a series of three processes in society in this case: V1 – V3, and their
outputs – elements of the system). The figure also shows the goals with these elements that
are specified in a certain policy or other intended action, the intended extra inputs to the
relevant processes as specified in this (intended) action (the Bv’s), and the processes and
intermediate outputs that are necessary to support these. (Actors are not shown separately
in this graph.)
When in this way processes are identified that are regarded as relevant to the study, there
are still various options to deal with them. The first way is the recognize the process
character, but nevertheless deal with the relation between phenomena that this process
produces as merely a causal relationship, for instance for the purpose of quantitative
modelling (the “back to the arrow” approach). A second way of analysing such process is to
further divide the process up into sub-processes and sub-elements. This way one “zooms in”
into the part of the domain one wishes to concentrate the analysis on. In fact there is no
‘right’ of ‘wrong’ level of abstraction. Like with geographical maps it is just what serves the
purposes of the user best.
10
Figure 9 illustrates this approach graphically, again without presenting the actors involved
separately.
Figure 9, Zooming in into the map of a social domain (graphical representation)
While zooming in can reveal more detail in description it does not really provide a means of
explanatory analysis. As an alternative for quantitative analysis and modelling a more
qualitative actor-oriented approach, that could start at each level chosen, would be the third
option to analyse processes. This approach often signals also the start of a more
interpretative and less explanatory method of analysis. Again I suggest a middle position
here, as is explained in Appendix 1, pp. 287-292.
In the next section I will further explain how I approach the explanation of social interaction
processes.
11
3. Contextual Interaction Theory: a layered explanation of social processes
There are zillions of factors conceivable that might influence the course and outputs of an
interaction process. Fifteen factors, each with only two values, define nevertheless more
than 30.000 different combinations of circumstances
2
. But since all influences flow via the
actors involved it is possible to set an inner core of factors that is far more parsimonious, at
least to begin with. In the next figure I include these factors. To be able to present the next
theoretical points more clearly, I’ll keep the actors graphically in the process, were they
“belong”, as much as possible.
Figure 10, Process model with the actor characteristics used in Contextual Interaction
Theory
The basic assumptions of Contextual Interaction Theory are quite simple and
straightforward. There is a dynamic interaction between the key actor-characteristics that
drive social-interaction processes and in turn are reshaped by the process.
Assumptions:
- Policy processes are actor interaction processes
- Many factors have an influence but only because and in as far as they change
relevant characteristics of the involved actors
- A first layer of such factors is specified in the boxes of the figure 9 below, including
how they influence the core actor characteristics. Of course these factors can in turn
be influenced by numerous other factors from within or outside the process.
- These characteristics are: their motivation, their cognitions (information held to be
true) and their capacity and power (see Appendix 1, p. 14 and Appendix 2, pp. 13-
14).
- These three characteristics are influencing each other, but cannot be restricted to two
or one without loosing much insight.
2
Of course, computer models could handle this. The point is however how to make sense
theoretically of the different impacts of combinations of so many and mostly qualitative factors.
Furthermore the ‘module’-like solution to this complexity presented below proves to be far more
flexible for different uses in analysis.
Arena:
Process
Actor
Motives
Cognitions
Resources
Actor
Motives
Cognitions
Resources
12
- The characteristics of the actors shape the process, but are in turn also influenced by
the course and experiences in the process and can therefore gradually change
during the process.
- The characteristics of the actors are also influence from an external context of the
governance regime (a/o. institutions and more or less stable network relationships)
(represented further below in figure 12).
- Around this context there is yet another more encompassing circle of political, socio-
cultural, economical, technological and problem contexts (represented further below
in figure 12).
Below, in figure 11, many theorems and other ideas are employed that are not elaborated
upon in this text. Nevertheless many relations will be understandable. Compared to previous
ones this figure does also show process development (change processes – in the form of
the processes over time). The actor characteristics are much more elaborated here, not
visualised as linked to specific actors and for the same reasons as I sometimes do with the
actors, placed outside of the process boxes. This enables also to show the mutual influence
between these factors and the process itself.
Figure 11, Dynamic interaction between the key actor-characteristics that drive social-
interaction processes and in turn are reshaped by the process
Motivation
Own goals and values
External pressures
Self-effectiveness
assessment
Capacity
& Power
A
ttribution by others
Resources available and
accessible
Cognitions
Interpretations
Frames of reference
Observations of reality
Interaction
process
Strategic value
Focusing of attention,
e.g. selective perception
Data search &
processing capacity
T1
T2
T3
Relevance of resources
for intended action
A
vailability of resources
for intended action
Opportunities and
threats
13
In this figure it is in “cognitions” box in this model that boundary judgments are included. To
some extent such judgments can be regarded as having direct effects on the process, for
instance when matters arise as who one want to deal with – thereby recognising such actor
as legitimate player. To some extent is can also be seen and a frame of reference, a filter
that creates more receptivity to some information that for other. From the figure also a data-
gathering and classifying methodology can be derived to assess the way new information is
met with receptivity or not (see section 5).
Other frames of reference are termed by Axelrod (1976) as “cognitive maps”, by Schön
(1983) as “frames”, by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) as “policy core beliefs” and “deep
core beliefs”. Dryzek (1997) speaks of “discourses”, thereby also stressing the language
dependency of understanding and the role of word, one-liners, stories and the like to guide,
but also to restrict and bias understanding. Williams and Matheny (1995) discern a
managerial, a pluralist and a communitarian discourses when studying waste facilities siting.
