REGIMES OF PRACTISE AND DISCOURSES WITHIN GOVERNMENTAL ARENAS GOVERNMENTAL ARENAS

After having briefly outlined my basic understanding of the companies to be governed, I now turn attention to the governance system in terms of the – vertical – governance aspect that structures the municipality governing approaches and techniques (or means) applied – their governing practices – in their interventions to encourage a change among those companies. This forms the conceptualisations for the focuses of Chapter 6, 7 and 8.

As already shown, I adopt the term ‘regimes of practices’ as core for capturing my interest in the actual performance of the municipalities. “Regimes of practices”

specifically captures the idea that the performance of the municipalities shall be understood in light of the specific historical constitution of different understandings and rationalities into a specific framing for how to govern, but also that such are changeable. “Regimes of practices” represent thus a very dynamic and intermeshing term.

Contrary, Kooiman’s use of an interconnected line of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd order governance provides analytical options to distinguish different elements. This interconnected line do however also provide a more static appearance, where the 3^rd order provides the boundaries for the 2^nd order that subsidiary provide the boundary for the 1^st order.

None of these resembles specifically the regimes of practices. The 1^st order refers specifically to means or technologies – equal to governing techniques in the governmentality literature – and thus not the practices. The 2^nd order refers to the institutional frameworks.

I want to maintain the dynamic focus centred on the actual practices performed, as one of the central discussions in the Carbon 20 projects relates to the altering of such practices. However, I do find it valuable to try to distinguish between the different elements that are blurred into forming regimes of practices. Contrary to the appearance of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd orders, I perceive the elements as much more blurred and dynamic, whereas each of the element affect each other.

For my focus I find it useful to separate out Kooiman’s 2^nd order governance in terms of “the constituted regulatory framework”, addressing specifically how this is currently constructed, not however naming such 2^nd order. I further find it useful to try to separate out the underlying different rationalities and the understanding

dominating the different fields. I am, however not quite satisfied with Kooiman’s 3^rd order governance.

Foucault himself used the term ‘discourse’ to capture such a coherent (and competing) system of thoughts and ideas. Foucault’s use of discourse has been summarised by Lessa (2006) as

“Systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak" (Lessa, 2006).

Lessa's definition includes practices, which I – following Dean’s interpretation of Foucault – consider something different, but affected by (but also re-affecting) such discourses.

Throughout the 1990s and onwards, academia has increasingly paid attention to discourses as centre of analyse resulting e.g. in the forming of a specific scholarly discipline – discourse analyses – that puts emphasis on the articulated (written) text and the ideas and the thoughts underlying them (see, e.g. Fairclough (2003) as exponent of critical discourse analyses). As I haven’t carried out any consistent discourse analysis, I was hesitant to use this term. I instead turned to the term

‘paradigm’ as this similarly has been used to capture such underlying thoughts and ideas within specific demarcated fields.

The two terms are often used to capture some of the same dynamics, but have historically been applied in respect to different contexts. Dryzek (2007) therefore argues for a distinction in terms of paradigms as related to knowledge production, and discourses to societal development. As my focus is the latter I apply ‘discourse’

as the term used in this PhD thesis rather than paradigm. I will however below outline the concept of paradigm and show that it has been used interchangeable to how I apply discourse. The reason for this outline is among others that “paradigm”

is used in some of the papers.

Kuhn introduced the concept of ‘paradigm’ in 1961²⁶ as a central term to capture the way that “scientific communities” developed common shared understandings, assumptions, theories and worldviews for the execution of science and production of knowledge (Kuhn, 1970).

Kuhn used the term specifically in respect of knowledge production within natural science and specifically refrained from applying the term in respect to the social sciences, arguing that the stability of a dominating paradigm never seems to gain sufficient followers as they are constantly drawn into question.

In spite of this, the term has been widely applied in relation to the content of the social sciences – and specifically in the context of the environmental challenges.

