What is at stake and what does it take? Collaborative governance and policy (in)action in the adoption of a National Forest Programme

Johanna Johansson
{"title":"What is at stake and what does it take? Collaborative governance and policy (in)action in the adoption of a National Forest Programme","authors":"Johanna Johansson","doi":"10.1111/1467-9477.12284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Inspired by collaborative governance theory, this study analyzes the process dynamics, outputs, and perceived impacts of a collaborative initiative launched by the Swedish government in 2014. It draws on extensive empirical sources related to the Swedish government's efforts to develop and implement a National Forest Programme (NFP) from 2014 to 2021. These sources include semistructured interviews, observations, public consultation comments, records of meetings and public hearings, reports from dialogues, and enacted policy documents. The results show that the collaboration initially provided a space for joint deliberation and capacity building on complex and contentious issues related to current land use. However, the final programme endorsed by the government in 2018 failed to initiate ambitious proposals on several key issues raised by participating actors, offering little indication of priorities and policy instruments to address fundamental gaps in current policy goals and their implementation. Consequently, the case reveals that it was not sufficient, and perhaps not even desirable, to address existing conflicts and policy problems in a comprehensive collaborative setting run by the Government Offices. The paper concludes with key insights for research on collaboration and suggests ways to move forward with policy designs that integrate multiple and competing policy goals in contested areas.","PeriodicalId":509462,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Political Studies","volume":"4 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inspired by collaborative governance theory, this study analyzes the process dynamics, outputs, and perceived impacts of a collaborative initiative launched by the Swedish government in 2014. It draws on extensive empirical sources related to the Swedish government's efforts to develop and implement a National Forest Programme (NFP) from 2014 to 2021. These sources include semistructured interviews, observations, public consultation comments, records of meetings and public hearings, reports from dialogues, and enacted policy documents. The results show that the collaboration initially provided a space for joint deliberation and capacity building on complex and contentious issues related to current land use. However, the final programme endorsed by the government in 2018 failed to initiate ambitious proposals on several key issues raised by participating actors, offering little indication of priorities and policy instruments to address fundamental gaps in current policy goals and their implementation. Consequently, the case reveals that it was not sufficient, and perhaps not even desirable, to address existing conflicts and policy problems in a comprehensive collaborative setting run by the Government Offices. The paper concludes with key insights for research on collaboration and suggests ways to move forward with policy designs that integrate multiple and competing policy goals in contested areas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利害攸关的是什么?通过国家森林计划过程中的合作治理和政策(不)行动
受合作治理理论的启发,本研究分析了瑞典政府于 2014 年发起的一项合作倡议的过程动态、产出和预期影响。本研究利用了与瑞典政府在 2014 年至 2021 年期间制定和实施国家森林计划 (NFP) 有关的大量实证资料。这些资料来源包括半结构式访谈、观察、公众咨询意见、会议和听证会记录、对话报告以及颁布的政策文件。结果表明,合作最初为共同讨论与当前土地利用相关的复杂和有争议的问题并进行能力建设提供了空间。然而,政府于 2018 年批准的最终方案未能就参与行动者提出的几个关键问题提出雄心勃勃的建议,几乎没有指明优先事项和政策工具,以解决当前政策目标及其实施方面的根本差距。因此,该案例揭示了在政府办公室管理的全面合作环境中解决现有冲突和政策问题是不够的,甚至可能是不可取的。本文最后提出了对合作研究的重要启示,并建议如何推进政策设计,在有争议的领域整合多种相互竞争的政策目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Home is where the heart is? A comparative analysis of Flemish and Danish parties' organizational linkages with the EU What is at stake and what does it take? Collaborative governance and policy (in)action in the adoption of a National Forest Programme The view of freedom that shaped the Swedish welfare state Party competition on social media: Evidence from politicians' tweets Interest group resources, access, and influence: An empirical review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1