In the Dutch case studies the original division of Dryzek, a division in an expert, market and
people discourse will be used (Dryzek 1997: 63-119).
For processes in which – if necessary per issue or sub-process – two sides or groups of
actors can be recognised and that are triggered by a certain given “task” as one of the inputs
(so processes that at least to some extent can be labelled implementation processes) a
specification of this model has been produced that includes hypotheses for each
combination of circumstances (see Appendix 1, also other backgrounds of this theory can be
found there). With this feature Contextual Interaction Theory goes beyond well known
models like the IAD (Institutional Analysis and Design framework) of Elinor Ostrom (1986,
1999), that specify contextual variables for the “action arena”, but does not specify how
these will impact the course and outcomes of the process; and the ACF (Advocacy Coalition
Framework) of Paul Sabatier (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999) that mentions relevant
contextual factors, but concentrates in it elaboration only on the development of policy
beliefs and the network formation between actors. On the other hand Fritz Scharpf (1997)
does elaborate his “games” in a way that predicts the course and result of the process.
However the specifics of implementation situations do not get much attention and the power
factor is hardly elaborated, the emphasis is on the ‘orientations’ of the actors (what I would
call motivation).
The institutional, network and other contexts are represented in contextual interaction theory
as factors that influence the motivation, cognitions and resources of the actors involved (in
fact are only influential in as far as they do). When the boxes with actor characteristics are
folded back in the process, there is room to visualise the further contexts as assumed in
Contextual Interaction Theory. Figure 12 shows these contexts as overlapping entities. The
figure can be best read from right to left, implying that each step leftwards gives a context for
the previous step, while not excluding the possibility of direct impacts of the broader
contexts.
Note that in this figure there is also an arrow back from the process to its layered inputs.
While I earlier stated that I take processes as primarily conversion processes this does not
imply that both the inputs (context) and the nature of the process will not also change over
time. On the contrary, it is likely that this change is also partially produced by the same
process(es) that is/are impacted by these factors. This is relevant for ISBP since the
emphasis in this project is not on the direct products of the processes involved, like whether
a nature area is actually restored, but on the relationship between evolving boundary
judgments and the convergence (“harmonising institutions” in the proposal, in our model
linked to the structural context) needed to make full use of (policy) innovations. So the
boundary judgments of the actors as part of their cognitions, not only influence the ongoing
process in the case under study, but also are both shaped by the implicit boundary
judgments in all three levels of contexts, and (re)shape them somewhat in turn. Thus the
14
process not only “produces” a certain degree of compliance with or good use of the
(European policy) innovation, but also influences to a certain degree the contexts under
which it develops.
Figure 12, Layers of contextual factors for actor characteristics
All kinds of processes can be studied this way. Not only the processes of implementation of
a certain policy like the national policies that stem from the WFD. But also the re-creation of
the structural regime context (governance & property and use rights) itself. All social
processes simultaneously convert specific inputs into outputs, but also are both influenced
by more encompassing contexts as input and might change these to some extent at the
same time.
In this way the process is not only influenced by the layers of context that are specified, but
also influences the contexts. For instance, when within the “Networks and actors” element of
governance there is a strong pressure of “policy brokers”, this could increase the likelihood
that actors in the process absorb new knowledge and that they are able to adapt boundary
judgments to new circumstances. Policy brokers are actors that have process oriented goals
rather than contents oriented goals, and for that reason are more concerned with for
instance the speed and consensus of decision making than with the precise contents of the
Process
A
ctor
Motives
Cognitions
Resources
A
ctor
Motives
Cognitions
Resources
(Possible)
specific inputs
:
- Goals
- Instruments
- Resources
- Time choices
Structural context
:
Governance:
- Levels & scales
- Networks & actors
- Perspectives &
goal ambitions
- Strategies &
instruments
- Responsibilities
and resources for
implementation
+
Property & use
rights
Wider
contexts:
Problem
context
Political context
Economic
context
Cultural context
Technological
context
15
decision
3
. Some authors also discern alternative “adaptive networks” to the usual “power
networks”. Here – freed from short term gain oriented debate – innovative ideas could
develop that can be brought back into the power networks once they proved sufficiently
attractive for creating win-win opportunities or breaking stalemates (Nooteboom 2006).
Creating such pathways is an important aspect of what is labelled “transition management”
in the Netherlands (Rotmans a/o. 2001).
Some partners in the ISBP team have worked with the factors that are specified in figure 13
under “Governance” in the EU - Aquadapt project. They are based on an analysis of
governance and policy studies literature and stem from a book on “Governance across
social scales” (2003, see Appendices 2 and 3, for more backgrounds and specification,
including the change model that is associated with it and where motivation, cognitions and
resources play an important role, and for references to the literature used).
In the following brief overview (taken from the original text) the “elements of governance” are
specified in a number of questions that are derived from the literature from which this
governance concept is developed:
A model of governance in five elements
(1) Levels and scales of governance
Where? – Multi-level
Which levels of governance dominate policy and the debate on conducting policy, and in
which relations? What is the relation with the administrative levels of government? Who
decides or influences such issues? How is the interaction between the various administrative
levels arranged?
(2) Actors in the policy network
Who? – Multi-actor
How open is the policy arena in theory and practice, and to whom? Who is actually involved
and with what exactly? What is their position? What is the accepted role for government?
