54
3 Governance: Solving or Reproducing Inequalities
and environmental quality changes, which may owe to many biophysical or other
causes not related to human activity. Third, the only way institutions can affect the
environment is by influencing human behavior (Mitchell 2008).
This observation raises two research questions: (a) what can be attributed to institutions (or to one particular institution) in processes that cause or address environmental issues (Young et al. 1999/2005, p. 37); and (b) how that occurs, i.e., the mechanisms or pathways through which institutions make a difference (Underdal 2008).
Later in this book, we will look at the norms, rules, and decision-making mechanisms
that have been in place for biofuel governance as a likely prelude for broader bioeconomy governance. Specific case study chapters will examine what policy instruments have been created and how such institutional settings have influenced biofuel
production in different countries.
3.2.2.2 Performance
While causality assesses whether an institution makes a difference, performance
assesses whether it achieves particular objectives (Mitchell 2008). That implies
analyzing an institution and its effects against certain standards or specific criteria
(e.g., transparency, equity, sustainability). As such, there is a clear normative
dimension in performance that is not present in the analysis of causality (Young
2008a).
If the first question is “how does the institution perform?” concerning specific
standards, then the second is what factors strengthen or hinder institutional effectiveness in meeting those expected standards. It means examining both endogenous (the
design features of institutions) as well as exogenous (contextual) elements that affect
institutional performance (Young et al. 1999/2005). This examination is essential for
attempts to improve institutional performance in the subsequent step of design.
3.2.2.3 Design
Once institutional causality has been demonstrated and its performance assessed, a
third question is how it can be improved (Young et al. 1999/2005). In reality, design
is often a redesigning exercise, based on how the institution(s) under analysis can
be changed. There is no general recipe that can be applied indiscriminately through
different contexts; instead, redesigning depends on a case-by-case diagnosis to evaluate each specific institution concerning its features and context. Only after such a
diagnosis can it become clear what changes and designs could improve performance
(Young 2008b).
3 Governance: Solving or Reproducing Inequalities
and environmental quality changes, which may owe to many biophysical or other
causes not related to human activity. Third, the only way institutions can affect the
environment is by influencing human behavior (Mitchell 2008).
This observation raises two research questions: (a) what can be attributed to institutions (or to one particular institution) in processes that cause or address environmental issues (Young et al. 1999/2005, p. 37); and (b) how that occurs, i.e., the mechanisms or pathways through which institutions make a difference (Underdal 2008).
Later in this book, we will look at the norms, rules, and decision-making mechanisms
that have been in place for biofuel governance as a likely prelude for broader bioeconomy governance. Specific case study chapters will examine what policy instruments have been created and how such institutional settings have influenced biofuel
production in different countries.
3.2.2.2 Performance
While causality assesses whether an institution makes a difference, performance
assesses whether it achieves particular objectives (Mitchell 2008). That implies
analyzing an institution and its effects against certain standards or specific criteria
(e.g., transparency, equity, sustainability). As such, there is a clear normative
dimension in performance that is not present in the analysis of causality (Young
2008a).
If the first question is “how does the institution perform?” concerning specific
standards, then the second is what factors strengthen or hinder institutional effectiveness in meeting those expected standards. It means examining both endogenous (the
design features of institutions) as well as exogenous (contextual) elements that affect
institutional performance (Young et al. 1999/2005). This examination is essential for
attempts to improve institutional performance in the subsequent step of design.
3.2.2.3 Design
Once institutional causality has been demonstrated and its performance assessed, a
third question is how it can be improved (Young et al. 1999/2005). In reality, design
is often a redesigning exercise, based on how the institution(s) under analysis can
be changed. There is no general recipe that can be applied indiscriminately through
different contexts; instead, redesigning depends on a case-by-case diagnosis to evaluate each specific institution concerning its features and context. Only after such a
diagnosis can it become clear what changes and designs could improve performance
(Young 2008b).