158
institutional boundaries (as emphasised in the fi rst element above), it is essential
that a variety of actors take part in the debate and search for solutions. The theory
on refl exive governance, like EAM, acknowledges interdependencies across scales,
sectors and arenas of governance, which in turn necessitates cooperation and dialogue among a variety of actors. The key question to address is whether there are
arenas, forums and networks that allow for multi-actor, multi-scale as well as intersectoral collaboration and refl exivity. On a transnational regional level (e.g. the
Baltic Sea region), this question and challenge is accentuated even more because
institutional structures are traditionally developed within the system of sovereign
nation states.
The theory of refl exive governance moreover has clear similarities with EAM
and with scholarly writing about adaptive (co-)management in terms of the endorsement of a learning and dynamic view on governance (e.g. Hahn et al. 2006 ; Olsson
et al. 2004 ), as well as regarding the important role of multiple actors in goal formulation, knowledge production and decision-making. While adaptive co-management
primarily focuses on ecosystems, particularly at the local level, refl exive governance highlights the role played by social critiques at various levels. Social critique
(or social refl exivity; cf. Beck 1992 , 2006 ) plays a potentially constructive role for
social and institutional learning . For individuals, organisations and institutions to be
able to scrutinise themselves, they need to be open to the public confronting them
about how their practices contribute to the production and reproduction of problematic circumstances. The refl exive governance perspective accordingly pays key
attention to the importance of public debate and the monitoring role of civil society
organisations and other actors.
The third element is recognition of path dependency and incremental policymaking. Acknowledgement of path dependency warrants, in turn, a consideration of
incremental policy-making and step-by-step transformation. Radical and immediate
shifts towards EAM in the complete sense are infeasible. In any governance arrangement, there are a number of exogenous and endogenous factors that serve to reproduce existing institutional structures (e.g. economic incentives , existing institutional
boundaries, discourses, vested interests, habits, cognitive limitations and bounded
rationality): “the existing structure fi ght back” (Grin 2006 : 74). Thus, socialecological transformation is typically path dependent, and existing physical and
institutional structures signifi cantly shape ambitions to work towards sustainable
development. However, forward-looking and careful efforts to avoid and escape
lock-in effects are possible even in an incremental approach to policy reform, Kemp
and Loorbach ( 2006 ) argue. Moreover, path dependency also means that continuing
along existing paths sometimes is preferable to keeping too many doors open as
prior investments, learning and experiences then can be made use of, making capacity growth cumulative.
M. Boström et al.
institutional boundaries (as emphasised in the fi rst element above), it is essential
that a variety of actors take part in the debate and search for solutions. The theory
on refl exive governance, like EAM, acknowledges interdependencies across scales,
sectors and arenas of governance, which in turn necessitates cooperation and dialogue among a variety of actors. The key question to address is whether there are
arenas, forums and networks that allow for multi-actor, multi-scale as well as intersectoral collaboration and refl exivity. On a transnational regional level (e.g. the
Baltic Sea region), this question and challenge is accentuated even more because
institutional structures are traditionally developed within the system of sovereign
nation states.
The theory of refl exive governance moreover has clear similarities with EAM
and with scholarly writing about adaptive (co-)management in terms of the endorsement of a learning and dynamic view on governance (e.g. Hahn et al. 2006 ; Olsson
et al. 2004 ), as well as regarding the important role of multiple actors in goal formulation, knowledge production and decision-making. While adaptive co-management
primarily focuses on ecosystems, particularly at the local level, refl exive governance highlights the role played by social critiques at various levels. Social critique
(or social refl exivity; cf. Beck 1992 , 2006 ) plays a potentially constructive role for
social and institutional learning . For individuals, organisations and institutions to be
able to scrutinise themselves, they need to be open to the public confronting them
about how their practices contribute to the production and reproduction of problematic circumstances. The refl exive governance perspective accordingly pays key
attention to the importance of public debate and the monitoring role of civil society
organisations and other actors.
The third element is recognition of path dependency and incremental policymaking. Acknowledgement of path dependency warrants, in turn, a consideration of
incremental policy-making and step-by-step transformation. Radical and immediate
shifts towards EAM in the complete sense are infeasible. In any governance arrangement, there are a number of exogenous and endogenous factors that serve to reproduce existing institutional structures (e.g. economic incentives , existing institutional
boundaries, discourses, vested interests, habits, cognitive limitations and bounded
rationality): “the existing structure fi ght back” (Grin 2006 : 74). Thus, socialecological transformation is typically path dependent, and existing physical and
institutional structures signifi cantly shape ambitions to work towards sustainable
development. However, forward-looking and careful efforts to avoid and escape
lock-in effects are possible even in an incremental approach to policy reform, Kemp
and Loorbach ( 2006 ) argue. Moreover, path dependency also means that continuing
along existing paths sometimes is preferable to keeping too many doors open as
prior investments, learning and experiences then can be made use of, making capacity growth cumulative.
M. Boström et al.