Which actors have relevant ownership and use rights or are stakeholders in some other
capacity (including policy-implementing organisations)? What is the structural inclination to
co-operate among actors in the network? Are their ‘coalitions’ formed across social
positions? Are there actors among them who operate as process brokers or ‘policy
entrepreneurs’? What is the position of the general public versus experts versus politicians
versus implementers?
(3) Problem perception and policy objectives
What and why? – Multi-faceted
What are the dominant maps of reality? What is seen as a problem and how serious is this
considered to be? What do people see as the causes of the problem? Is the problem
considered to be a problem for individuals or a problem for society at large? Why are the
previous questions seen that way: what values and other preferences are considered to be
at stake? Which functions are allocated to the sector? Is the problem seen as a relatively
new and challenging topic or as a ‘management’ topic without much political ‘salience’? To
what degree is uncertainty accepted? Where are the recognised points of intervention? What
relations with other policy fields are recognised as co-ordination topics? Which policy
objectives are accepted? What are levels to which policy makers aspire (ambition) in
absolute terms (level of standards) and relative terms (required changes in society)?
3
Such brokers could also be labelled “boundary spanning” people. Calling them “intermediaries” is
right to indicate the role that they play, but might be misleading as it seems to indicate a certain type
of persons or organisations, instead of for instance a powerful hierarchically “higher” authority that
chooses itself to play such role.
16
(4) Strategy and instruments
How? – Multi-instrument
Which instruments belong to the policy strategy? What are the characteristics of these
instruments? What are the target groups of the policy and what is the timing of its
application? How much flexibility do the instruments provide? To what extent are multiple
and indirect routes to action used? Are changes in the ownership and use rights within the
sector anticipated? To what extent do they provide incentives to ‘learn’? What requirements
do they place on the availability of resources for implementation? How are the costs and
benefits of the policy distributed?
(5) Responsibilities and resources for implementation
With what? – Multi-resource-based
Which actors (including government organisations) are responsible for implementing the
policy? What is the repertoire of standard reactions to challenges known to these
organisations? What authority and other resources are made available to these actors by the
policy? With what restrictions?
This concept of governance was previously a/o. also used extensively in an EU 5
th
framework study on changing regimes for water management in Europe (“Euwareness” –
see Appendices 4a, 4b and 4c for more backgrounds and specification). The research model
that was used in the that study is represented below. The main idea was that when regimes
(compare the structural context in figure 12) become more integrated (in terms of scope and
coherence of its elements) this enlarges the chance for more sustainable resource use.
Figure 13, Central research model of the Euwareness study
External Change Agents
Institutional Resource
and Conditions
Regime
Change agents:
European Union policy and
Regime changes Property & use
National policy and regime rights
Changes
Problem pressure
Other
Conditions
:
Tradition of cooperation Elements of
Joint problem Public Governance
Joint chance
Credible alternative threat
Institutional interfaces
S R
U E
S S
T O
A U
I R
N of C
A E
B
I U
L S
I E
T
Y
17
This figure might cause some confusion when compared with the above model of layers of
context factors. The “change agents” of the Euwareness model can be regarded
predominantly as a selection of aspects of the wider contexts in terms of figure 12. They
were selected for pragmatic reasons without additional theoretical considerations. The
“conditions” that are mentioned in the left box of figure 13 can be regarded as specific
aspects of the structural context at time 0 that influence the process that leads to the change
of this context in later phases. They were selected on the basis of other studies on
conditions for successful cooperation, like the successful formulation and implementation of
environmental negotiated agreements. The ‘tradition of cooperation’ is an aspect of the
network relations, the ‘joint problem perception’ of the perspectives on the problem, the’ joint
chances perception’ of the related goal ambitions, the ‘credible alternative threat’ of the
relationship between levels and the responsibilities for implementation and the ‘institutional
interfaces’ contain various issues that relate to the structural and wider contexts.
For the way change agents, or perturbations, do or do not “succeed” to change the
governance regime, Appendix 2, at pages 10-18, emphasizes that although nowadays most
attention is paid to the cognitive perspective (cf. e.g. Fischer and Forrester 1993, see also
Howlett and Ramesh 1998), a balanced approach should include a motivational and
resource / power oriented perspective.
18
4. Types of boundary judgments
To enable (European policy) innovations to be integrated in coherent governance and
ultimately to be fully used or complied with, boundary judgments should be both sufficiently
similar among the actors involved and sufficiently flexible. There is an optimum here. Too
much consensus on the boundaries of the domain might shut out new information from
outside the specified domain that poses challenges that could have been better integrated in
time. So it decreases instead of increases the resilience of the regime. Too much flexibility
could lead to so much changeability and flux that it frustrates joint action and is this way
decreases the resilience of the regime and its capacity to fully respond to the (policy)
innovation.
In an earlier publication on dealing with uncertainty on both problems and solutions in
sustainability matters I showed that there is no escape from “learning while doing” and that
the contexts to stimulate such learning requires and “uneasy marriage” of both sufficient
openness to let new disturbing knowledge and challenges in and sufficient capacity for
consensus building or at least accepted decision making (Arentsen, Bressers and O’Toole
2000, cf. the participative and integrative political system capabilities of Jänicke 1997: 18).
Emphasis on one extreme is detrimental for the sufficiency of the other. The same
optimalization is required here.
But having said this: what kind of boundaries are we talking about? Where do they play a
role? When I relate the last question to figure 12, I can discern at least three places where
boundary judgments are made:
- they are part of the cognitions of the actors involved in an interaction process, where
they can be conscious and unconscious;
- they are explicitly or implicitly implied in possible specific inputs to the process (policy
documents or project plans and the like);
- they are explicitly or implicitly implied in each of the five discerned elements of
governance and in the property and use rights deemed relevant for the issue(s) at
stake.
