165
7.5.3 Path Dependency and Incremental Policy-Making
The refl exive governance perspective underscores the importance of taking path
dependency seriously. Arguably, considerable refl ection is required to determine
when incremental, step-by-step transformation is appropriate rather than searching
for utopian policies, or policies that might seem optimal but unfeasible for various
reasons (Grin 2006 ; Kemp and Loorbach 2006 ), and when it is wiser to continue
with prior investments and already selected paths. While path dependency metaphorically denotes a barrier to change, one could also see it in more positive light,
namely, as ‘pathways’. Are there any windows of opportunity to overcome lock-in
effects and induce new pathways, which on the one hand will create a level of path
dependency in the future, but on the other could be seen as a more favourable path?
The search for such pathways requires refl exivity.
Some of the dominant intergovernmental organisations in relation to environmental risks in the Baltic Sea have comparably long histories. HELCOM is experiencing its 40-year anniversary, IMO has already turned 60, and the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has a history that goes back all the
way to 1902. Although they all have evolved over time and affected by external and
internal change pressures, large organisations tend to change only slowly. This is
natural as procedures, practices and expectations become increasingly established
and part of the organisation’s identity. Moreover, as long as most of the staff remains
part of the organisation for a long time, change is often circumscribed because of
existing expertise and the perspectives adopted by leading experts and administrators within the organisation. This may sometimes create organisational inertia and a
limited ability to adapt to changing societal expectations (Ahrne and Papakostas
2002 ). However, the experiences, know-how and expertise that have been built up
in the organisations over time can also be important assets. The authority and infl uence exerted by these organisations are often the result of well-established expertise
(Barnett and Finnemore 2004 ).
It is important to note that both aspects – potential organisational inertia and
established expertise – contribute to path dependency, namely, diffi culties in changing perspectives such as moving from a traditional reductionist and sector scientifi c
perspective to the ecosystem approach to management . From a policy perspective,
this needs to be carefully assessed in relation to the creation of space for refl exivity.
Looking, for example, at the emerging attention being given to fi shery and eutrophication issues by HELCOM, it is possible that a strengthened role for HELCOM in
these areas will increase the weight given to traditional scientifi c practices (singleloop learning ), as it is with these practices that the organisation has its strongest
merits. On the other hand, it is also possible that HELCOM entering into less chartered areas, creating new committees and working groups end engaging new types
of experts will create opportunities for the adoption of new perspectives, perspectives based on contemporary thinking on sustainability and holistic ecosystem
approaches (double-loop learning ). Compare this with the contemporary trend
towards EU regionalisation in fi sheries where new bodies (RACs) have been set up
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…
7.5.3 Path Dependency and Incremental Policy-Making
The refl exive governance perspective underscores the importance of taking path
dependency seriously. Arguably, considerable refl ection is required to determine
when incremental, step-by-step transformation is appropriate rather than searching
for utopian policies, or policies that might seem optimal but unfeasible for various
reasons (Grin 2006 ; Kemp and Loorbach 2006 ), and when it is wiser to continue
with prior investments and already selected paths. While path dependency metaphorically denotes a barrier to change, one could also see it in more positive light,
namely, as ‘pathways’. Are there any windows of opportunity to overcome lock-in
effects and induce new pathways, which on the one hand will create a level of path
dependency in the future, but on the other could be seen as a more favourable path?
The search for such pathways requires refl exivity.
Some of the dominant intergovernmental organisations in relation to environmental risks in the Baltic Sea have comparably long histories. HELCOM is experiencing its 40-year anniversary, IMO has already turned 60, and the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has a history that goes back all the
way to 1902. Although they all have evolved over time and affected by external and
internal change pressures, large organisations tend to change only slowly. This is
natural as procedures, practices and expectations become increasingly established
and part of the organisation’s identity. Moreover, as long as most of the staff remains
part of the organisation for a long time, change is often circumscribed because of
existing expertise and the perspectives adopted by leading experts and administrators within the organisation. This may sometimes create organisational inertia and a
limited ability to adapt to changing societal expectations (Ahrne and Papakostas
2002 ). However, the experiences, know-how and expertise that have been built up
in the organisations over time can also be important assets. The authority and infl uence exerted by these organisations are often the result of well-established expertise
(Barnett and Finnemore 2004 ).
It is important to note that both aspects – potential organisational inertia and
established expertise – contribute to path dependency, namely, diffi culties in changing perspectives such as moving from a traditional reductionist and sector scientifi c
perspective to the ecosystem approach to management . From a policy perspective,
this needs to be carefully assessed in relation to the creation of space for refl exivity.
Looking, for example, at the emerging attention being given to fi shery and eutrophication issues by HELCOM, it is possible that a strengthened role for HELCOM in
these areas will increase the weight given to traditional scientifi c practices (singleloop learning ), as it is with these practices that the organisation has its strongest
merits. On the other hand, it is also possible that HELCOM entering into less chartered areas, creating new committees and working groups end engaging new types
of experts will create opportunities for the adoption of new perspectives, perspectives based on contemporary thinking on sustainability and holistic ecosystem
approaches (double-loop learning ). Compare this with the contemporary trend
towards EU regionalisation in fi sheries where new bodies (RACs) have been set up
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…