Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 579-582 |
Number of pages | 4 |
Journal | Environmental Policy and Governance |
Volume | 33 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 13 Nov 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Dec 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Special Issue: Accountability in the Anthropocene.Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (award # 202376) and the U.S. National Science Foundation Cyber-Human Systems Program (award # 1955125). The “Anthropocene” refers to a new geological epoch in which humankind has an unprecedented influence on the Earth (Subramanian, 2019). The extent of this influence is such that socioeconomic activity discernibly changes and destabilizes biogeochemical processes (e.g., climate, hydrology, biodiversity) upon which people, firms, and governments depend (Biermann et al., 2012). Hence, the Anthropocene implies a fundamental change in socioecological relations. This epochal change invites critical reflection on mechanisms for regulating socioecological relations, given existing conceptions and practices of governance appear incapable of integrating planetary boundaries into socioeconomic processes (Blühdorn et al., 2020). This special issue explores this environmental governance challenge through the lens of accountability. In particular, our objective is to develop a better understanding of the analytical and practical value of accountability in relation to anthropogenic drivers of global environmental change. Accountability, which refers to assessments of actors' (in)actions and follow-on consequences of these assessments, can help us investigate governance in the Anthropocene. Here we define governance as systems controls (i.e., information management, institutional arrangements, and operational controls) and systems restructuring mechanisms (i.e., the emergence of new values, incentives and sanctions, empowerment of different actors, institutional innovation), which are continuously contested. We assume that accountability is inherent in every social relationship at all levels of social organization (Dubnick, 2011). On this basis, we identify an opportunity to leverage accountability to trace linkages between diverse actors such as government agencies, commercial firms, investors, social movement organizations, consumers, and citizens (Kraft & Wolf, 2018). Specifically, the lens of accountability can potentially help to disentangle if and how planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015) and local socioecological concerns are represented in governance processes and structures. In line with arguments focused on inequality that give rise to the Capitolocene as a corrective to the Anthropocene (Moore, 2016), this analysis presents opportunities to make sense of differentiated responsibilities, access to resources, and risks confronting various populations. Accountability can be understood as a problem as well as a solution. There is clear potential for superficial or hollow accountability, a mode of governance through which accountees and accountors discharge their responsibilities in a manner that conserves unsustainable socioecological relations by continually minting legitimacy (Wolf, 2020). Contrary to naïve expectations about the functions of governance, there is a risk that proliferating relations of accountability associated with devolution and participation obfuscate rather than clarify rights and responsibilities (Brunsson, 1993; Gustafsson, 2020). Meyer (1983) has reminded us that account-giving can serve to celebrate rationality, operating as a great, integrated fiction that has little to do with ongoing activities. This means we must assume that account-demanding and account-giving instruments (e.g., norms structuring information disclosure, audits, standards and metrics, blockchain) do not necessarily lead to accountability capable of redirecting developmental trajectories at local or planetary scales. Analytically, we must clearly differentiate accountability from transparency and go beyond policy prescriptions centered on remedying incomplete information. We must assess if and how accountability mechanisms can support recursive processes of socioecological change and, perhaps, restructuring. Research on accountability feedbacks, follow-on effects of (in)actions, applied to nation states, transnational governance actors, and non-state actors at global and local levels, can support critical assessments of outputs and outcomes of environmental governance. This research agenda must address geographic differences and comparative institutional analysis, as it is clear that governance and accountability mechanisms are highly heterogeneous. By strengthening linkages between academics and a diverse set of actors, most notably civil society organizations (Burawoy, 2005), conceptual and empirical research can support efforts to reduce differentiated socioenvironmental vulnerabilities by governing politically and economically powerful actors. The ways in which accountability is organized and practiced range from hierarchical-authoritarian to informal-participatory to gestural-performative (Arnold, 2022a; Roberts, 1991; Sareen & Wolf, 2021). Great potential is ascribed to new technical capacity to collect and integrate data at decreasing costs in support of accounting, decision-making, and liberalism (Bauwens & Pazaitis, 2019). At the same time, these same tools present us with modern surveillance states and disturbing questions about autonomy and personal sovereignty in the age of “big data” (Zuboff, 2019). A critical reading of environmental governance motivates us to link analyses of environmental change to an integrated analysis of (mis)information flows, (de)regulation, and democratic practices/deficits. We seek to advance a structural analysis of accountability that reflects historical developments and the political and economic interests of powerful actors. At the same time, we identify a need to advance an actor-centered analysis that engages with ontological and affective accounts of sociological problems and remedies. The growing literature on responsible “care” and “care-giving” in sustainability studies reflects recognition of the embedded nature of socioecological relations (cf. Nelson & Power, 2018). Developing conceptual frameworks capable of encompassing a broad range of institutional logics—that is, distinct grammars of appropriateness (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008) or justification (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006) that can complement and contradict one another within and across levels of social organization—is a core challenge for students of accountability and environmental governance. Against this background, the articles in this Special Issue specify concrete questions that draw from different theoretical traditions (political economy, theories of risk, agency theories, socioecological systems, sustainability transitions, environmental governance) and disciplinary debates (sociology, political science, international relations, business studies) relevant to accountability and the Anthropocene. This collection is a selection of working papers that were first presented and discussed on 29–30 April 2021 in a workshop that was convened virtually due to the COVID pandemic. The interdisciplinary workshop, which was funded by the Research Committee of the University of Lucerne and the Swiss National Science Foundation, sparked intellectual debate on the manifest and latent functions of accountability as well as its underlying objectives and motivations in the context of the Anthropocene. Based on feedback received during and following the workshop, participating authors developed and submitted complete papers for peer review.
Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (award # 202376) and the U.S. National Science Foundation Cyber‐Human Systems Program (award # 1955125).