The dimensions that can be used to delineate the boundaries of the domain are specified in
figure 14.
- A domain can be regarded as fitting one scale and therewith often also one level of
relevant actors
4
, or alternatively more than one scale.
- A domain can be regarded as a relatively narrow bundle of relevant aspects or as
wide as even encompassing several sectors that are often viewed as domains in
there own right.
5
- A domain can be regarded as stretching over an rather limited period or alternatively
as a permanent evolution far into the future.
To illustrate the above with the example of a water management project:
- A local project to raise the water level of a bog, creating relatively wet meadowland
between this bog and the next one, can be regarded as purely local, but also as part
of a national policy to create an ecological infrastructure of vital and linked nature
areas, or as implementation of European habitat protection policies. Actors and
procedures that are regarded as relevant will differ accordingly.
4
Not always equivalent, think for instance of the river basin scale of the WFD that does often not
coincides with administrative levels and actors.
5
Note that while in Tigris the spacio-temporal dimensions were emphasized here also the sectoral
dimension is included. (Tough Oxley and ApSimon (2006) recently also integrate subjects (sectors) in
the spatio-temporal area, page 12 and figure 3.)
19
- The same project can be seen as a purely water management affair but also to
include nature policy (quite obvious here, but still not always accepted), recreational
and tourism policy, revitalisation of the rural economy, land use planning, etceteras.
Actors and procedures that are regarded as relevant will differ accordingly.
- The same project can be seen in project terms with clear beginning and completion
dates, or as an ongoing and permanent effort to improve the quality of the natural
resource. Actors and procedures that are regarded as relevant will differ accordingly.
The three dimensions might not be unrelated
6
. The time dimension may for instance behave
differently at various scale levels, with different speeds. Natural resource regime
developments on the national level could for instance be best described in long periods of
decennia, covering hundred years of more for the national level, while practical cases could
be described in periods of years or even shorter periods, covering one or two decennia.
7
Scales &
Levels
Sectors &
Aspects
Time &
Change
Figure 14, Three dimensions of sustainable development that require integration and are
thus relevant for boundary judgments
Within each specification of scale, sector and time (so forming a tri-dimensional figure
consisting of a certain combination of cubes in figure 14), a number of processes takes
place. How many processes are included in this area depends of course partly on the
6
Thanks to Roger Seaton to point this out.
7
This is actually what we did in the Euwareness project. See appendix 4a.
20
degree of detail with which the analyst wants to discern them from each other (cf. figure 9).
The resulting set of processes and elements is part of the infinitive fabric that ultimately
covers all processes on earth. The included processes will always have relationships with
other processes not included in the domain. Sometimes in might be worthwhile for the
analyst to include some of these in the graphic, just to clarify the demarcation lines between
what is regarded as the domain and what not. This is also true if not the domain specification
of individual actors in the process or a joint understanding is to be represented, but just the
specification of the area under study by the analyst.
Figure 15, Multiple process model as part of an infinite fabric
In this “cut out” of the fabric of processes, there still can be different perceptions of the
relevant domain and its boundaries and how to deal with it. It is unlikely that attention will be
spread evenly. The are at least three ways to deal with the domain.
One can tend to concentrate further on a specific process. Then the rest of the
domain is acknowledged but also regarded as just a context for what one really sees as the
job to be done. This could be labelled an “operational” project of programme definition (and
is actually quite common, both in practice and in implementation research).
A following way to deal with the processes in the domain could be labelled a “chain
perspective”, in which also previous and follow-up processes are included, as worthwhile to
pay attention to. Note that each specification of a “chain” has a degree of will, since there are
also other line-up imaginable. Acknowledgement of a chain also opens the possibility to
challenge the serial character of it by wondering about the consequences of putting these
more in parallel or even integration them in to a joint process wherein even more multiple
issues and actors meet. The added complexity might be balanced by the avoided complexity
of transitions form one process to another.
Only in the next way of dealing with the domain a more “integrative” perspective
blooms, in which processes from various sectors, scales or time horizons are combined in
the way the actors operate in the domain. Often this will imply a (partial) blurring of the
boundaries between the processes. All these form of integration are in need of “coupling
21
strategies” to enable the actors involved to handle the extended multiplicity of issues,
procedures, actors etceteras. This is the more so when there is disagreement among actors
and / or changes in time about this that may lead to adjustment problems in the processes
involved. Section 6 will present some preliminary ideas on such management of processes
under extended boundary judgements.
Figure 16, Domain boundary perceptions
8
:
Green (light): operational project / programme definition
Lavender (dark): chain perspective definition
Yellow (very light): multi-sectoral (or -level, -time, -geographic space, etceteras)
integrative definition
8
The application and further elaboration of Contextual Interaction Theory takes place at CSTM in the
following water management projects where it is used in different degrees of intensity:
-The applicability of the theory in project-oriented multi-actors settings is tested by
Katharine Owens
in her project on wetland restoration in the Netherlands, Finland and the USA (green).
-The potential and complexities of blurring the boundaries between successive processes in the chain
by implementing them in parallel rather than serial is investigated by
Jaap Evers and Wim van
Leussen (lavender).
-The potential and complexities of blurring the boundaries between various sectors by coupling them
in singular projects is studied by
Simone Hanegraaff and Kris Lulofs (with advice of Stefan Kuks)
(yellow, sectoral boundaries interpretation of the figure).