Pirages and Ehrlich (1974), and Milbrath (1984) for example, uses the term

‘dominant social paradigm’ (DSP) to argue that (western) societal development is dominated by rather coherent set (economic) understandings of – and approaches towards – how society (and the global economy) is organised. Milbrath specifically

26 In “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Kuhn assesses the history of scientific development (Kuhn, 1970). In this, he questioned the then common understanding of the history of science as a more or less linear accumulation of knowledge. He instead argued that science has been characterised by changing periods of stability and disputes in terms of what he frames as “normal science” vs. “scientific revolutions”. The periods of “normal science”

are characterised by hegemony of shared understandings, theories and worldviews about how to conduct and interpret new knowledge within “scientific communities”, whereas “scientific revolutions” are characterised by the opposite. Kuhn describes such shared understandings, theories and worldviews about how to conduct and interpret new knowledge production as

“paradigms” that allow “members” of the scientific community to engage in “puzzle-solving” scientific work in terms of fitting in unsolved problems within the overall paradigm.

Some of these problems and observations may however prove to be “anomalies” in respect of the established paradigm – meaning that they don’t fit within the established common understandings, theories and worldviews. If such anomalies accumulate it may potentially lead to “scientific crisis” where the establish paradigm is questioned. Typically scientists will under a “normal science period” try to stretch and adjust the paradigm to encompass such or dismiss them as errors in observations. Difficulties in providing proper explanations of the phenomena may also cause scientists to seek alternative explanations that may give rise to competing paradigms. If such paradigms seem to be able to provide solutions to the anomalies, while also provide proper explanations for existing knowledge taken for granted in the previous paradigm, the new (alternate) paradigm may eventually manage to take over as dominant – causing a “ shift” in terms of altering the basic understandings, theoretical approaches and assumptions of the science community. Kuhn uses the term “scientific revolution” to point out how dramatic the changes might be, but also how fierce the conflicts between adherents of competing paradigms can be (Kuhn, 1970; See also Madsen et. al., 2000).

calls for a paradigm shift as a necessity for managing the increasing environmental challenges (see also Kilbournea et al., 2002).

Colby (1991) has broadened out the use of paradigm in respect to the co-existence of several such paradigms that overlap in shaping actual policies and management practises within the environmental field²⁷.

Mortensen (2000) has similarly used ‘paradigm’ in looking specifically at Danish environmental regulation of companies, and argues that the intermeshing of distinct paradigms has blurred the regulatory framework and thereby the boundaries for the performance of the competent authorities execution of the regulation (Mortensen, 2000).

Colby and Mortensen’s use of Paradigm closely resembles what I intend to capture in this PhD thesis, and Mortensen is also referred specifically in the paper 2 forming the essential of chapter 6. It does however also marks a rather significant change in the use of the term from that of Kuhn, as it no longer relates to knowledge production within a “scientific community”, but instead refers to a more or less coherent set of thoughts, theories and understandings that dominates (or compete with conflicting paradigm to dominate) the politics and practise of societal development.

Dryzek (2007) argues against this change and insist on maintaining paradigm in its original meaning related to knowledge production. He instead prefers to use

‘discourses’ for his assessment of such coherent sets of thoughts and ideas influencing international policy formation in the domain of environmental protection – equal to how Colby uses ‘paradigm’ (Dryzek, 2007).

Dryzek defines both paradigms and discourses as “inter-subjective understanding[s] that condition individual action and social outcome” (Dryzek, 2007: 45). He argues however that they constitute subjects in different ways. Where scientists are educated within paradigms, individuals are generally socialised into discourses. Paradigms are thus generally (more or less) cautiously accepted by the scientific society, whereas discourses in contrast can be so ingrained that subjects are unaware of them – they are taken for granted (Dryzek, 2007).

Dryzek makes the distinction that the paradigm is a coherent set of thoughts, theories and assumptions of knowledge production (including social sciences, such as neoclassical economics); where the discourses of the social processes encompass

27 He identifies five such paradigms, two in direct opposition – “frontier economics” versus

“deep ecology”; and three subsequent evolving approaches that combine those two –

“environmental protection”, resource management”, and “eco-development” (Colby, 1991).

shared concepts and ideas that influence society formation. He does acknowledge that there are connections in terms of discourses that might draw on the paradigmatic understandings of different scientific traditions e.g. liberal policy discourses drawing on neoclassical economic theory (Dryzek, 2007).

While it conceptually might makes since to make the distinctions between paradigm and discourses, I find that these concepts – at least within the social sciences – are interconnected, intermeshing and overlapping e.g. that some of the assumption made in neoclassical economic theory originates on a liberal worldview.

