制度化:根据可持续发展的进程和要素

Andrii Kovalskyi
{"title":"制度化:根据可持续发展的进程和要素","authors":"Andrii Kovalskyi","doi":"10.32782/2224-6282/186-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than two decades after the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, sustainable development remains a major challenge. Politics and administration, especially in democratic societies, have a special responsibility for coordinating sustainable development. To fulfill this role, the regulative idea of sustainability must be integrated into policy and governance decision-making at all levels, from the local to the global. Taking this into account, we analyzed the development of the institutionalization of sustainable development as a cross-cutting and long-term problem. Drawing on a theoretical-conceptual framework derived from the theory of democracy, bureaucracy and political management/governance, we applied qualitative methods to understand how sustainability is integrated into political-administrative practice. In this article, we examine the elements and processes of institutionalization and present a perspective on how exactly sustainability is understood at the level of strategy formation. A deep analysis of the dynamics of the development of processes and elements of institutionalization indicates that the old institutional economics and the new institutional sociology can become an effective basis for an extended theoretical study of social and environmental accounting and reporting. The interaction of these two theories allows consideration of various aspects of institutions and their dynamics, including regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive aspects. It is important to approach aspects of the old institutional economy, where the emphasis is on normative and customary aspects such as norms, conventions, rules and routines. The old theorists of institutional economics emphasize the importance of habits, procedures, and rules that define and maintain existing forms of behavior. Routines are «patterns of thought and action commonly adopted by groups of individuals», while rules are «a formally recognized way in which 'what should be done'». This approach reveals the difference between stable routines and formally defined rules that can be subject to change and institutionalization. On the other hand, new institutionalism is defined by a shift in focus from normative elements to shared understandings of social reality, such as symbols, meanings, and beliefs. He considers cultural and cognitive elements, as well as regulatory, as socially constructed phenomena that define a «common structure» for perceiving events and taking actions. As for the concept of «sustainable development», it can be concluded that it is a complex and ambiguous term that does not have a strict definition, but covers various aspects and understanding. Different points of view lead to different interpretations of this concept. As noted in the sources, in the additive model of sustainability, different actors may prioritize different aspects of sustainability (social, economic, environmental), depending on their interests and field of activity.","PeriodicalId":232891,"journal":{"name":"Economic scope","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"INSTITUTIONALIZATION: PROCESSES AND ELEMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT\",\"authors\":\"Andrii Kovalskyi\",\"doi\":\"10.32782/2224-6282/186-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"More than two decades after the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, sustainable development remains a major challenge. Politics and administration, especially in democratic societies, have a special responsibility for coordinating sustainable development. To fulfill this role, the regulative idea of sustainability must be integrated into policy and governance decision-making at all levels, from the local to the global. Taking this into account, we analyzed the development of the institutionalization of sustainable development as a cross-cutting and long-term problem. Drawing on a theoretical-conceptual framework derived from the theory of democracy, bureaucracy and political management/governance, we applied qualitative methods to understand how sustainability is integrated into political-administrative practice. In this article, we examine the elements and processes of institutionalization and present a perspective on how exactly sustainability is understood at the level of strategy formation. A deep analysis of the dynamics of the development of processes and elements of institutionalization indicates that the old institutional economics and the new institutional sociology can become an effective basis for an extended theoretical study of social and environmental accounting and reporting. The interaction of these two theories allows consideration of various aspects of institutions and their dynamics, including regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive aspects. It is important to approach aspects of the old institutional economy, where the emphasis is on normative and customary aspects such as norms, conventions, rules and routines. The old theorists of institutional economics emphasize the importance of habits, procedures, and rules that define and maintain existing forms of behavior. Routines are «patterns of thought and action commonly adopted by groups of individuals», while rules are «a formally recognized way in which 'what should be done'». This approach reveals the difference between stable routines and formally defined rules that can be subject to change and institutionalization. On the other hand, new institutionalism is defined by a shift in focus from normative elements to shared understandings of social reality, such as symbols, meanings, and beliefs. He considers cultural and cognitive elements, as well as regulatory, as socially constructed phenomena that define a «common structure» for perceiving events and taking actions. As for the concept of «sustainable development», it can be concluded that it is a complex and ambiguous term that does not have a strict definition, but covers various aspects and understanding. Different points of view lead to different interpretations of this concept. As noted in the sources, in the additive model of sustainability, different actors may prioritize different aspects of sustainability (social, economic, environmental), depending on their interests and field of activity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic scope\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic scope\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32782/2224-6282/186-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic scope","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32782/2224-6282/186-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1992年里约环境与发展会议过去20多年后,可持续发展仍然是一项重大挑战。政治和行政,特别是民主社会的政治和行政,对协调可持续发展负有特殊责任。为了发挥这一作用,必须将可持续性的管理理念纳入从地方到全球各级的政策和治理决策中。考虑到这一点,我们分析了可持续发展的制度化发展作为一个跨领域和长期的问题。借鉴源自民主、官僚和政治管理/治理理论的理论-概念框架,我们运用定性方法来理解可持续性如何融入政治-行政实践。在本文中,我们研究了制度化的要素和过程,并提出了在战略形成层面如何准确理解可持续性的观点。对制度化过程和要素发展动态的深入分析表明,旧的制度经济学和新的制度社会学可以成为对社会和环境会计与报告进行扩展理论研究的有效基础。这两种理论的相互作用允许考虑制度及其动态的各个方面,包括监管,规范和文化认知方面。重要的是要处理旧体制经济的各个方面,其中重点是规范和习惯方面,如规范、惯例、规则和惯例。制度经济学的老理论家强调习惯、程序和规则的重要性,它们定义和维持现有的行为形式。例程是“一群个人普遍采用的思维和行动模式”,而规则是“一种被正式认可的‘应该做什么’的方式”。这种方法揭示了稳定的例程和可以改变和制度化的正式定义的规则之间的区别。另一方面,新制度主义的定义是将焦点从规范元素转移到对社会现实的共同理解,如符号、意义和信仰。他认为文化和认知因素,以及监管,作为社会建构的现象,定义了感知事件和采取行动的“共同结构”。对于“可持续发展”的概念,可以得出结论,它是一个复杂而模糊的术语,没有严格的定义,但涵盖了各个方面和理解。不同的观点导致对这个概念的不同解释。如资料所述,在可持续性的加性模型中,不同的行动者可能根据其兴趣和活动领域优先考虑可持续性的不同方面(社会、经济、环境)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
INSTITUTIONALIZATION: PROCESSES AND ELEMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
More than two decades after the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, sustainable development remains a major challenge. Politics and administration, especially in democratic societies, have a special responsibility for coordinating sustainable development. To fulfill this role, the regulative idea of sustainability must be integrated into policy and governance decision-making at all levels, from the local to the global. Taking this into account, we analyzed the development of the institutionalization of sustainable development as a cross-cutting and long-term problem. Drawing on a theoretical-conceptual framework derived from the theory of democracy, bureaucracy and political management/governance, we applied qualitative methods to understand how sustainability is integrated into political-administrative practice. In this article, we examine the elements and processes of institutionalization and present a perspective on how exactly sustainability is understood at the level of strategy formation. A deep analysis of the dynamics of the development of processes and elements of institutionalization indicates that the old institutional economics and the new institutional sociology can become an effective basis for an extended theoretical study of social and environmental accounting and reporting. The interaction of these two theories allows consideration of various aspects of institutions and their dynamics, including regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive aspects. It is important to approach aspects of the old institutional economy, where the emphasis is on normative and customary aspects such as norms, conventions, rules and routines. The old theorists of institutional economics emphasize the importance of habits, procedures, and rules that define and maintain existing forms of behavior. Routines are «patterns of thought and action commonly adopted by groups of individuals», while rules are «a formally recognized way in which 'what should be done'». This approach reveals the difference between stable routines and formally defined rules that can be subject to change and institutionalization. On the other hand, new institutionalism is defined by a shift in focus from normative elements to shared understandings of social reality, such as symbols, meanings, and beliefs. He considers cultural and cognitive elements, as well as regulatory, as socially constructed phenomena that define a «common structure» for perceiving events and taking actions. As for the concept of «sustainable development», it can be concluded that it is a complex and ambiguous term that does not have a strict definition, but covers various aspects and understanding. Different points of view lead to different interpretations of this concept. As noted in the sources, in the additive model of sustainability, different actors may prioritize different aspects of sustainability (social, economic, environmental), depending on their interests and field of activity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信