-The potential and complexities of blurring the boundaries between adjacent geographical units (like
countries) by joint policy making is studied by
Kris Lulofs and Frans Coenen (yellow, spatial
boundaries interpretation of the figure).
-The potential and complexities of blurring the boundaries between natural science knowledge on the
one hand and social science knowledge and practitioners knowledge on the other hand in water
management decision making processes is studied by
Mirjam van Tilburg and Frans Coenen (with
advice of Stefan Kuks)
(not represented in this process-based figure).
-The common ground and links between these projects are studied by
Kris Lulofs and Hans Bressers
-The ISBP project itself will study two water cases and a case in sustainable tourism, in which all
forms of boundary issues are included, by
Valentina Dinica, Hans Bressers and Stefan Kuks.
22
5. Studying boundary judgments and their impacts
Case selection
The research proposal specified that the cases that are studied in ISBP (the empirical
domain of the study) will need to have the following characteristics:
- at the interface of nature and culture
- somehow relevant for sustainable development
- where conflict is likely
- across spatio-temporal scales (which is relevant for subsidiarity).
To the last item I would like to add the cross sectoral dimension, for instance enlarging a
certain project from merely one purpose or fitting in one policy scheme to encompassing
implementing more, maybe even many, policy schemes or societal purposes.
Case study protocol
In the Euwareness project we used a method for case analysis that is a fairly straightforward
policy studies approach (see for a brief description Appendix 4b, page 52-53, and for a more
elaborated description Dente, Fareri and Ligteringen 1998). For ISBP the following steps
could serve to analyse a case (take it just as an example how the concepts of this report
could be put into use):
1. What is the issue / are the set of issues the researcher wants to focus on?
This is a pre-choice question that is a necessary starting point that cannot be derived from
empirical observations. In ISBP it could be a/o. linked to a certain (European policy)
innovation.
2. What elements and processes are discerned initially around this focus? What are the
actors involved in these processes?
Remember that the boundaries of the research domain should be sufficiently flexible to
enable an open view of the boundary judgments of the actors involved. Nevertheless it is
possible to sharpen focus on a certain process before entering the next step.
3. What is the “story” (or stories) of the case?
This is obvious the descriptive part of the case study where the historical sequence of
developments that the researcher deems relevant is described.
4. What were the relevant motivations, cognitions and resources of the actors involved?
To what extent and how do these factors explain the course and results of the
process?
5. What is the role of boundary judgments in these factors and the process?
See the data collection check list below. Boundary judgments that differ among actors can
cause incoherence and can even be a source of conflict. Boundary judgments that are too
narrow for the adequate use of the innovation or so wide that complexity becomes
unmanageable can also stagnate all progress.
6. What is the role of the receptivity of actors involved in these factors and the process?
The role of receptivity in the process as a whole also refers to the receptivity of the set of
actors as a network.
7. What was the interaction with the structural context and / or the wider contexts, like
the cultural context?
8. To what extent did one or more actors use specific strategies to manage the
boundary judgments of themselves or other actors and / or to cope with differences
and perceived too narrow or too wide scopes in order to enhance the degree of
coherence of the process and its structural context? To what effect? What lessons
could be drawn from this for other situations and with what specifications of
conditions?
23
This last question reflects the ultimate “how to” nature of the questions that were stressed in
the Stockholm meeting and mentioned at the start of section1 of this report. In section 6
some preliminary thoughts about such strategies will be discussed.
Case study comparison
For ISBP the case comparison method might be very relevant. The variation of different sub-
projects is quite large and keeping all the advantages of this wide scope while enabling
some comparison will be a challenge of this project. In Euwareness we used a method for
case comparison that enables to build a data matrix on the basis of rather different case
studies (and from different theoretical perspectives). The basic idea is that from a certain
theoretical perspective a short questionnaire is developed that asks to assess a number of
variables on ordinal (e.g. five point) scales and to indicate which observations (in brief) gave
reason for this assessment. The respondents are the case study researchers themselves.
Good explanation to the case researchers / respondents of the meaning of the variables and
the “key facts” listed that enable to check the understanding by the respondents of the
variables, create a reasonable degree of validity of such answers. This method does not
require that all case studies have emphasized the same phenomena or used the same
methodology. Only that the subjects of the variables indicated are sufficiently covered by the
researchers in reading documents and having conversations with insiders that they can
make a fair assessment of these variables for their case, even when these variables were
not the core of their own perspective. More on this method you can find in Appendix 4b,
pages 52-55. The data can not only be used for qualitative comparisons but also for simple
correlations and graphs, see Appendix 4c. As the envisaged case studies in the ISBP project
are quite diverse, this might be a good method to enable cross case analysis from one
perspective (or maybe even from more than one perspectives in different case comparison
analyses!).
Data-collection and classification tool
An important aspect of the ISBP study is the way in which boundary judgments influence
and are influenced by interaction processes in the case studies. In our terminology,
boundary judgments belong to the “cognitions” of the actors involved (or in solidified form in
policy documents and other governances elements). If we see boundary judgments as a
form of information we can possibly use the “check list” in the following data collection tool.
