3.2 Understanding Governance and Institutions
53
As such, governance can be understood as settings where there is steering towards
a shared purpose and some degree of collective issue-management and accommodation of different interests. Hence, it is possible to analytically distinguish governance from instances of non-governance, and the latter from non-regime cases. Nongovernance will always imply no regimes, but the absence of a regime does not
necessarily mean there is no governance.
3.2.2 Analyzing Institutions and Human-Environment
Relations
As human constructs put in place to steer behavior, institutions can play significant
roles in determining the outcomes of social practices and human-environment interactions (Young et al. 1999/2005). For instance, the typical example of the “tragedy
of the commons” depicts a situation where the complete absence of rights and rules
can lead to self-interested overexploitation and depletion of common-pool resources
(Hardin 1968). Therefore, much research has attempted to understand how social
practices are modified, fostered, restrained, or regulated by institutions (Schelling
1978; Young 2008a). Unlike other environmental change drivers, institutions are
human artifacts that can be objects of conscious building, reform, and replacement
(Young et al. 1999/2005, p. 147). Moreover, research on institutions also allows
assessing response strategies and learning how these strategies can become more
effective (Young et al. 1999/2005; Young 2008a).
There are frequently three research foci in analyzing institutions and environmental change: causality, performance, and design (Young 2008a).
3.2.2.1 Causality
Causality is concerned with whether, to what extent, and how institutions matter in a
given context of human-environment relations (Young et al. 1999/2005). However, to
influence environmental change processes, institutions must first operate on human
activity (Mitchell 2008). Thus, it is possible to distinguish at least three steps in
this causation chain: outputs, outcomes, and impacts (Underdal 2008). Outputs are
the closest steps to institutions in the causal chain; they refer to formal signs of
compliance, such as domestic laws following an international agreement or a change
of regulations in a public bank due to a national policy. Outcomes refer to perceived
changes in the human activity in question (e.g., industrial fishing). Finally, impacts
refer to ultimate changes in environmental quality (e.g., fish stocks) (Underdal 2008).
According to Mitchell (2008), the most appropriate level to analyze institutions’
effect is human activity (outcomes). First, this is because formal follow-up (outputs)
does not necessarily ensure actual shifts in social practices that lead to environmental
change. Second, it is often hard to draw a valid causal link between institutions
53
As such, governance can be understood as settings where there is steering towards
a shared purpose and some degree of collective issue-management and accommodation of different interests. Hence, it is possible to analytically distinguish governance from instances of non-governance, and the latter from non-regime cases. Nongovernance will always imply no regimes, but the absence of a regime does not
necessarily mean there is no governance.
3.2.2 Analyzing Institutions and Human-Environment
Relations
As human constructs put in place to steer behavior, institutions can play significant
roles in determining the outcomes of social practices and human-environment interactions (Young et al. 1999/2005). For instance, the typical example of the “tragedy
of the commons” depicts a situation where the complete absence of rights and rules
can lead to self-interested overexploitation and depletion of common-pool resources
(Hardin 1968). Therefore, much research has attempted to understand how social
practices are modified, fostered, restrained, or regulated by institutions (Schelling
1978; Young 2008a). Unlike other environmental change drivers, institutions are
human artifacts that can be objects of conscious building, reform, and replacement
(Young et al. 1999/2005, p. 147). Moreover, research on institutions also allows
assessing response strategies and learning how these strategies can become more
effective (Young et al. 1999/2005; Young 2008a).
There are frequently three research foci in analyzing institutions and environmental change: causality, performance, and design (Young 2008a).
3.2.2.1 Causality
Causality is concerned with whether, to what extent, and how institutions matter in a
given context of human-environment relations (Young et al. 1999/2005). However, to
influence environmental change processes, institutions must first operate on human
activity (Mitchell 2008). Thus, it is possible to distinguish at least three steps in
this causation chain: outputs, outcomes, and impacts (Underdal 2008). Outputs are
the closest steps to institutions in the causal chain; they refer to formal signs of
compliance, such as domestic laws following an international agreement or a change
of regulations in a public bank due to a national policy. Outcomes refer to perceived
changes in the human activity in question (e.g., industrial fishing). Finally, impacts
refer to ultimate changes in environmental quality (e.g., fish stocks) (Underdal 2008).
According to Mitchell (2008), the most appropriate level to analyze institutions’
effect is human activity (outcomes). First, this is because formal follow-up (outputs)
does not necessarily ensure actual shifts in social practices that lead to environmental
change. Second, it is often hard to draw a valid causal link between institutions