GY 420 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: IMPLEMENTING POLICY (Full unit)

GY465 CONCEPTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Michaelmas Term half unit)

Course Manager: Dr Michael Mason (S510)

Other teachers: Professor Judith Rees (S503), Dr Richard
Perkins (S413)Mr James Van Alstine (S509), Dr Mark Zeitoun (V901)

Availability

GY420 is a compulsory course for all MSc Environmental Policy and Regulation
students. It is also available to be taken by students on other MSc programmes in
accordance with the relevant programme regulations, both as a full unit and as a
Michaelmas Term half unit, GY465.

Aims and Objectives

This course will develop a critical understanding of the factors that shape the
various stages of the environmental policy process – from agenda setting through
formulation, implementation, enforcement and evaluation. It will consider
different perspectives on the rationale for policy interventions and regulation and
the factors that shape the influence of different interest groups on the
environmental policy making agenda. It will also consider the factors that shape
the rationality of governmental decision-making, the performance of different
policy instruments and institutional arrangements. It will consider the influence of
implementing agencies and different regulatory styles and the factors that shape
the impacts of environmental policy. The course will conclude with an evaluation of
the institutional conditions which affect the capacity for policy reform, the scope
for policy learning and policy transfer.

Teaching Arrangements

Weekly lectures and fortnightly seminars throughout the Michaelmas Term. For
GY420 students only there are lectures in Weeks 1-2 in the Lent Term followed by
student-led seminars in Weeks 3-10.

Assessment

GY420 will be assessed through a 3,000 word essay which accounts for 25% of the
overall mark and a 3-hour unseen examination [answering 3 from 9 questions]
which accounts for the remaining 75% of the marks. GY465, the half-unit, will be
assessed through a 2-hour unseen examination [answering 2 from 5 questions]
accounting for 100% of the marks.

1
Michaelmas Term Programme

Week 1 Environmental policy and regulation

Week 2 The institutions of policy and regulation
Week 2 Seminar – theory and policy change
Week 3 Policy objectives, instruments and the policy mix I
Week 4 Policy objectives, instruments and the policy mix II
Week 4 Seminar – traditional vs. new approaches in environmental
policy
Week 5 The organisations for policy development and implementation
Week 6 Government to governance
Week 6 Seminar – cooperative and voluntary policy approaches
Week 7 Implementation, enforcement and regulatory styles
Week 8 Politics and power
Week 8 Seminar – policy implementation
Week 9 Outcomes, impacts and evaluation
Week 10 Policy reform and change
Week 10 Seminar – transferability of environmental policy

Lent Term Programme

Lectures
Week 1 Multi-level governance I - the challenge of regulatory
coordination
Week 2 Multi-level governance II – the challenge of public participation
Seminars
Week 3 Collective action problems I: incentives and rationalities
Week 4 Collective action problems II: the role of social capital
Week 5 Governance beyond the state I: private environmental
governance
Week 6 Governance beyond the state II: civil regulation
Week 7 Scientific knowledge and environmental policy processes
Week 8 Ethical valuation and environmental policy processes
Week 9 Environmental dispute resolution
Week 10 The justice of environmental regulation

2
 Lecture Programme - Michaelmas Term

Week 1
Lecture Environmental policy and regulation

The lecture will begin by examining the meaning and nature of environmental
regulation from different analytical perspectives, ranging from regulation as a
broad socio-economic and political process to regulation as the actions of an
individual environmental regulator. It will then go on to consider different views on
why regulation occurs: regulation in the public interest to deal with market,
property or state failures; regulation to serve private or political party interests;
and regulation as knee-jerk reaction to crises (the tombstone theory).
Consideration will be given to the questions of who regulates the consumption, use
and provision of environmental services within the so-called regulatory space and
who benefits from regulation. Throughout the lecture, the diversity of perspectives
will be stressed.

Key readings:
Baldwin et al (1998), Bromley (1989), Fiorino (1999) or (2006) chapter 1, Ogus
(2004) chapters 1-3, Weale (1992) chapters 1 & 2.

