Seeing the power in SEA:

Capacity, institutional reform and social theory.

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

Promise and Dismay.

The promise: strengthen EIA, improve cumulative impact assessment, tiering, sustainability, etc.
Implementation research: the dismay (e.g. Noble 2009, Retief et al. 2008, Sanchez & Sanchez, 2008, Richardson and Cashmore 2011, etc.). Similar experiences with other appraisal tools (e.g. RIA) and environmental policy integration mechanisms in general.

April 18, 2012

Research questions.

Why do unsustainable practices seem to persist after SEA implementation? What features of SEA might disrupt the reproduction of unsustainable practices? Where, when and why might SEA be (un)successful? Ultimate focus is explanatory theory: when can SEA power transformations?

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, constitutional moments, etc.

April 18, 2012

Institutions

After Giddens, institutions are divided into two parts: a cultural component (schema/ model), and resources, interactions and interpretative processes which sustain or reproduce the cultural component. Resources serve as a source of power for making things happen (Giddens, 1981).

April 18, 2012

Conceptual framework.

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

April 18, 2012

Conceptual framework.

Skills, knowledge and understanding, including the ability to learn and adapt Attributes and behaviours which underpin skills, such as self motivation, entrepreneurialism, humility, etc; and, Access to resources, such as time, capital, materials or training.

ENABLING CONTEXT NETWORKS ORGANIZATIONS INDIVIDUAL

Structure, culture and management of organisations as determinants of resources Attributes of staff in terms of number, levels, types of expertise and skills. Additional resources on which they can call.

Network accessibility and management as determinants of access to resources, and of the characteristics of interpretative processes and interactions Domain demarcation and cognitive and social symmetry as determinants of interactions between networks and the potential for actor heterogenity or conflict
Broader contextual factors (e.g. social, economic and cultural context)

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 thinking about SEA.

April 18, 2012

Overarching theme questions.

(How) is capacity development catching up with evolving SEA knowledge? What should the capacity development agenda consist of? Greater consideration given to capacity in developed countries. Stronger emphasis on implementation/ evaluation research.

April 18, 2012