I chose to adopt the concept of discourses for this PhD as what I seek to capture with the term is more related to the ideas and thoughts dominating a societal field – in terms of past knowledge of the field – rather than the assumption for the production of scientific knowledge within scientific communities.

In summary, I make a distinction between “discourses”, the “constituted regulatory frameworks” and the actual “regimes of practice” including the applied governing

“techniques” (means) of a given governmental field or subsystem.

I use the term “discourse” to capture the assembling of coherent rationalities and understandings of how to perform governance within the field, where several competing (or conflicting) discourses influence the way regulatory frameworks are formulated and interpreted as well as the performed practices, which however opposite also affect the discourses.

The “constituted regulatory framework” is the formally established legal and institutional settings forming the overall boundaries for the specific execution of the regulatory “practices”. The regulatory framework is the formal (contemporary) implementation of the different underlying discourses.

I use the term “regimes of practices” to capture the institutionalised performance exercised within these boundaries and the applied means and techniques (modes of governing), in which the overall frameworks are interpreted, adopted and adapted in respect of the past experiences, basic understandings, and socialised discourses of the governors.

This outline of the three levels of focus will still be interpreted from a dynamic evolutionary perspective, where the elements mutually and iteratively affect each other.

To capture the stable, but still constantly evolving character of such subsystems and their boundaries, I find that the terms ‘subsystem’ or ‘fields’ applied above appear to be rather stable terms of the drawn boundaries. I turn instead to the concept of

‘arena’.

Jørgensen and Sorensen (1999) apply the concept “arenas of development” in respect of capturing the – at the same time stable, but still changing – space of development for technological innovations²⁸. They conceptualise arenas as: “…a cognitive space that holds together the settings and relations that comprise the context for product or process development” (Jørgensen and Sorensen, 1999: 410).

Writing in the context of technological innovation and development, the cognitive space is their framework for the technological development that takes places within specific, but also constantly changing constellations. As new actors enter such arenas, or the arena is merged with other arenas, the established configurations and constellations are restructured – a reframing of the common understandings and applied practices of the field. This provides opportunities for a transition from the past path (Jørgensen and Sorensen, 1999; Jørgensen, 2012):

The metaphor ‘arena’ … refers to the word’s original meaning in Arabic – ‘sand on sand’ – to indicate the spatial and relational temporality and fluidity of the phenomena for which the approach provides the analytical framework. Arenas provide the place and space for socio-material interactions (Jørgensen 2012: 1001).

They adopt the concept of an arena from Fink (1989), applying the term ‘arena’

within the social sciences: The arena concept in social science refers to the arena as a structured battleground or framework for a regulated activity (Fink, 1989:13 own translation from Danish). Renn (1993) adds, specifically in respect of the political sphere: “The arena concept attempts to explain the process of policy formulation and enforcement in a specific policy field” (Renn, 1993: 181).

28 Jørgensen and Sorensen use of the term originate from and contribute to the transition literature. The transition literature point out – by using different terms such as “technological paradigm”, “socio-technical regimes”, “co-evolution of technologies and institutions”, “path dependency” etc. – that the innovations and technological development is taking place within a context. The specific technological innovations are co-shaped and co-shaping the established societal frames and the mutual interaction of several different actors (e.g. Garud, Kumaraswamy & Karnøe, 2010;; 2011; Jørgensen, 2012; Kemp and Rotmans, 2005; Saviotti 2005; Schienstock, 2005). Jørgensen and Sorensen argues that several of these transition perspectives tend to overemphasise the – admittedly strong – factors and processes that structure development into specific “technological trajectories”, whereas they call for an analytical perspective that empowers the actors involved to change and redefine such settings. The “arena of development” is their attempt to provide such an analytical framework empowering the actor involved in the innovation processes (Jorgensen, 2012;

Jørgensen and Sorensen, 1999).

The term “arena” in this PhD thesis is used to capture what the governmentality literature frames as ‘governmental subsystems’. With an emphasis on the stable, but at the same time fluctuating character of this, I frame it as “governmental arenas”.

The inspiration to apply the arena term in this PhD is Jørgensen (2012)'s notion that the merging of otherwise separate arenas provides the potential for a reframing of the existing configurations – in the context of this PhD the discourse and regimes of practices. As explained in the introduction (Chapter 1), municipalities are starting to work across the policy fields of interest in this PhD thesis in terms of environmental regulation, business support and energy efficiency. This means that such otherwise separate arenas are merging, allowing a reframing of basic approaches to conduct governing of the local business.