Week 2
Lecture The institutions of policy and regulation

In this lecture, the idealised state-centric and hierarchical, rational policy model
will be critically analysed, followed by an introduction to the institutional
approach to policy analysis and the understanding of policy and regulatory change.
Institutions will be defined and their nature discussed: institutions are typically
path-dependent (current institutions cannot be divorced from history) and are
embedded within a cultural, social, economic and political context. These
characteristics are important because they not only affect real world policy and
regulatory options but also affect the outcomes from any attempted policy change.
Consideration will also be given to the institutional environment within which
policy formulation take place (the legal, political and socio-economic rules of the
game) and to the institutional arrangements (organisations, governance structures)
through which policy implementation takes place. Institutions which affect the use
of environmental resources are multiple, complex and extend well outside the
jurisdictional boundaries of environment ministries, resource development
agencies or environmental regulators. This often means that for environmental
objectives to be met, multiple policy/regulatory interventions are necessary, many
of which fall outside the regulatory box.

Key readings:
Andersen (1994) chapters 1 and 2, Carter (2001) chapter 7 or (2007) chapter 7,
Connelly & Smith (2003) chapter 2, Keohane et al (1998), Majone (1976) & (1990),
North (1990), Ostrom (1990 & 2005), Ostrom et al. (1993), Rees (1990) chapter 9,
Saleth and Dinnar (2005 – E).

3
Week 2 Seminar: How can theory help us to understand policy change?

Readings: Hill (2005, chapters 2-5). Note, eight copies are available in the library’s
Course Collection.

Questions:

(a) What is the value of theory in the social sciences?

(b) How are the four theories introduced in the readings (pluralist, rational
choice, policy networks and institutional approaches) different from one
another? How are they similar?
(c) How might the theories apply in the particular case of environmental policy
and regulation?

Hill, M. (2005) The Public Policy Process, 4th edition, Pearson Longman, Harlow
(Course Collection, H97 H19)

Week 3 and 4
Lectures Policy objectives, instruments and the policy mix

The state has multiple roles in environmental management and regulation and has
multiple objectives. It follows that several policy tools may appropriately be
employed in a complementary policy mix. The outcomes derived from any
particular tool depend critically on implementation practice and the socio-
economic, cultural and political contexts in which they are employed. In the
lectures we will cover classical command and control regulation. Market tools, and
introduce the discussion of ‘new’ instruments, such as voluntary regulation,
participation and negotiated agreements. Tools are not only relevant to policy
attempts to influence the use of environmental goods and services but also to
encourage the provision of services, promote coordination between providers and
measure their performance.

Key readings:
Andersen (1994); Andersen & Sprenger (2000), Connelly & Smith (2003) chapter 6,
Fiorino (1999), Gouldson & Murphy (1998) chapters 4, 5 & 6, Grabosky (1995),
Keohane et al (1998), Majone (1976; 1990), Prakash and Kolman (2004 – E), Tews et
al (2003), Tietenberg (1998).

Week 4 Seminar: Are the alleged shortcomings of ‘traditional’ environmental

policy approaches – vis-à-vis ‘new’ approaches - exaggerated?

Readings: Carter (2007, pgs. 329-341), Fiorino (2006, chapter 3 & 7), May (2005),
Prakash and Kollman (2004).

Questions:

(a) How do ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ environmental regulatory policy approaches

differ? Relevant here are actors, incentives and mechanisms.
(b) How do we evaluate the “success” and “failure” of environmental policy?
(c) What are the strengths and weaknesses of traditional policy approaches?
(d) Why have traditional approaches not always achieved their underlying
goals?

4
 (e) Are ‘new’ environmental policy approaches a panacea to the shortcomings
of ‘traditional’ approaches?

Carter, N. (2007) The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd
edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fiorino, D. J. (2006) The New Environmental Regulation, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
May, P. J. (2005) Regulation and compliance motivations: Examining different
approaches, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65 (1), pp 31-43 [Electronic
Access].
Prakash. A. and Kolman, K. (2004) ‘Policy modes, firms and the natural
environment’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 107-28
(Electronic Access].

Week 5
Lecture The organisations for policy development and implementation

In this lecture, consideration will be given to the question of what institutions and
organisations (agencies) can and should implement various aspects of
environmental policy. Answers to this question vary with the management
philosophy and disciplinary perspective of the analysts. Some argue that
technically competent agencies are required to optimise environmental resource
use within natural regions; others stress the need to recognise the
interdependencies between different environmental media; still others advocate
the development of regulatory bodies capable of employing market tools and
coping with the third party effects arising from their use; others stress the failure
of the state to provide resource services and protect the environment and
advocate privatization and community based systems. Many view environmental
policy as a distributive activity requiring organisations which involve stakeholders
and communities. In recent years much attention has been paid to the latter view,
with notions that the state shifts its role from environmental service provider to
enabler. The relationship between the jurisdictional remits, capacities and
competence of organisations and policy outcomes will be briefly considered.