Funding
The authors acknowledge funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (award # 202376) and the U.S. National Science Foundation Cyber-Human Systems Program (award # 1955125). The “Anthropocene” refers to a new geological epoch in which humankind has an unprecedented influence on the Earth (Subramanian, 2019). The extent of this influence is such that socioeconomic activity discernibly changes and destabilizes biogeochemical processes (e.g., climate, hydrology, biodiversity) upon which people, firms, and governments depend (Biermann et al., 2012). Hence, the Anthropocene implies a fundamental change in socioecological relations. This epochal change invites critical reflection on mechanisms for regulating socioecological relations, given existing conceptions and practices of governance appear incapable of integrating planetary boundaries into socioeconomic processes (Blühdorn et al., 2020). This special issue explores this environmental governance challenge through the lens of accountability. In particular, our objective is to develop a better understanding of the analytical and practical value of accountability in relation to anthropogenic drivers of global environmental change. Accountability, which refers to assessments of actors' (in)actions and follow-on consequences of these assessments, can help us investigate governance in the Anthropocene. Here we define governance as systems controls (i.e., information management, institutional arrangements, and operational controls) and systems restructuring mechanisms (i.e., the emergence of new values, incentives and sanctions, empowerment of different actors, institutional innovation), which are continuously contested. We assume that accountability is inherent in every social relationship at all levels of social organization (Dubnick, 2011). On this basis, we identify an opportunity to leverage accountability to trace linkages between diverse actors such as government agencies, commercial firms, investors, social movement organizations, consumers, and citizens (Kraft & Wolf, 2018). Specifically, the lens of accountability can potentially help to disentangle if and how planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015) and local socioecological concerns are represented in governance processes and structures. In line with arguments focused on inequality that give rise to the Capitolocene as a corrective to the Anthropocene (Moore, 2016), this analysis presents opportunities to make sense of differentiated responsibilities, access to resources, and risks confronting various populations. Accountability can be understood as a problem as well as a solution. There is clear potential for superficial or hollow accountability, a mode of governance through which accountees and accountors discharge their responsibilities in a manner that conserves unsustainable socioecological relations by continually minting legitimacy (Wolf, 2020). Contrary to naïve expectations about the functions of governance, there is a risk that proliferating relations of accountability associated with devolution and participation obfuscate rather than clarify rights and responsibilities (Brunsson, 1993; Gustafsson, 2020). Meyer (1983) has reminded us that account-giving can serve to celebrate rationality, operating as a great, integrated fiction that has little to do with ongoing activities. This means we must assume that account-demanding and account-giving instruments (e.g., norms structuring information disclosure, audits, standards and metrics, blockchain) do not necessarily lead to accountability capable of redirecting developmental trajectories at local or planetary scales. Analytically, we must clearly differentiate accountability from transparency and go beyond policy prescriptions centered on remedying incomplete information. We must assess if and how accountability mechanisms can support recursive processes of socioecological change and, perhaps, restructuring. Research on accountability feedbacks, follow-on effects of (in)actions, applied to nation states, transnational governance actors, and non-state actors at global and local levels, can support critical assessments of outputs and outcomes of environmental governance. This research agenda must address geographic differences and comparative institutional analysis, as it is clear that governance and accountability mechanisms are highly heterogeneous. By strengthening linkages between academics and a diverse set of actors, most notably civil society organizations (Burawoy, 2005), conceptual and empirical research can support efforts to reduce differentiated socioenvironmental vulnerabilities by governing politically and economically powerful actors. The ways in which accountability is organized and practiced range from hierarchical-authoritarian to informal-participatory to gestural-performative (Arnold, 2022a; Roberts, 1991; Sareen & Wolf, 2021). Great potential is ascribed to new technical capacity to collect and integrate data at decreasing costs in support of accounting, decision-making, and liberalism (Bauwens & Pazaitis, 2019). At the same time, these same tools present us with modern surveillance states and disturbing questions about autonomy and personal sovereignty in the age of “big data” (Zuboff, 2019). A critical reading of environmental governance motivates us to link analyses of environmental change to an integrated analysis of (mis)information flows, (de)regulation, and democratic practices/deficits. We seek to advance a structural analysis of accountability that reflects historical developments and the political and economic interests of powerful actors. At the same time, we identify a need to advance an actor-centered analysis that engages with ontological and affective accounts of sociological problems and remedies. The growing literature on responsible “care” and “care-giving” in sustainability studies reflects recognition of the embedded nature of socioecological relations (cf. Nelson & Power, 2018). Developing conceptual frameworks capable of encompassing a broad range of institutional logics—that is, distinct grammars of appropriateness (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008) or justification (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006) that can complement and contradict one another within and across levels of social organization—is a core challenge for students of accountability and environmental governance. Against this background, the articles in this Special Issue specify concrete questions that draw from different theoretical traditions (political economy, theories of risk, agency theories, socioecological systems, sustainability transitions, environmental governance) and disciplinary debates (sociology, political science, international relations, business studies) relevant to accountability and the Anthropocene. This collection is a selection of working papers that were first presented and discussed on 29–30 April 2021 in a workshop that was convened virtually due to the COVID pandemic. The interdisciplinary workshop, which was funded by the Research Committee of the University of Lucerne and the Swiss National Science Foundation, sparked intellectual debate on the manifest and latent functions of accountability as well as its underlying objectives and motivations in the context of the Anthropocene. Based on feedback received during and following the workshop, participating authors developed and submitted complete papers for peer review. The authors acknowledge funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (award # 202376) and the U.S. National Science Foundation Cyber‐Human Systems Program (award # 1955125).
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
University of Lucerne | |
National Science Foundation | 1955125 |
National Science Foundation | |
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung | 202376 |
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung |