Ways to maintain and challenge hegemony: Actor coalitions in Finnish forest governance

IF 3.8 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Naveed Imran , Simo Sarkki , Anna Krzywoszynska , Hannu I. Heikkinen
{"title":"Ways to maintain and challenge hegemony: Actor coalitions in Finnish forest governance","authors":"Naveed Imran ,&nbsp;Simo Sarkki ,&nbsp;Anna Krzywoszynska ,&nbsp;Hannu I. Heikkinen","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding tensions between hegemony and counter-hegemony is crucial for identifying dynamics of socio-political persistence and change. This study examines Finnish forest governance and highlights its shift from a corporativist, monocentric model to a more decentralised, polycentric governance landscape illustrated by the diversification of actors in the domains of policy, civil society, science and business. We analyse two major Forest Act revisions (1994–96, 2010–13) and ongoing debates on the EU Nature Restoration Law to assess whether and how biodiversity concerns are incorporated into legislation and how these relate to the perspectives of the Forestry and Environmental coalitions. Our findings reveal that mainstreaming biodiversity into forest policy and practice has been hampered by cosmetic changes in policy (Forest Act 1996), by arranging multi-actor processes but without impact on policy priorities (Forest Act 2013), and by stressing the importance of economy and national sovereignty over biodiversity concerns (regarding EU Nature Restoration Law). We discuss ways for maintaining and challenging hegemony by Forestry and Environmental coalitions. Our major conclusion is that a shift towards polycentrism through diversification of the forest governance landscape does not necessarily imply changes in hegemony defined as a power to influence the rules of the game within the existing governance landscape. Yet, the ongoing process of preparing the national restoration plans and their actual implementation will show whether the Forestry coalition is able to sustain its hegemonic position in the context of EU Nature Restoration Law.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"178 ","pages":"Article 103572"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125001510","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding tensions between hegemony and counter-hegemony is crucial for identifying dynamics of socio-political persistence and change. This study examines Finnish forest governance and highlights its shift from a corporativist, monocentric model to a more decentralised, polycentric governance landscape illustrated by the diversification of actors in the domains of policy, civil society, science and business. We analyse two major Forest Act revisions (1994–96, 2010–13) and ongoing debates on the EU Nature Restoration Law to assess whether and how biodiversity concerns are incorporated into legislation and how these relate to the perspectives of the Forestry and Environmental coalitions. Our findings reveal that mainstreaming biodiversity into forest policy and practice has been hampered by cosmetic changes in policy (Forest Act 1996), by arranging multi-actor processes but without impact on policy priorities (Forest Act 2013), and by stressing the importance of economy and national sovereignty over biodiversity concerns (regarding EU Nature Restoration Law). We discuss ways for maintaining and challenging hegemony by Forestry and Environmental coalitions. Our major conclusion is that a shift towards polycentrism through diversification of the forest governance landscape does not necessarily imply changes in hegemony defined as a power to influence the rules of the game within the existing governance landscape. Yet, the ongoing process of preparing the national restoration plans and their actual implementation will show whether the Forestry coalition is able to sustain its hegemonic position in the context of EU Nature Restoration Law.
维持和挑战霸权的方式:芬兰森林治理中的行动者联盟
理解霸权和反霸权之间的紧张关系对于识别社会政治持续和变化的动力至关重要。本研究考察了芬兰的森林治理,并强调了其从社团主义、单中心模式向更加分散、多中心的治理格局的转变,这体现在政策、民间社会、科学和商业领域行动者的多样化。我们分析了两次主要的《森林法》修订(1994-96年,2010-13年)和正在进行的关于欧盟自然恢复法的辩论,以评估生物多样性问题是否以及如何纳入立法,以及这些问题如何与林业和环境联盟的观点相关联。我们的研究结果表明,将生物多样性纳入森林政策和实践的主流受到政策表面变化(1996年《森林法》)、安排多参与者过程但不影响政策优先事项(2013年《森林法》)以及强调经济和国家主权对生物多样性问题的重要性(关于欧盟自然恢复法)的阻碍。我们讨论了通过林业和环境联盟维持和挑战霸权的方法。我们的主要结论是,通过森林治理格局的多样化向多中心主义的转变并不一定意味着霸权的变化,霸权被定义为在现有治理格局中影响游戏规则的力量。然而,正在进行的国家恢复计划的准备过程及其实际实施将表明林业联盟是否能够在欧盟自然恢复法的背景下维持其霸权地位。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信