Key readings:
Berkes (1989), Bulkeley (2005 - E), OECD (1997), Potovski and Prakash (2004 – E),
Reed (1996), Rees (1990, chapter 9; 2002 - E; 2006 - E), Young (2002), Wade (1987).

Week 6
Lecture – Governments to governance

As was said in the last lecture, in recent years much attention has been paid to
participatory and decentralised organisational structures for environmental and
resources management. It is now commonplace to consider governance structures –
rather than government structures - to take into account all the non-state actors involved in
policy-making, environmental management and regulation; and it is also common for bottom-
up planning and policy-making to be advocated. In this lecture the reasons for, and the
advantages of, the introduction of more decentralised stakeholder-based governance
structures will be explored, but it will also be stressed that participation, deregulation, and
decentralisation have their limitations, as does the notion of bottom-up planning. These
limitations are apparent in many policy domains but are particularly pertinent for the
environment, where spatial and temporal interdependencies are the norm.

5
Key readings:
Agrawal and Ostrom (2001 - E), Cooke and Kothari (2001), Davidson and Frickel
(2004 – E), European Journal of Development Research (2004), Faguet (2004 - E),
Holzinger et al. (2006 – E), Ostrom (1993, 2005), Ostrom et al (1993).

Week 6 Seminar: Under which conditions are co-operative and voluntary

environmental policy approaches most likely to achieve their goals?

Readings: Eisner (2004), Lenox and Nash (2003), Norberg-Bohm and De Bruijn
(2005), Potoski and Prakash (2006)

Questions:

(a) What do we mean by voluntary and co-operative environmental policy

approaches?
(b) Under which conditions are voluntary and co-operative approaches most
likely to prove effective?
(c) What is the role of government in fostering effective voluntary and co-
operative approaches?
(d) What do the answers to (b) and (c) above imply for wider debates about
government and governance?

Eisner, M.A. (2004) ‘Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry

self-regulation: toward genuine regulatory reinvention in the United States’,
Governance, Vol. 17, pp. 145-67.
Lenox, M. J. and Nash, J. (2003) ‘Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A
comparison across four trade association programs’, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol 12 (6), pp 343-356.
Norberg-Bohm, V. and De Bruijn, T. (2005) ‘Conclusions: Lessons for the design and
use of voluntary, collaborative, and information-based approaches to
environmental policy’ in Norberg-Bohm, V. & De Bruijn, T. (eds.) Industrial
transformation: Environmental policy innovation in the United States and Europe.
London: MIT Press [Course Collection HC110.E5 I41]
Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2006) ‘Institutional design for EMS-based government
procurement policies’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol 6 (4), pp13-22.

Week 7
Lecture - Implementation, enforcement and regulatory styles

This lecture will examine the limits to perfect implementation, the behaviour and
objectives of environmental regulators and service providers and the origins and
influence of different regulatory styles. In so doing it will examine the dynamics of
regulator-industry-stakeholder relations and the scope for regulatory capture. It
will also consider the emergence of responsive or risk-based approaches to
regulation. Given the interdependencies that exist between environmental
resources and the complex interrelations between the environment and most
sectors of the economy, it is also important to consider coordination and
cooperation between different actors in the policy process

Key readings:
Ayres and Braithwaite (1992) chs 1-3, Falkner et al. (2004 – E), Fiorino (1999 – E),
Gouldson (2004 – E), Gouldson and Murphy (1998), Gunningham and Grabosky
(1999) ch 6, Lofstedt and Vogel (2001 – E), Mastenbroek (2005 - E), OECD (1997),

6
Scholz (1991 – E), Steinzor (1998 – E), Watzold et al (2001 – E), Vig and Faure
(2004), Vogel (1987) summary.

Week 8
Lecture - Politics and power

This lecture will examine different perspectives on the distribution of power and
its influence on decision-making. It will then examine the ways in which different
actors interact and exert influence within policy networks. It will draw upon these
theoretical insights to consider the strategies and influence of the green
movement.

Key readings:
Blowers (1984 or 1993), Connolly and Smith (2003) ch 3, Carter (2001) chs 4-6,
Doyle and McEachern (2001) chs 5 & 6, Rhodes and Marsh (1992a and b), Poguntke
(2002 – E), Smith (2000 – E). Broader reading on the policy process: Parsons (1996)
part 2, Hill (2005 Part 2:1‘Theories of power and the policy process’).

Week 8 Seminar: Is cooperation between relevant actors (i.e., regulators,

regulated parties, etc.) a necessary condition for effective policy
implementation?

Readings: Gouldson (2004), Hill (2005, chapter 9), Lubell (2004), van Rooij (2006)

Questions:

(a) What do we mean by policy implementation?

(b) Why is it difficult to evaluate the degree of implementation success/failure?
(c) How does theory help us understand why environmental policies are
implemented/not implemented?
(d) Why might cooperation between relevant actors influence implementation?
And to what extent is cooperation an important determinant of
implementation?
(e) What other factors might shape environmental policy implementation?

Gouldson, A. (2004) `Cooperation and the Capacity for Control: Regulatory styles
and the evolving influence of environmental regulations in the UK’, Environment
and Planning C, Vol. 22, pp 583-683 [Electronic Access].
Hill, M. (ed.) (2005) The Public Policy Process, Pearson Longman, London (4th
edition) [H97 H19].
Lubell, M. (2004) Collaborative watershed management: A view from the
grassroots. Policy Studies Journal, Vol 32 (3), pp 341-361.
van Rooij, B. (2006) Implementation of Chinese environmental law: Regular
enforcement and political campaigns. Development and Change, Vol 37 (1), pp 57-
74.

Week 9 Outcomes, impacts and evaluation: techniques for policy analysis

This lecture will consider the factors that shape the outcomes and impacts of
environmental policy. It will examine the relations between different criteria for
evaluation – efficacy, efficiency, equitability, accountability for example. It will
also examine the significance of interactions between different forms of policy and
the significance of regulatory regimes. Taking these factors into account it will
consider the roles of top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy analysis.

7
Key readings:
Bailey et al (2002 – E), Bohringer and Loschel (2002 – E), Ekins and Speck (1998),
Gouldson and Murphy (1998) chs 5 & 6, Sabatier (1986), Skjærseth and Wettestad
(2002 - E), Young (2002 – E).

Week 10 Policy reform and change

This lecture will examine the different forms of policy learning and the scope for
policy learning/transfer both within and between different settings. It will also
consider the factors which shape the capacity for policy reform and hence the
factors that seem likely to influence the evolution of environmental policy in the
coming years. Particular emphasis will be placed on the significance of
contemporary debates on environmental governance which stress the need for new
forms of engagement between government, markets and civil society.

Key readings:
Bulkeley (2006 – E), Busch et al. (2005 - E), Busenberg (2001 – E); Dolowitz (2003 –
E), Jänicke and Weidner (1995; 1997); Jordan et al. (2003 – E), Sanderson (2002 –
E), Vogel and Kagan (eds.) (2004).

Week 10 Seminar: To what extent are environmental policy institutions,

approaches and instruments transferable?

Readings: Börzel, T. A. (1999), Harrison (2002), Radaelli (2005), Selin and

Vandeveer (2007)

Questions:

(a) What do we mean by policy transfer? And what is its relevance for
understanding policy making and implementation?
(b) What are the potential pathways and mechanisms of policy transfer?
(c) Under which conditions is policy transfer most likely to take place?
(d) How might the notion of “hybridity” enrich our understanding of the nature
and outcomes of policy transfer?

Börzel, T. A. (1999) ‘Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation to

Europeanization in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.
37 (4), 573-596.
Harrison, K. (2002) ‘Ideas and environmental standard-setting: a comparative study
of regulation of the pulp and paper industry’, Governance, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 65-
96.
Radaelli, C. M. (2005) ‘Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes
the adoption of regulatory impact assessment’, Journal of European Public Policy,
Vol. 12 (5), pp 924-943.
Selin, H. and Vandeveer, S. D. (2007) ‘Political science and prediction: What's next
for U.S. climate change policy?’ Review of Policy Research, Vol. 24 (1), pp 1-27.

