{"title":"拆解专制的环境治理","authors":"John Aloysius Zinda","doi":"10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Debates about whether authoritarian or democratic environmental governance have the capacity to weather the present crises tend to gloss over variation across and within regimes. Authoritarian environmental governance plays out in diverse ways; comparing across contexts can help us understand its varying outcomes. Drawing on James C. Scott’s characterization of authoritarian high modernism, I identify four dimensions along which projects of authoritarian environmental governance vary: from maximizing to optimizing desired outputs, from thin to thicker simplifications, from rigidity to constrained flexibility, and from direct coercion to cultivating compliance. Together, they comprise a phenomenon we might call authoritarian elaboration, departing from the rigidity and simplification Scott describes. I review evidence from a variety of environmental projects in China to demonstrate how authoritarian elaboration occurs in practice. Examining the reasons behind what we might call harder and softer approaches to environmental governance, as well as their impacts on people and environments, I propose hypotheses on variation in governance practices and suggest approaches to studying them.","PeriodicalId":36869,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Development","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unpacking Authoritarian Environmental Governance\",\"authors\":\"John Aloysius Zinda\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Debates about whether authoritarian or democratic environmental governance have the capacity to weather the present crises tend to gloss over variation across and within regimes. Authoritarian environmental governance plays out in diverse ways; comparing across contexts can help us understand its varying outcomes. Drawing on James C. Scott’s characterization of authoritarian high modernism, I identify four dimensions along which projects of authoritarian environmental governance vary: from maximizing to optimizing desired outputs, from thin to thicker simplifications, from rigidity to constrained flexibility, and from direct coercion to cultivating compliance. Together, they comprise a phenomenon we might call authoritarian elaboration, departing from the rigidity and simplification Scott describes. I review evidence from a variety of environmental projects in China to demonstrate how authoritarian elaboration occurs in practice. Examining the reasons behind what we might call harder and softer approaches to environmental governance, as well as their impacts on people and environments, I propose hypotheses on variation in governance practices and suggest approaches to studying them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of Development\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology of Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关于专制或民主环境治理是否有能力度过当前危机的争论往往掩盖了政权之间和内部的差异。专制的环境治理以多种方式发挥作用;跨语境的比较可以帮助我们理解其不同的结果。根据詹姆斯·斯科特(James C. Scott)对威权主义高度现代主义的描述,我确定了威权主义环境治理项目的四个维度:从最大化到优化期望产出,从薄到厚的简化,从刚性到受限的灵活性,从直接强制到培养顺从。总之,它们构成了一种我们可以称之为威权式阐述的现象,背离了斯科特所描述的僵化和简化。我回顾了来自中国各种环境项目的证据,以证明专制的阐述是如何在实践中发生的。考察我们所谓的环境治理的硬方法和软方法背后的原因,以及它们对人类和环境的影响,我提出了关于治理实践变化的假设,并提出了研究它们的方法。
Debates about whether authoritarian or democratic environmental governance have the capacity to weather the present crises tend to gloss over variation across and within regimes. Authoritarian environmental governance plays out in diverse ways; comparing across contexts can help us understand its varying outcomes. Drawing on James C. Scott’s characterization of authoritarian high modernism, I identify four dimensions along which projects of authoritarian environmental governance vary: from maximizing to optimizing desired outputs, from thin to thicker simplifications, from rigidity to constrained flexibility, and from direct coercion to cultivating compliance. Together, they comprise a phenomenon we might call authoritarian elaboration, departing from the rigidity and simplification Scott describes. I review evidence from a variety of environmental projects in China to demonstrate how authoritarian elaboration occurs in practice. Examining the reasons behind what we might call harder and softer approaches to environmental governance, as well as their impacts on people and environments, I propose hypotheses on variation in governance practices and suggest approaches to studying them.