Actors in Environmental Discourse: The Discursive Institutionalism Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15678/PG.2023.65.3.01Keywords:
environmental discourse, environmental policy, discursive institutionalism , actors, environmental economicsAbstract
Objective: Examined for years in various contexts, the environmental issue does not directly focus on the involve- ment of actors in the process of discourse institutionalisation, which is achievable through the application of discursive institutionalism. The aim of the study is to characterise actors involved in the environmental discourse studied using the discursive intuitionalism approach: who participates in discourses, with whom they co-participant, and based on which sources of discourse records their presence is studied.
Research Design & Methods: A systematic review examined 185 DI articles from 2004 to 2022, selecting 33 focused on environmental topics for content analysis.
Findings: Seven actor groups in environmental discourse were identified, with government, experts, and NGOs being the most frequent participants. Government predominated in co-occurrence, and discourse records mainly originated from government documents, legislative materials, and reports.
Implications/Recommendations: Further research is recommended to delve into actor profiles, explore the relationship between discourse source selection and actor appearance, and observe trends in DI research methods. Emphasising inclusive representation in environmental discourse is crucial for policymakers.
Contribution/ Value Added: Participation in environmental discourse is dominated by actors with specialised knowledge or resources, responsible for shaping political agenda goals. This results in low representation of unaffiliated citizens, business, and media.
Article classification: research article
Keywords: environmental discourse, environmental policy, discursive institutionalism, actors, environmental economics
JEL classification: Q5, H8
Downloads
References
Alam, Md. M., Murad, Md. W., Noman, A. H. Md., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Relationships among carbon emis- sions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecological Indicators, 70, 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.043
Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Handmer, J., & Howden, M. (2016). Stakeholder participation in building resilience to disasters in a changing climate. Environmental Hazards, 15(1), 58–73. Available at: https://www- 1tandfonline-1com-10000083u00d1.hanbg.uek.krakow.pl/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2015.1134427 [accessed: 15.11.2023].
Almeida, L. D. A., & Gomes, R. C. (2020). MAIP: Model to identify actors’ influence and its effects on the complex environmental policy decision-making process. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.016
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2011). Climate Change and the Convergence between ENGOs and Business: On the Loss of Utopian Energies. Environmental Values, 20(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.3197/09632 7111X12922350166076
Ball, S. J. (1993). What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/28571059/What_is_Policy_ Texts_Trajectories_and_Toolboxes [accessed: 15.12.2023].
Bell, S. (2011). Do We Really Need a New ‘Constructivist Institutionalism’ to Explain Institutional Change? British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 883–906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000147
Böhmelt, T. (2013). Civil society lobbying and countries’ climate change policies: A matching approach. Climate Policy, 13(6), 698–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.788870
Buijs, A., Kamphorst, D., Mattijssen, T., van Dam, R., Kuindersma, W., & Bouwma, I. (2022). Policy discourses for reconnecting nature with society: The search for societal engagement in Dutch nature conservation policies. Land Use Policy, 114, 105965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105965
Campbell, J., Lee. (2004). Institutional Change and Globalization. In Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691216348
Campbell, J., & Pedersen, O. (2015). Knowledge Regimes and Comparative Political Economy. Socio- Economic Review, 13(4), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwv004
Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–337. https://doi. org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534
Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N. H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., Chum, H., Corbera, E., Delucchi, M., Faaij, A., Fargione, J., Haberl, H., Heath, G., Lucon, O., Plevin, R., Popp, A., Robledo- Abad, C., Rose, S., Smith, P., …, & Masera, O. (2015). Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: An assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 7(5), 916–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205
Curran, D., Gillanders, R., & Mahmalat, M. (2022). Policymaking, Ideational Power and the Role of the Media. Political Studies Review, 20(2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920968348
Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and How Companies Integrate Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-010-0434-0
Fairbrass, J. (2011). Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Policy in the European Union: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 949–970. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02162.x
Fricko, O., Havlik, P., Rogelj, J., Klimont, Z., Gusti, M., Johnson, N., Kolp, P., Strubegger, M., Valin, H., Amann, M., Ermolieva, T., Forsell, N., Herrero, M., Heyes, C., Kindermann, G., Krey, V., McCollum, D. L., Obersteiner, M., Pachauri, S., …, Riahi, K. (2017). The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004
Geron, N. A., Martin, D. G., Rogan, J., & Healy, M. (2023). Residents’ roles as environmental policy actors using an urban governance framework: A case study of a tree planting program. Cities, 135, 104201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104201
Hajer, M. (2004). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Policy Making. European Political Science, 2, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2002.49
Hauptmeier, M., & Heery, E. (2014). Ideas at work. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2473–2488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.936235
Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 6414–6420. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a
Hofmann, B. (2023). Persuasive innovators for environmental policy: Green business influence through technology-based arguing. Environmental Politics, 33(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2 023.2178515
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005
Huh, T. (2014). Dynamics and Discourse of Governance for Sustainable Development in South Korea: Convergent or Divergent? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(1), 95–115. https://doi. org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.819779
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871
Kagan, J. A., & Olofsson, K. L. (2023). Advocacy strategies of industry and environmental interest groups in oil and gas policy debates. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X 16631590760299
Khan, O., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2020). The role of dynamic capabilities in circular economy implementa- tion and performance of companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 3018–3033. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2020
Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., & Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the intensi- fication of agriculture for global food security. Environment International, 132, 105078. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078
Kulawik, T. (2009). Staking the Frame of a Feminist Discursive Institutionalism. Politics & Gender, 5(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X0900021X
Leifeld, P. (2018). Discourse Network Analysis. Policy Debates As Dynamic Networks. In J. N. Victor, A. H. Montgomery, & M. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford University Press.