GY 420/ GY465 - READING LIST

Unfortunately there is no one single text that covers all aspects of the course,
Although a number of core texts provide a useful introduction to the different

8
aspects of the course, wider reading, particularly of research papers, is essential (a
separate Lent Term reading list will be circulated to GY420 students at the end of
the Michaelmas Term).

Generic readings on the policy process and on regulation

• Baldwin, R., Scott, C. and Hood, C. (1998) A Reader on Regulation, Oxford

University Press, Oxford [KD4878 R28].
• Ham, C. and Hill, M. (1993) The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist
State, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London (2nd edition) [JF1351 H19].
• Hill, M. (ed.) (2005) The Public Policy Process, Pearson Longman, London (4th
edition) [H97 H19].
• Ogus, A. (2004) Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory, Clarendon
Press, Oxford (2nd edition) [KD2200 031].
• Parsons, W. (1996) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice
of Policy Analysis, Edward Elgar, Aldershot [H97 P27].

Useful books on environmental politics and policy

 Andersen, M. (1994) Governance by Green Taxes, Manchester University Press

[HC79.P55 A54].
 Carter, N. (2001) and (2007)(2nd ed) The Politics of the Environment, Cambridge
University Press [JA75.8 C32].
 Connelly, J. and Smith, G. (2003) Politics and the Environment, Routledge
[GE170 C75].
 Doyle, T. and McEachern, D. (2001) Environment and Politics, Routledge [GE170
D75].
 Dryzek, J. (2005) The Politics of the Earth, Oxford University Press [GE195
D81].
 Fiorino, D. J. (2006) The New Environmental Regulation, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass. [KF3775 F52].
 Gouldson, A. and Murphy, J. (1998) Regulatory Realities, Earthscan, London
[HD69.P6 G69].
• Hutter, B. (1997) Compliance: Regulation and the Environment, Clarendon Press,
Oxford [KD4879.A7 H98].
• Rees, J. (1990) Natural Resources: Allocation, Economics and Policy, Routledge,
London (especially Ch 9 – copied in Map Room) [HC79.E5 R32].
• Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution, Manchester University Press
[HC240.9.P55 W36].

Useful books on the economics of environmental policy

• Kahn, J. R. (1998) (2nd ed) The Economic Approach to Environmental and

Natural Resources, Dryden Press [HC79.E5 K11].
• Jacobs, M. (1991) The Green Economy, Pluto, London [HD75.6 J11].
• Turner, R.K., Pearce, D. & Bateman, I. (1994) Environmental Economics: An
Elementary introduction, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London [HC79.E5 P35].

9
Full Reading List

• Agrawal and Ostrom (2001) ‘Collective action, property rights and

decentralisation in resource use in India and Nepal’, Politics and Society, Vol.
29, No. 4, pp [Electronic Access].
• Andersen, M. and Sprenger, R. (2000) Market-based Instruments for
Environmental Management: Policies and Institutions (Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar) [HJ5403.5.M34 and Map Room].
• Ayres, R. and Braithwaite, J. (1992) Responsive Regulation: Transcending the
De-regulation Debate, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Bailey,P., Haq, G. and Gouldson, A. (2002) `Mind the gap! Comparing ex ante
and ex post assessments of the costs of complying with environmental
regulation’, European Environment, Vol 12, Issue 5, pp 245-256 [Electronic
Access].
• Baker,S (2006) Busch, P., H. Jörgens and K. Tews (2005): The global diffusion
of regulatory instruments: The making of a new international environmental
regime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
598 (1), pp. 146-167.Sustainable Development, Routledge, London.
• Beierle, T.C. and Konisky, D.M. (2001) What are we gaining from stakeholder
involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes,
Environmental and Planning C: Government and Policy 2001, Vol. 19, pp 515 –
527 [Electronic Access].
• Berkes, F. (ed) (1989) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community
based sustainable development (HD75.6.C73).
• Blowers, A. (1984) Something in the Air: Corporate Power and the
Environment, Harper and Row, London.
• Blowers, A. (1993) ‘Master of Fate or Victim of Circumstance – the exercise of
corporate power in environmental policy making’ in Hill, M. (ed.) (1993) The
Policy Process: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
• Böhringer, C. and Löschel, A. (2002) `Assessing the costs of compliance: the
Kyoto Protocol’, European Environment, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp 1-16 [Electronic
Access].
• Börzel, T. A. (1999) ‘Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation
to Europeanization in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market
Studies, Vol. 37 (4), 573-596 [Electronic Access].
• Bromley, D.W. (1989) Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual
Foundations of Public Policy, Basil Blackwell, New York [HB99.5 B86].
• Bulkeley, H. (2005) ‘Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a
politics of scales and networks’, Political Geography, Vol. 24, pp 875-902
[Electronic Access].
• Busch, P., Jörgens, H. and Tews, K. (2005) ‘The global diffusion of regulatory
instruments: the making of a new international environmental regime’,
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 598, No.
1, pp 146-67 [Electronic access].
• Busenberg, G.J. (2001) ‘Learning in organisations and public policy’, Journal
of Public Policy Vol. 21, pp 173-89 [Electronic Access].
• Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed,
London.