With the help of the CIT model (see figure 11) we can discern 10 points of observation when
investigating the way new information is used in actual interaction processes. While this
scheme is somewhat elaborate to be used for “real-time note taking” during e.g.
observations of meetings, somewhat simplified versions prove to be useable. And with the
help of tapes and additional information from the observation these notes can be later
“unpacked” to fill the observation tool for research purposes. This list of attention points is
used in water management research, so the terminology has to be changed “mutatis
mutandis” for other purposes. In this translation from Dutch I used the 4 A terms of the
receptivity model where they fit (Jeffrey and Seaton 2003/4).
1. (the ‘information’ brought forward) Which different pieces of information are
presented and how is this done? What is – for each important input – the form of this
information (reports, other written sources, oral communication, other forms)? What are the
topics of the information (water system, other natural science or technological subjects,
behaviour, goals, perceptions, resources of other actors etceteras)? Who is presenting the
information (by civil servants of the water authority, by administrators, by other actors that
participate in the decision making process, by actors from outside the process – are they
research and consultancy people or ‘laymen’? Are there other relevant characteristics of the
presented information?
2. (processing per actor – awareness / observation) To what degree is the
information observed by the different actors (intensive, for instance read fully, or average or
even going in at one ear and out at another, of simply not at all)?
24
3. (processing per actor - association with existing frames of reference) What
indications are there that information (apart from whether it fits good or bad with own
interests) is better or worse associated with, because it connects with (possibly: gets into
dialogue with) already existing patterns of thinking? Or alternatively that the information is
not associated with because it does not connect with existing ways of thinking.
4. (processing per actor – acquisition in own interpretations) In how far and to what
degree is the information absorbed in interpretations that the actors bring in the process? Is
there a lot that is left aside? Is there a lot of simplification in the ‘one-liners’ that summarise
the information in communication?
5. (direct influence on course interaction process - application) What role does the
thus filtered information play in the course of the interaction process, especially with the
image formation of the possible options and their pros and cons? To what extent one speaks
in terms of knowledge (this is how it is) and to what extent in terms of motives (this is what I
want) or power (this is how it should be, otherwise I’ll resist)?
6. (influence of process on information processing) To what degree and in what ways
does the course of the process itself forms a change factor for subsequent ways of
observation, for frames of reference or the interpretations themselves?
7. (indirect influence via the strategic value of information) To what degree and in
what ways are the inequalities in the access to information and the capacity to understand it
used purposely in the process?
8. (influence of capacity and power on information(processing) To what degree gives
the already available knowledge, experience, education, size and quality of staff, prestige,
authority etceteras a head start with the awareness, association, acquisition or application
towards own interest of information?
9. (indirect influence via the perception of (de)motivating chances and threats) To
what degree and in what ways does the filtered information (interpretations) change the
motivations of the actors involved?
10. (influence of motivation on information(processing) To what degree does the
attention of the actors seem dependent on the saliency of the subject and the contents of the
information to what they see as their interest (selective perception)?
25
6. Strategies for managing boundary judgments
The “boundary problem” that forms a challenge for “integrative systems” calls not only for
scientific study but also for practical solutions. In cases of policy innovation often the
boundaries of the domain at stake are enlarged or need to become more flexible and thus
uncertain. Enabling this – while keeping enough cohesion to be able to create legitimate
decisions and actions – might require:
- a good balance between pluralism and consensus-seeking (avoiding extremes);
- optimising the receptivity of the actors involved (enabling synergies).
In our study we will look at ways in which actors have tried to achieve these and thereby
“manage” the boundary problem. To illustrate this and also give an example of a case where
boundary issues certainly play a role I will present briefly the case of “the Breakthrough” in
the Netherlands. The case will probably also be elaborated further as one of the cases of the
Dutch team later in the ISBP project. This brief description is based on work with Simone
Hanegraaff on the basis of a/o. a workshop at the waterboard with also many of the other
actors involved represented.
Let’s first explain the name. While ‘the Breakthrough’ (in Dutch ‘de Doorbraak’) can mean a
scientific discovery in both languages, here it has to be taken quite literally. In the past
interventions in the water system have in many regions disrupted the natural systems of
brooks, streams and other water courses (Huitema and Kuks 2004). With the purposes to re-
join the creeks of part of the region to the main watercourse basin system and also to enable
the separation of rural (rain) water and urban (treated sewage) water the plan was
developed to create a new, 13 kilometres long, watercourse. In subsequent phases to these
purposes new ones were added, each of them implying enlarged boundaries of the problem
domain and adding new actors, resources and procedures: safety against flooding,
connecting nature areas to be part of the national nature system (this extension actually
transferred the lead from the waterboard to the province and widened the projected water
and flooding area from 25 to 75 meter), buffering between a new regional industrial estate
and municipal residential districts, rural renewal (reallocation of land and socio-economic
development plan), emergency water storage and – for the time being – finally, recreation.
The array of aspects includes levels from the EU (e.g. Habitat, recreation subsidies),
national (e.g. national nature system, national administrative agreement on water –
predominantly emergency water storage), provincial (took over the lead because of nature
development component), regional (e.g. the geographical area of the waterboard and the
regional industrial estate), local (e.g. residential districts) up to the level of individual farms
and gardens. The array of aspects includes sectors like – next to various aspects of water
management – nature policy, agricultural policy, and tourism, and has recognised interaction
with industrial and urban development. The time horizons of objectives and resources (e.g.
requirements for subsidies) for all these aspects are very different, creating much stress for
the process. Nevertheless the project is developing reasonably well and is actually being
build while the detailing of the planning is still continuing. In 2014 it should be ready. Now
how does the waterboard cope with this? Here is some practitioners wisdom. The many
strategies mentioned can be grouped into five categories.
