sea and new institutionalism

8/4/2019 SEA and new institutionalism

1/9

Seeing the power in SEA:Capacity, institutional reform and socialtheory.

Dr Matthew Cashmore, Aalborg University.With input from Pilar Clemente-Fernandez (ParsonsBrinkerhoff) and Dr Alan Bond (University of East Anglia)


2/9

April 18, 2012

Promise and Dismay.

The promise: strengthen EIA, improve cumulative impactassessment, tiering, sustainability, etc.

Implementation research: the dismay (e.g. Noble 2009, Retief et al. 2008, Sanchez & Sanchez, 2008, Richardson and Cashmore2011, etc.).

Similar experiences with other appraisal tools (e.g. RIA) and

environmental policy integration mechanisms in general.


3/9

April 18, 2012

Research questions.

Why do unsustainable practices seem to persist after SEAimplementation?

What features of SEA might disrupt the reproduction of unsustainablepractices?

Where, when and why might SEA be (un)successful?Ultimate focus is explanatory theory: when can SEA power

transformations?


4/9

April 18, 2012

Social theory.

New institutionalism as an analytical lens.

The term new institutionalism was coined in 1984 to describe a broad body of thought that seeks to understand the role institutions play in determining behaviour,but in a way which differs in important respects from old institutionalism:

Institutions defined more broadly:organized patterns of socially constructed norms and roles, and socially prescribed

behaviours expected of those roles, which are recreated over time (Goodin, 1996).

Institutions, whilst by definition are durable, are seen as more mutable:

exogenous shocks, heterogeneity and incoherence, change agent, constitutionalmoments, etc.


5/9

April 18, 2012

Institutions

After Giddens, institutions are divided into two parts: a culturalcomponent (schema/ model), and resources, interactions andinterpretative processes which sustain or reproduce the culturalcomponent.

Resources serve as a source of power for making things happen(Giddens, 1981).


6/9

April 18, 2012

Conceptual framework.

Designed as an interpretative framework, as opposed to a normative orprescriptive one.Policy domain divided into four levels: enabling context (macro),organisations (meso), individuals (micro), and networks (multi-scalarsocial interactions and interpretative processes).Analytical criteria devised for each level to provide a basis for criticallyengaging with resource concerns and their role in durability and

mutability.


7/9

April 18, 2012

Conceptual framework.

Skills, knowledge and understanding, including theability to learn and adaptAttributes and behaviours which underpin skills, suchas self motivation, entrepreneurialism, humility, etc;and,

Access to resources, such as time, capital, materialsor training .

Structure, culture and management of organisationsas determinants of resourcesAttributes of staff in terms of number, levels, types of

expertise and skills.Additional resources on which they can call.

Network accessibility and management asdeterminants of access to resources, and of thecharacteristics of interpretative processes and

interactionsDomain demarcation and cognitive and socialsymmetry as determinants of interactions betweennetworks and the potential for actor heterogenity orconflict

Broader contextual factors (e.g. social, economic andcultural context)

NETWORKS

ORGANIZATIONS

INDIVIDUAL

ENABLING CONTEXT


8/9

April 18, 2012

Envisaged outcomes.

Generate knowledge that is:

Based on holistic (context-wide) perspective.Rigorous, systematic and theoretically driven.

Provide new insights and framings, leading to different ways of thinkingabout SEA.


9/9

April 18, 2012

Overarching theme questions.

(How) is capacity development catching up with evolving SEAknowledge?

What should the capacity development agenda consist of?Greater consideration given to capacity in developed countries. Stronger emphasis on implementation/ evaluation research.

sea and new institutionalism

Documents