3.1 The Inequity of Inequality
51
Pickering 2019). There is growing recognition of the need to align governance to
global sustainability challenges to prevent, address, and adapt to those (socio-) environmental changes (UNEP 2012; Kim and Bosselmann 2013; Dryzek and Pickering
2019). However, for these institutional responses to be socially beneficial, there is a
need to understand how governance determines equity in various instances and how
to improve it.
This chapter dissects key dimensions of governance to have a conceptual framework to analyze developments around the bioeconomy. It first addresses institutions as an analytical problem, then discusses how social equity may be effectively
analyzed, and finally elaborates on the concepts of agency and power, critical to
understanding how issues of social sustainability are dealt with in governance. The
chapter concludes with an integrated framework for analyzing these elements in the
bioeconomy or other areas.
3.2 Understanding Governance and Institutions
3.2.1 Defining Institutions, Regimes, and Governance
Architectures
The concept of institutions is central to examining societal challenges and humanenvironment relations. Simply put, institutions are artifacts created to steer social
practices (Young et al. 1999/2005). Their exact definition has varied across disciplines (e.g., North 1990; Mearsheimer 1994/1995; Ostrom 2005), but those different
definitions often share a common core (Underdal 2008). Young et al. (2008, p. xxii)
define institutions as “cluster[s] of rights, rules, and decision-making procedures
that give rise to social practices, assigns roles to the participants in the practices,
and guides interactions among occupants of these roles.” Institutions thus are not
to be mistaken with organizations, which are material entities, usually with offices,
personnel, budget, etc. (Young 1989; North 1990; Young 2008a). Organizations are
players, while institutions are the rules of the game (Young 2008a, p. 13). However,
institutions can include organizations.
Institutions may operate alone or within a broader framework, such as a regime.
While also offering useful definitions of key types of institutions, Krasner (1982,
p. 186) described regimes as,
[S]ets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around
which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations. Principles
are beliefs of fact, causation and rectitude. Norms are standards of behaviour defined in
terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action.
Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective
choice.
Regimes, therefore, refer to structured sets of institutions that establish some
consensus on substantive elements (e.g., principles, rights, obligations, and rules) and
51
Pickering 2019). There is growing recognition of the need to align governance to
global sustainability challenges to prevent, address, and adapt to those (socio-) environmental changes (UNEP 2012; Kim and Bosselmann 2013; Dryzek and Pickering
2019). However, for these institutional responses to be socially beneficial, there is a
need to understand how governance determines equity in various instances and how
to improve it.
This chapter dissects key dimensions of governance to have a conceptual framework to analyze developments around the bioeconomy. It first addresses institutions as an analytical problem, then discusses how social equity may be effectively
analyzed, and finally elaborates on the concepts of agency and power, critical to
understanding how issues of social sustainability are dealt with in governance. The
chapter concludes with an integrated framework for analyzing these elements in the
bioeconomy or other areas.
3.2 Understanding Governance and Institutions
3.2.1 Defining Institutions, Regimes, and Governance
Architectures
The concept of institutions is central to examining societal challenges and humanenvironment relations. Simply put, institutions are artifacts created to steer social
practices (Young et al. 1999/2005). Their exact definition has varied across disciplines (e.g., North 1990; Mearsheimer 1994/1995; Ostrom 2005), but those different
definitions often share a common core (Underdal 2008). Young et al. (2008, p. xxii)
define institutions as “cluster[s] of rights, rules, and decision-making procedures
that give rise to social practices, assigns roles to the participants in the practices,
and guides interactions among occupants of these roles.” Institutions thus are not
to be mistaken with organizations, which are material entities, usually with offices,
personnel, budget, etc. (Young 1989; North 1990; Young 2008a). Organizations are
players, while institutions are the rules of the game (Young 2008a, p. 13). However,
institutions can include organizations.
Institutions may operate alone or within a broader framework, such as a regime.
While also offering useful definitions of key types of institutions, Krasner (1982,
p. 186) described regimes as,
[S]ets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around
which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations. Principles
are beliefs of fact, causation and rectitude. Norms are standards of behaviour defined in
terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action.
Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective
choice.
Regimes, therefore, refer to structured sets of institutions that establish some
consensus on substantive elements (e.g., principles, rights, obligations, and rules) and