10
• Davidson and Frickel, S. (2004) ‘Understanding environmental governance: a
critical review’, Organization and Environment, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 471-492
[Electronic Access].
• Delmas, M. and Terlaak, A. (2002) Regulatory Commitment to Negotiated
Agreements: Evidence from the United States, Germany, The Netherlands and
France, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4,
pp5-29 [Electronic Access].
• Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (1996) ‘Who learns what from whom: a review of
the policy transfer literature’, Political Studies 44, 343-57.
• Dolowitz, D.P. (2003) ‘A policy-maker’s guide to policy transfer’, Political
Quarterly 74, 101-08 [Electronic Access].
• Dryzek,J et al (2003) Green States and Social Movements, Environmentalism
in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway, OUP
• Eisner, M.A. (2004) ‘Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and
industry self-regulation: toward `genuine regulatory reinvention in the United
States’, Governance, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp 145-67 [Electronic Access].
• Ekins, P. and Speck, S. (1998) `The impacts of environmental policy on
competitiveness: theory and evidence’ in Berker, T. and Kohler, J. (eds)
International competitiveness and environmental policies, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
• European Journal of Development Research (2004) Vol. 16, No. 1: Special
Issue on decentralisation.
• Faguet, J-P. (2004) ‘Does decentralisation increase governmental
responsiveness to local needs?’ Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 88, Nos. 3-
4, pp 867-893 [Electronic Access].
• Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiber, S. and Treib, O. (2004). 'Non-Compliance
with EU Directives in the Member States: Opposition through the Backdoor?'
West European Politics, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 452-473 [Electronic Access].
• Fiorino, D.J. (1999) `Rethinking Environmental Regulation: Perspectives on
Law and Governance’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol 23 [Electronic
Access].
• Fiorino, D. J. (2006) The New Environmental Regulation, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass. [KF3775 F52].
• Gouldson, A. (2004) `Cooperation and the Capacity for Control: Regulatory
styles and the evolving influence of environmental regulations in the UK’,
Environment and Planning C, Vol. 22, pp 583-683 [Electronic Access].
• Grabosky, P. (1995) ‘Counterproductive Regulation’ International Journal of
the Sociology of Law, Vol. 23, pp 347-369.
• Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. (1999) Smart Regulation: Designing
Environmental Policy, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (2002). Leaders and laggards: next-generation
environmental regulation. Sheffield: Greenleaf, Chapter 9. GE170 G97 Course
Collection.
• Harrision, K. (2002) ‘Ideas and environmental standard-setting: a comparative
study of regulation of the pulp and paper industry’, Governance, Vol. 15, No.
1, pp 65-96 [Electronic Access].
• Holzinger, K., Knill C. and Schäfer, A. (2006) ‘Rhetoric or reality? ‘New
Governance’ in EU environmental policy’, European Law Journal, Vol. 12, No.
3, pp. 403-20 [Electronic access].