1. Know your environment well
Get to know what are the plans and agenda’s of other governments on various levels. Invite
yourself to consultations on the preparation of projects and policies at regional and provincial
level. Learn about the stakes and interests of various possibly relevant private and public
organisations, to facilitate later attempts to find and formulate joint interests and otherwise
enable to show understanding and tact in negotiations.
2. Invest in good relations in the network
26
Who is relevant in the network is dynamic, keep track of that. Invest also in relations that
might become important at a longer term (under uncertainty enable serendipity). Welcome
initiatives by others to establish contact. Create surplus value: “You’ll scratch my back and
than I’ll scratch yours”.
3. Fit up your own organisation for “coupling”
Create an organisational philosophy that is oriented towards external cooperation. Adapt the
staff composition and personnel policy: hire other types of people and give capable present
staff the possibility learn the necessary competencies to this aim. This holds especially true
for the project manager, who should be communicative, flexible and entrepreneurial. Have
the project managers regularly visit meetings of each others projects, so hat they can learn
from each other and from the enlarged variety of situations they experience.
As a representative of the organisation, give confidence that your proposals are backed
up by the responsible administrators (which then should of course also be true when
necessary). Be honest and open to the administrators about the risks of proposals,
developments and the project as a whole – only then the support won’t fail after a first
disappointment. This implies a ‘low threshold’ between the levels in the organisation. The
staff should be somewhat acquainted with each others social networks so that problems can
be solved through short lines.
Try to add resources, for instance by hiring a subsidy manager. Group projects in
bundles or programmes in the long term financial projection so that a financial
disappointment in one project can be compensated by good luck in another project, without
disturbing the important long term orientation.
4. Engage consciously in adding complexity
Note that new opportunities often come with new complexities. Do not couple to many
controversial issues in one project. Be aware of the constituencies of actors, for instance do
not have an agricultural representative organisation take co-responsibility for issues that are
generally neutral or irrelevant to regional agriculture, but might be regarded negative by one
or two individual farmers.
5. Show reliability, openness and determination during the entire process
Commissioning an external independent process manager, who shows that it isn’t just a
water project, can help in this respect. Avoid hiring own interim personnel. Take care that
there is enough capacity attributed and responsibilities are given to the right person. Call in
responsible administrators at strategic moments to prevent escalation by showing both
determination and using his/hers short lines to other organisation leaders in the network.
Try to contain the risks of the indirect communication that always occurs when talks
are held with individuals that participate on behalf of an organisation. Watch whether
everybody does his “homework” properly and keeps his organisation well informed. Watch
carefully whether the information is properly handed over when the representation of that (or
the own!) organisation is transferred from one individual to another.
Create open communication towards the citizens with open access information
markets and “kitchen table” conversations in stead of general slide shows for an audience
with questions afterwards. The last strategy can be detrimental: the first critic sets the tone
for the entire evening and the rest keeps silent because one doesn’t feel at ease. It’s a
recipe for an “us and them” feeling. As far as projects are not fully integrative, try to combine
with other organisations citizen communication about all various projects and developments
in the same geographical area together, enabling citizens to get the whole picture. They are
not interested in the sectoral boundaries!
The ISBP project will probably learn us a lot more on the relevancy of domain specification,
the boundary judgment problems and boundary spanning strategies. And though “lesson
drawing across time and space” needs a lot of caution (Rose 1993), I’m looking forward to
find out !!
27
Glossary
Boundary judgments
(EU proposal) Definitions of systems and problems, that underpin conceptual models.
(This report) Socially constructed definition of domain of policy fields (in terms of relevant
scales, actors, problem aspects, solution-strategies, responsibilities and resources).
Coherence
See Appendix 4b, pages 37-38
Complexity
(This report) Complexity increases to the extent that the elements of governance can be
characterized by multiple formats in most of their elements. A regime becomes more
complex when more layers and scales are involved, more actors are involved, more
perceptions of the problem and accompanying goals are involved, more instruments are part
of the policy mix and more organisations share responsibilities for implementation.
Convergence
(EU proposal) Process of harmonising local administrative and political institutions with the
principles of sound governance.
(This report) Change of the governance structure (levels, networks, problem perceptions,
strategies, responsibilities and resources, and property and use rights) towards more
integration (both in terms of scope and coherence).
Extent (scope)
The size of the domain of the regime, that is the uses and users regulated by one or more
parts of the regime, relative to the domain that is relevant for the focus of the researcher, for
instance the sustainability of a natural resource. Regimes with an insufficient extent are by
definition weak as guardians of sustainable use, while some relevant parts of the domain go
unregulated.
Networks
(This report) Policy fields are networked contexts because policy-relevant actors (note the
implicit boundary definition!) operate not as autonomous or atomised units, nor merely as
parts of a larger, straightforwardly hierarchical array, but in a matrix on interdependence
(Bressers and O’Toole 2005: 140). So the implicit assumption of this definition is that there is
always a network of some kind, only the nature of it varies.
Policy brokers
(This report) Policy brokers are actors that have process oriented goals rather than contents
oriented goals, and for that reason are more concerned with for instance the speed and
consensus of decision making than with the precise contents of the decision. This gives
them some potential as boundary spanning actors.
Process
(This report) The concept of “process” is here not used in one of its two common meanings
(“change over time”), but in the other meaning of “conversion process” processing inputs into
outputs. When the change over time is meant, it will be labelled change. Change can be
produced by a process when the output is functionally equivalent to the input, but renewed in
some respects.