My use of “governmental arenas” departs from Jørgensen’s use of “arena of development” by more than the object of focus – arenas for exercising governing instead of arenas for technological development.

Jørgensen’s use of arenas is – similar to Dean’s use of “regimes of practices” – attempting to provide an all-inclusive term to capture the different (discursive or paradigmatic) understandings that different actors bring into the development processes, and the established constituted boundaries and institutional settings for the practices that are performed. As mentioned I attempt to diversify the analytical perspective into its different elements, while still maintaining the evolutionary perspective that both terms advocate.

“Governmental arenas” are, for this PhD thesis, to be understood as, on the one hand relatively stable, but at the same time also volatile field or sphere bounded by a (changeable) “constituted regulatory framework” formed by the institutionalising of various more or less coherent “discourses”, that shapes (sets the boundary for) the actual “regimes of practices” performed and the used specific governing

“techniques” and means.

The arenas have their own dynamics of connection between the different elements (discourses, frameworks, practices), but an altering of the overall boundaries (constituted setting) of such arenas, for example the merging with other arenas, challenges the established regimes, as the various discourses and rationalities for performing governance are enlarged.

Following the vocabulary introduced above; what I am interested in within the three

“governmental arenas” of environmental regulation of companies, business support and energy efficiency policies is:

• The overall constituted regulatory framework of the arena and the

municipality position, responsibilities and allocated of resources within it – Kooiman’s 2^nd order governance or the boundaries of the arena.

• The core rationalities, basic understanding and assumptions as well as theories of why and how to govern dominating the arena – the discourses (including potentially both dominating and competing (conflicting) discourses)

• The actual specific performance in terms of approaches and means (techniques) that the governors apply within the arena – regimes of practices – which encompass all the above institutional settings, discursive understandings etc. forming the actually blurred specific mixture of practices and application of governing techniques and means.

In other words, within each of the governmental arenas I am assessing the municipality role, responsibilities and resources within the regulatory framework (2^nd order governance”) and how the basic understandings (discourses) of how to conduct governance are actually applied and turned into “regimes of practices” by the municipalities including the means (governing techniques) applied. This then provides the basis for looking at the emerging merging of these arenas and discussing a redefinition of the practices of the municipal officers as actors acting across these arenas to address the specific dynamic context of the targeted companies.

This overall governance framework and discussions provide the point of departure for picking up on the learning perspective in relation to improving the overall governability. This imply to look more closely at; the competences needed to redefine the existing “regimes of practices” for how to govern (or encourage) companies to take action towards reducing their GHG emissions acknowledging the diversity, complexity and dynamics of the targeted companies.

Based on among others some of the literature introduced in last chapter of Dewey, Schön and Argyris, Chapter 9 introduces the Reflective Dialogue Partner as a concept to capturing this and discusses the learning of the participant officers during the Carbon 20 project. Chapter 10 follows up by more specifically discuss how to adapt practises in respect to the complexity of the system to be governed.

3.5. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS PHD THESIS I have presented various ideas, theoretical perspective and concepts above that I find valuable in explaining my overall approach and perspective for the assessment carried out during this PhD thesis. As argued in Chapter 2, the formation of this conceptual framework has taken form iteratively with my interaction with the context (object of study). This implies that the framework has not been used as a

theoretical outset to structure my empirical data, but conversely as a dialectical attempt to structure the various empirical inputs along the way.

As the objects of this PhD are the municipality – a public entity – activities to encourage local business to achieve GHG reduction, I turn to the perspective of governance and governmentality – both occupied with such governing processes.

Kooiman stresses that the object of governance consists of diverse, complex and dynamic (sub-) systems that cannot be expected to react uniformly towards governing means. Following this general statement, I turn towards the dynamic understanding of the companies provided by, for example, Porter and extended by

Kooiman stresses that the object of governance consists of diverse, complex and dynamic (sub-) systems that cannot be expected to react uniformly towards governing means. Following this general statement, I turn towards the dynamic understanding of the companies provided by, for example, Porter and extended by

In document Aalborg Universitet PUBLIC PRIVATE COLLABORATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION A LOCAL GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Kasper (Sider 101-111)