11
• Hutter, B. (1999) Socio-Legal Reader in Environmental Law, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
• Jänicke, M. (1990) State Failure: The Impotence of Politics in Industrial
Society, Polity Press, London.
• Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (eds) (1995) Successful Environmental Policy: A
Critical Evaluation of 24 Case Studies, Edition Sigma.
• Jänicke, M. and Weidner, H. (eds) (1997) National environmental policies,
Springer.
• Jordan, A. (1999) `The construction of a multilevel environmental governance
system’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy Vol. 17, pp
1 – 17 [Electronic Access].
• Jordan A., Wurzel R. and Zito A.R. (2003) 'New instruments of environmental
governance: patterns and pathways of change’, Environmental Politics, Vol.
12, No. 1, pp 1-24 [Electronic Access].
• Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W. & Zito, A. (2005) ‘The rise of ‘new’ policy
instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed
government?’ Political Studies Vol. 53, pp 477-496 [Electronic access].
• Keohane, N.O., Revesz, R.L., Stavins, R.N. (1998) ‘Choice of regulatory
instruments in environmental policy’, The Harvard Environmental Law
Review, Vol. 22 [Electronic Access].
• Lenox, M. J. and Nash, J. (2003) ‘Industry self-regulation and adverse
selection: A comparison across four trade association programs’, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 (6), pp 343-356 [Electronic access].
• Lindblom. C. (1959) `The science of “muddling through”’, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 19, pp 79-99.
• Lindblom. C. (1979) `Still muddling, not yet through’, Public Administration
Review, Vol 39, pp517-526.
• Löfstedt, R.E. and Vogel, D. (2001) ‘The changing character of regulation: a
comparison of Europe and the United States’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No.3, pp
399 [Electronic Access].
• Majone, G. (1976) ‘Choice among policy instruments for pollution control’,
Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, pp 589 - 613.
• Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process,
Yale University Press, Newhaven.
• Majone, G. (ed.) (1990) Deregulation or Re-regulation? Regulatory Reform in
Europe and the United States, Pinter, London.
• Majone, G. (1996) Regulating Europe, Routledge, London.
• Mastenbroek, E. (2005). 'EU Compliance: Still a 'Black Hole'?' Journal of
European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp 1103-1120 [Electronic Access].
• May, P. J. (2005) Regulation and compliance motivations: Examining different
approaches, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65 (1), pp 31-43 [Electronic
Access].
• Norberg-Bohm, V. and De Bruijn, T. (2005) ‘Conclusions: Lessons for the
design and use of voluntary, collaborative, and information-based approaches
to environmental policy’ in Norberg-Bohm, V. & De Bruijn, T. (eds.) Industrial
transformation: Environmental policy innovation in the United States and
Europe. London: MIT Press [Course Collection HC110.E5 I41].
• North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic
Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [HB99.5
N86].

12
• OECD (1997) Managing Across Levels of Government, OECD, Paris, OECD
[www.oecd.org].
• OECD (1998) Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy in OECD
Countries, OECD, Paris, OECD [www.oecd.org].
• Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: Evaluation of Institutions for
Collective Action, Cambridge University Press [HD1286 081].
• Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University
Press, New Haven [HF5549.M5 O81].
• Ostrom, E. et al (ed) (2002) The Drama of the Commons NAS, USA. (see
especially chapters by Berkes and Young).
• Ostrom E., Schroder L & Wynne, S (1993) – Institutional Incentives and
Sustainable Development, Westview Press, Boulder [HC59.72.C3 OB1].
• Poguntke T. (2002) `Green Parties in national governments: from protest to
acquiescence?’ Environmental Politics, Vol. 11, no. 1, pp 133-145(13)
[Electronic Access].
• Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2004) `The regulation dilemma: cooperation and
conflict in environmental governance’ Public Administration Review, Vol. 64,
Part 2 (Electronic Access).
• Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2006) ‘Institutional design for EMS-based
government procurement policies’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol 6 (4),
pp13-22 [Electronic Access].
• Prakash. A. and Kolman, K. (2004) ‘Policy modes, firms and the natural
environment’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 107-28
(Electronic Access].
• Radaelli, C. M. (2005) ‘Diffusion without convergence: How political context
shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment’, Journal of European
Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp 924-43 [Electronic access].
• Reed, D. (ed.) (1996) Structural Adjustment, the environment and
Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London [HD75.6 S92].
• Rees, J. (2002) Risk and Integrated Water Management, TEC Background
Paper No. 6 [available at www.gwpforum.org].
• Rees, J. (2006) Urban Water and Sanitation Services: An IWRM Approach, TEC
Background Paper No. 11 [available at www.gwpforum.org].
• Rhodes, R. and Marsh, D. (1992a) `Policy networks in British politics: a
critique of existing approaches’ in Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (eds) Policy
Networks in British Government, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Rhodes, R. and Marsh, D. (1992b) `New directions in the study of policy
networks’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 21, pp 181-205.
• Sabatier, P. (1986) `Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation
research’, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 6, pp21-48.
• Saleth, R.M. and Dinar, A. (2005) ‘Water institutional reforms: theory and
practice’, Water Policy, Volume 7, pp. 1-19 [Electronic Access].
• Sanderson, I. (2002) ‘Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy
making’, Public Administration Vol. 80, pp 1-22 [Electronic Access].
• Scholz, J. (1991) ‘Cooperative regulatory enforcement and the politics of
administrative effectiveness’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, 1,
pp115-136 [Electronic access].