Receptivity
(EU proposal and this report) The ability of an actor to associate and exploit new knowledge
around existing knowledge, activities and objectives.
28
Structural context
(This report) The structural context of a process or case story is formed by the regime that
governs it, consisting of the elements of governance (levels, networks, problem perceptions,
strategies, responsibilities and resources), and property and use rights.
Structure – process constraints
(This report) The structural context of a social interaction process poses various harder or
softer constrains (but also opportunities) to the actors in the process. This has probabilistic
rather than deterministic consequences. (See section 3 and Appendix 1).
System
The whole of discerned elements in a certain cut out of reality, so with certain boundaries,
and the linkages between them, often processes in which certain elements are processed
into others.
29
References
(as far as not included in the appendices)
Arentsen, Maarten J., Hans Th.A. Bressers and Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. (2000), Institutional
and policy responses to uncertainty in environmental policy: A comparison of Dutch and U.S.
styles, in: Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 597-611.
Axelrod, Robert E. (Ed.) (1976), Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bressers, Hans, and Laurence O’Toole (2005), Instrument selection and implementation in a
networked context: in: Eliadis, Hill and Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From
instruments to governance, Montreal etc.: McGill-Queens University Press.
Bressers, Hans Th.A. and Josee J. Ligteringen (2007), Political-administrative policies for
sustainable household behaviour, in: International Journal of Environmental Consumerism
(in press)
Dente, Bruno, Paolo Fareri and Josee Ligteringen (1998), A theoretical framework for case
study analysis, in: Dente, Fareri & Ligteringen (Eds.), The waste and the backyard,
Dordrecht: Kluwer academic, pp. 197-223.
Dryzek, John S. (1997), The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fischer, F., and J. Forrester (Eds.) (1993), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and
planning, Durham: Duke university press.
Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh (1998), Policy subsystem configurations and policy
change, in: Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 466-481.
Huitema, Dave, and Stefan Kuks (2004), Harboring water in a crowded delta, in: Hans
Bressers and Stefan Kuks (Eds.), Integrated governance and water basin management:
Conditions for regime change and sustainability, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 59-98.
Jänicke, Martin (1997), The political system’s capacity for environmental policy, in: M.
Jänicke and H. Weidner (eds.), National environmental policies: A comparative study of
capacity-building, Berlin: Springer, pp. 1-24.
Jeffrey, P., and R.A.F. Seaton (2003/4), A conceptual model of ‘receptivity’ applied to the
design and deployment of water policy mechanisms, in: Environmental Sciences,
2003/2004, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 277-300.
Nooteboom, Sibout (2006), Adaptive networks: The governance for sustainable
development, Delft: Eburon academic publishers.
Ostrom, E. (1986), A Method of Institutional Analysis, in: Kaufmann, et al. (eds.), Guidance,
Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector. The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project, Berlin,
pp. 458-475.
Ostrom, E. (1999), Institutional Rational Choice. An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis
and Development Framework, in: Paul Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process,
Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 35-71.
30
Oxley, T., and H.M. ApSimon (200?), Space, time and nesting integrated assessment
models, submitted to Environmental Modelling & Software, pp. 1-34.
Quade, Edward S. (1980), Pitfalls in formulation and modelling, in: G. Majone and E.S.
Quade (Eds.), Pitfalls of analysis, Laxenburg: IIASA.
Rose, Richard (1993), Lesson drawing in public policy: A guide to learning across time and
space, Chatham NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, M.B.A. van Asselt, F. Geels, G. Verbong, K.P.G. Molendijk, P. van
Noten (2001), Transitions & transition management: The case for a low emission energy
supply, Maastricht: ICIS.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (1999), The advocacy coalition framework: an
assessment, in: Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp.
117-168.
Scharpf, F.W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play. Actor Centered Institutionalism in Policy
Research, Boulder: Westview Press.
Schön, Donald A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, New
York: Basic Books.
Williams, Bruce A. and Albert R. Matheny (1995), Democracy, dialogue and environmental
disputes, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Winder, Nick (2006), Innovation, metastability & resilience: ISBP discussion paper, pp. 3-21.
31
Appendices
The following appendices are listed with this report as separate files:
Appendix 1
“Implementing sustainable development How to know what works, where when and how?”,
Hans T.A. Bressers (2004), in: William M. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for sustainable
development: The challenge of adapting form to function, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.
284-318.
Appendix 2
“What does governance mean? From conception to elaboration” Hans Th.A. Bressers and
Stefan M.M. Kuks (2003), in: Hans Th.A. Bressers and Walter A. Rosenbaum (Eds.),
Achieving sustainable development: The challenge of governance across social scales,
Westport Connecticut: Praeger, pp. 65-88.
Appendix 3
“Visions and synthesis from the policy sciences literature” Hans Bressers (2000), part of
original paper for the conference “The politics of sustainable development: Institutions
across social scales” (Gainesville: University of Florida) that was not included (fully) in the
appendix 2 publication.
Appendix 4
“Integrated governance and water basin management: Conditions for regime change and
sustainability” Hans Bressers and Stefan Kuks (Eds.) (2004):
a) 1. Governance of water resources, Hans Bressers and Stefan Kuks, pp. 1-22.
b) 2. Institutional resource regimes and sustainability, Hans Bressers, Doris Fuchs and
Stefan Kuks, pp. 23-58.
c) 9. Integrative governance and water basin management, Hans Bressers and Stefan
Kuks, pp. 247-265.