Liebenguth, J. (2020). Conceptions of Security in Global Environmental Discourses: Exploring the Water- Energy-Food Security Nexus. Critical Studies on Security, 8(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887. 2020.1754713
Louwerse, T., & Otjes, S. (2018). How Populists Wage Opposition: Parliamentary Opposition Behaviour and Populism in Netherlands: Political Studies, 67(2), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718774717
Majone, G. (1992). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Yale University.
Nasiritousi, N., & Grimm, J. (2022). Governing toward decarbonization: The legitimacy of national or-chestration. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(5), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1979
Nylén, E.-J., & Jokinen, A. (2023). Combinatorial perspective on ideas, concepts, and policy change. Environmental Politics, 32(2), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2075154
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y., & Montanarella, L. (2013). Contaminated Sites in Europe: Review of the Current Situation Based on Data Collected through a European Network. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013, 158764. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/158764
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Ran, B., & Qi, H. (2019). The Entangled Twins: Power and Trust in Collaborative Governance. Administration & Society, 51(4), 607–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718801000
Sääksjärvi, S. C. (2020). Positioning the Nordic Countries in European Union Environmental Policy. The Journal of Environment & Development, 29(4), 393–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496520933324
Sarkodie, S. A., & Adams, S. (2018). Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: Accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Science of The Total Environment, 643, 1590–1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.320
Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment? Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414002035002002
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
Schmidt, V. A. (2010a). Reconciling Ideas and Institutions through Discursive Institutionalism. In D. Béland, R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 47–64). Online edition, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736430.003.0003
Schmidt, V. A. (2010b). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive insti- tutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X
Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Reinterpreting the rules ‘by stealth’ in times of crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis of the European Central Bank and the European Commission. West European Politics, 39, 1032–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389
Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elzen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6
Takahashi, B., & Meisner, M. (2012). Environmental Discourses and Discourse Coalitions in the Reconfiguration of Peru’s Environmental Governance. Environmental Communication, 6(3), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.700522
Tellmann, S. M. (2012). The constrained influence of discourses: The case of Norwegian climate policy. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 734–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.692936
Trein, P., & Maggetti, M. (2023). Denationalization and the recentring of political authority in multilevel governance. European Journal of Political Research, 63(2), 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475- 6765.12613
Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Discursive institutionalism: Towards a framework for analysing the relation between policy and curriculum. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 163–183. https://doi. org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1344879
Watts, N., Adger, W. N., Agnolucci, P., Blackstock, J., Byass, P., Cai, W., Chaytor, S., Colbourn, T., Collins, M., Cooper, A., Cox, P. M., Depledge, J., Drummond, P., Ekins, P., Galaz, V., Grace, D., Graham, H., Grubb, M., Haines, A., …, & Costello, A. (2015). Health and climate change: Policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet, 386(10006), 1861–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6
Zhang, D., Fan, F., & Park, S. D. (2019). Network Analysis of Actors and Policy Keywords for Sustainable Environmental Governance: Focusing on Chinese Environmental Policy. Sustainability, 11(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154068
Zhang, K., & Wen, Z. (2008). Review and challenges of policies of environmental protection and sustain- able development in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1249–1261. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.019
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Public Governance
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access, licence: CC-BY 4.0
