1

The Emergence of Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Theoretical Considerations

Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)

Man-San Chan, Aysem Mert, Philipp Pattberg, Frank Biermann

2007 Amsterdam Conference on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 24-26 May 2007

2

Outline

• Background• Explanations from existing theories• Patterns of Emergence:

– Geographic – Policy Area – Participartory Conclusion

• WSSD Type 2 / CSD registered partnerships• Conclusion

3

Background

• What are WSSD partnerships? – Why look at them?

• Why look at emergence in a Large-N database of WSSD partnerships?

• Theory poor, theorising or theory informed?

4

Theoretical Perspectives 1

• FUNCTIONALISMPartnerships emerge from perceived needs. (Arts 2003 /

Haas 2004)

Partnerships emerge because states are failing. (Biermann & Dingwerth 2004)

• NETWORK THEORIES (Börzel 1998)Partnerships emerge because they better coordinate dispersed resources under conditions of globalization. (Reinicke 1997)

Partnerships emerge as in response to distribution problems in meso-economic markets (Cutler e.a. 1999)

5

Theoretical Perspectives 2

• INSTITUTIONALISMPartnerships emerge because they are ‘out there’ as best practices. (Lober 1997 / Pattberg 2004)

• DISCOURSEPartnerships emerge because a language of inevitability. (Pauly in: Biersteker 2003)

• NEO GRAMSCIANISMPartnerships emerge because elites use them to retain and consolidate their positions. (Levy & Newell 2002)

6

Patterns of Emergence

• ContradictoryContradictory theoretical explanations They cannot be equally as true!

• Partnership as a normative ideanormative idea “Partnerships should / should not emerge” Need for empirical backing!

• Theories discussed assume specific implications for patterns of emergence of partnerships:– GeographicGeographic– Policy area Policy area – ParticipatoryParticipatory

7

Geographic Patterns of Emergence

Functionalism

Partnerships emerge in places where government is capability decreasing

More partnerships in places where governments retreat

Policy network theories

Partnerships emerge in places with high organisational density

More partnerships in places with many non-state actors

Institutionalism

Partnerships emerge in places where many similar arrangements are in place

Partnerships are especially abundant in a few countries

Neo-Gramscianist

Partnerships emerge in places where business is strong

More partnerships are found in places with many MNCs

8

Policy Area Patterns of Emergence

Functionalism

Partnerships emerge in policy areas where government is capability decreasing

More partnershipsIn areas with low government involvement

Policy network theories

Partnerships emerge in policy areas where organisational density is high

More partnerships in areas with many non-state actors

Institutionalism

Partnerships emerge in policy areas with many similar institutions

More partnerships in areas that are densely institutionalized

Neo-Gramscianist

Partnerships emerge in policy areas where business is strong

More partnerships in monopolistic and oligopolistic markets

9

Participatory Patterns of Emergence

Functionalism Partnerships emerge where governments’ capability is decreasing

In most partnerships government is a partner, not the lead partner

Policy network theories

Partnerships emerge bottom-up by non-state actors

Many partnerships are led by civil society actors

Institutionalism

Partnerships emerge in social groups and epistemic communities

Partnerships resemble in composition and in divisions of tasks

Neo-Gramscianist

partnerships emerge among elites that consolidate positions

Partnerships are initiated and led by strong business and states

10

CSD Partnerships: Patterns of Emergence

• GEOGRAPHICHigh number in Indonesia & South Africa (Andonova & Levy

2003) relation with intergovernmental process

• POLICY AREALow interest for urgent issues like food security, biodiversity

and fresh water; higher interest for capacity building and information for decision making.

Sudden rise of number of water related partnerships in 2005 relation with intergovernmental process

• PARTICIPATORY Meagre business involvement, in spite of initial support.Underrepresented major groups, no reflection of a ‘vibrant civil

society’

11

Conclusions

• Many theories, few empirical support; need for a larger N analysis

• Systematic formulation of hypotheses for statistical analyses

• Different theories assume different patterns of emergence, that can be tested by looking at the actual patterns of emergence

• Too early to conclude on CSD registred partnerships, however, hypotheses from functionalism and network theories seem to not to be as robust as some suggest

• We expect differences across countries and political systems

• The CSD partnerships patterns of emergence suggest a link to intergovernmental agendas

12

Thank you!

Man-san Chan (Partners Research Project)

sander.chan@ivm.vu.nl

VU UniversityInstitute for Environmental

StudiesDe Boelelaan 1087

1081 HV Amsterdam