13
• Selin, H. and Vandeveer, S. D. (2007) ‘Political science and prediction: What's
next for U.S. climate change policy?’ Review of Policy Research, Vol. 24 (1),
pp 1-27 [Electronic access].
• Skjærseth J.B. and Wettestad J. (2002)`Understanding the effectiveness of
EU Environmental Policy: how can regime analysis contribute?’ Environmental
Politics, Autumn 2002, vol. 11, no. 3, pp 99-120(22) [Electronic Access].
• Smith, A. (2000)`Policy networks and advocacy coalitions: explaining policy
change and stability in UK industrial pollution policy?’, Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 18 (1), pp 95-114 [Electronic
Access].
• Steinzor, R.I. (1998) ‘Reinventing environmental regulation: The dangerous
journey from command to self-control’, Harvard Environmental Law Review,
Vol 22 [Electronic Access].
• Tews, K. Busch P.-O. and Jörgens, H. (2003) ‘The diffusion of new
environmental policy instruments’, European Journal of Political Research,
Vol. 42, pp 569-600.
• Tietenberg. T. (1998) `Disclosure strategies for pollution control’
Environmental and Resource Economics, 11 (3-4), pp 587-602 [Electronic
Access].
• Vig, N.J. and Faure, M.G. (2004) Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the
United States and European Union, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Vogel, D. (1987) National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great
Britain and the United States, Cornell University Press, Cornell [HC260.E5
V87 and Map Room].
• Vogel, D. and Kagan, R. (Eds.) (2004). Dynamics of Regulatory Change: How
Globalization Affects National Regulatory Policies, University of California
Press, London. [HD3611 D99]
• Wade, R. (1987) ‘The management of CPR: collective action as an alternative
to privatisation or state regulation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.
11, No. 2, pp 95-116 [Electronic Access].
• Wätzold, F., Bültmann, A., Eames, M., Lulofs, K. and Schucht, S. (2001)
`EMAS and regulatory relief in Europe: lessons from national experience’,
European Environment Vol 11, Issue 1, pp 37-48 [Electronic Access].
• Young, O. (2002) ‘Evaluating the success of environmental regimes: where are
we now?’ Global Environmental Change, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 73-77 [Electronic
Access].
• World Bank (2005) Decentralisation and Service Delivery, World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 3603, www. Worldbank.org

2007/8 session timetabling

GY420 Environmental Regulation: Implementing Policy

Type Grp Day Start Finish MT Wks LT Wks ST Wks Room All Teachers
Lec L Tue 10:00 11:30 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 G108 REES, PROF J A

Lec L Tue 13:00 15:00 1,2 S75 MASON, DR M

Sem 1 Mon 13:00 14:00 2,4,6,8,10 H202 PERKINS, DR RICHARD

Sem 1 Tue 10:00 12:00 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 G212 MASON, DR M

Sem 2 Tue 09:00 10:00 2,4,6,8,10 D206 VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

14
Sem 2 Tue 13:00 15:00 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 G212 ZEITOUN, DR MARK

Sem 3 Tue 12:00 13:00 2,4,6,8,10 D703 VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

Sem 3 Tue 11:00 13:00 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 D111 VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

GY465 Concepts in Environmental Regulation

Type Grp Day Start Finish MT Wks LT Wks ST Wks Room All Teachers
Lec L Tue 10:00 11:30 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 G108 REES, PROF J A

Sem 1 Mon13:00 14:00 2,4,6,8,10 H202 PERKINS, DR RICHARD

Sem 2 Tue 09:00 10:00 2,4,6,8,10 D206 VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

Sem 3 Tue 12:00 13:00 2,4,6,8,10 D703 VAN ALSTINE MR JAMES

15