Dynamic interplay: convergence and divergence in interacting environmental regimes
| Author(s) | Brix, Kaja Annelle | |
| Date Accessioned | 2016-03-21T12:37:46Z | |
| Date Available | 2016-03-21T12:37:46Z | |
| Publication Date | 2015 | |
| Abstract | Recent presidential directives for the Arctic seek to achieve integrated management of resource regimes. The current governance structure is one of sectoral management, or fragmented management on the fragmented – integrated governance spectrum (Cicin- Sain and Knecht 1998). This dichotomy presents an economic and political, as well as definitional, challenge for achieving the new integrated Arctic management directives. The structural fragmented – integrated spectrum is end-point oriented and mutually exclusive. I suggest a different approach to integration: one that is dynamic and process oriented. I develop the concept of ‘dynamic interplay’ as a means of integrating outputs. This idea is based in the literature on institutional interaction, or interplay, in environmental governance (Young 1999b, 2002b). I suggest that independent institutions seeking to address common problems in environmental resource challenges undertake a specific functional process I call the phenomenon of oscillation. Oscillation is the movement of independent fragmented institutions between two functional operational states in an oscillating pattern over time. The two operational states are divergence and convergence. Divergence is the default norm of current sectoral governance structures operating independently in service to their own mandate. Convergence is a unique functional state of engagement in mutual service to those mandates. The duality of progressive functional oscillation contributes to outputs that are mutually satisfactory. I describe dynamic interplay in its theoretical form and I illustrate the empirical form and function within a long-standing case history of Alaska fisheries and endangered species regime interactions. The policy implications of dynamic interplay are that 1) it mimics the dynamic nature of the environmental problems the governance regimes were designed to address, thereby allowing for adaptive management and governance outputs that may be a better fit to the environment being served, and 2) the implementation of dynamic interplay does not require structural changes in existing governance regimes, which means substantial economic and political cost savings to achieve integrated management. Complex and competing environmental issues may be solved through functional integration within the existing fragmented governance structure. | en_US |
| Advisor | Anderson, Lee G. | |
| Degree | Ph.D. | |
| Department | University of Delaware, School of Marine Science and Policy | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.58088/wtj6-ek46 | |
| Unique Identifier | 945195221 | |
| URL | http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/17522 | |
| Publisher | University of Delaware | en_US |
| URI | http://search.proquest.com/docview/1767222079?accountid=10457 | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Fisheries -- Alaska. | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Endangered species -- Alaska. | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Environmental policy -- Alaska. | |
| Title | Dynamic interplay: convergence and divergence in interacting environmental regimes | en_US |
| Type | Thesis | en_US |