| |
Political Science 493/Northern Studies 693
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS
G. A. McBeath
x6505, Gruening 601B,
ffjam@uaf.edu
Course Syllabus
Scope
This course is designed as a seminar in comparative environmental politics.
It emphasizes some of the enduring issues of the field of comparative politics
and their relation to global environmental problems such as biodiversity,
transboundary pollution, and climate warming. State-society relations, political
institutions, national political capacity, political processes and organizations,
and international commitments all potentially shape the nature and dynamics
of global environmental politics, and vice versa. Anyone concerned with
affecting or managing the effects of global environmental policy must understand
the relationship between environmental issues and national political processes.
The field of comparative environmental politics is a relatively new area
of study, and a significant part of our task will be to understand theoretically
the possible relationships among the issues. We also will read illustrative
empirical studies from around the world. A background question throughout
the course is how countries in the “north” (with an emphasis
on the post-industrial states of the circumpolar North) compare to countries
of the “south” with respect to these relationships.
Objectives
The first objective of the course is to evaluate the usefulness of the tools
of comparative politics for understanding the impact on different types
of states, regimes and societies of such environmental issues as climate
change, deforestation, air and water pollution, biodiversity, and sustainable
food supplies. Do standard paradigms and concepts like political culture,
political systems, modernization, dependency, class analysis, corporatism
and pluralism stand up to the challenges of environmental political analysis?
A second objective of this course is to apply comparative analysis to the
responses of states, governments, and communities to environmental challenges.
We seek to learn how factors such as culture, institutional structures,
levels of economic development, formal and informal relationships between
groups and states help explain the variations we find in the perception,
framing, and responsiveness to environmental challenges.
A third objective of this course is to identify and evaluate the range of
solutions applied to environmental problems in a variety of national and
regional settings. What approaches are taken by whom, where, when and why?
How effective are those choices? What determines success or failure in different
political, cultural, and socio-economic contexts? Can we generalize from
the analysis of one locality, country, or region? What do we need to know
about the politics of a region, country, or community to make good environmental
policy?
Course Delivery
This course is taught using a “dual-delivery” system. It is
offered on campus as a seminar meeting face-to-face twice weekly. It also
is offered online, through Blackboard, UAF’s course delivery vehicle.
Real time or online, it is the same course, with the same readings and requirements
for all students. To increase interaction opportunities for online students,
to the extent possible we will be using Blackboard for posting and responding
to questions, assignments, and drafts of papers.
Course Readings
We will read most of three texts, available for purchase at the bookstore:
Bryner, Gaia's Wager: Environmental Movements and the Challenge
of Sustainability
Lee and So, eds., Asia's Environmental Movements
Taylor, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements
A recommended text is Desai's Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing
Countries. For most segments of the course there will be additional
required readings - journal articles, book chapters, scholarly papers,
and the like. These will be available through the Rasmuson Library’s
electronic reserve under the instructor’s name.
Requirements
There are three requirements for the course:
1. Participation/discussion questions (10 percent of grade, grads and
undergrads). To understand the scope and nature of this field of study,
students are expected to thoughtfully read the assigned weekly readings
and to come to class prepared to discuss them. In addition, students will
prepare 2-3 discussion questions suggested by each week’s reading
assignments. These are due in Blackboard by noon on Monday of each week;
questions will be used to facilitate discussion.
2. Group project (30 % undergrads; 15 % grads).
This policy-relevant exercise will join students in the real time and
online sections of the course, in groups of 2-4. Your job is to develop
generalizations or hypotheses from section II, III, IV, or V of the reading
list (topics to be assigned) and post these on Blackboard within two weeks
of the topic’s discussion in class. The generalizations or hypotheses
will distill what is known in the topic area, which you should then make
relevant to the resolution, mitigation, or explanation of some global
environmental problem. All other students and the instructor will make
constructive comments on the group report.
3. Each student will conduct a research project and develop it
through three stages: a) selection of topic in consultation with instructor
and development of detailed outline and reading list (due the 4th week
October 13, 2006grads), b)
posting a draft of your paper (5-10 pages in length) on Blackboard by
the 10th week, October 13, 2006 all classmates and the instructor will respond, and c) completed research
paper due by the end of the semester, December 17 (30 percent, undergrads;
40 percent grads). The expected length, double-spaced, of the final term
paper is 10-15 pages for undergraduates and 20-30 pages for graduate students.
The research paper should compare at least two countries and focus on
issues and problems of the global environment.
Outline of Topics and Reading Schedule
(Items marked with an asterisk are required for graduate students only)
I. Introduction (September 10, 12)
*Kamieniecki and Sanasarian, “Conducting Comparative Research
on Environmental Policy,” in Natural Resources Journal, Vol 30.,
pp. 321-39.
Bryner, introduction, chapters 1, 3, Gaia’s Wager: Environmental
Movements and the Challenge of Sustainability (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2001), pp. xv-30, 67-104.
II. State-Society Relations
A. Culture and Values (September 17, 19)
Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization (Princeton U. Press,
1997), ch. 8, pp. 237-66. Recommended: Abramson and Inglehart, Value Change
in Global Perspective (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995),
1-146.
Milbrath, “Culture and the Environment in the United States,”
in Environmental Management, Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 161-72.
*Pierce, Lovrich, Tsurutani and Abe, “Culture, Politics and Mass
Publics: Traditional and Modern Supporters of the New Environmental Paradigm
in Japan and the United States,” in The Journal of Politics, Vol.
49, pp. 54-77.
Murota, “Culture and the Environment in Japan,” in Environmental
Management, Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 105-12.
*Peritore, “Environmental Attitudes of Indian Elites,” in
Asian Survey, Vol. XXXIII, No. 8, August 1993, pp. 804-18.
Hsiao, Liu, Magno, Edles, and So, “Culture and Asian Styles of
Environmental Movements,” in Asia’s Environmental Movements
(Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1999), pp.210-29.
DeWalt, “Combining Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge to Improve
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management in Latin America,” in
Pichon, Uquillas and Fechione, eds., Traditional and Modern Natural Resource
Management in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1999), pp. 101-21.
B. Post-modernism and Dependency (September 24)
*Tatenhove, Arts and Leroy, “Political Modernisation,” in
Tatenhove, Arts and Leroy, Political Modernisation and the Environment
(Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), pp. 35-52.
Desai, “Environment, Economic Growth, and Government in Developing
Countries,” in Desai, ed., Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing
Countries (Albany, State University of New October 13, 2006alism and Corporatism (September 26, October 1)
Ribot, “Market-State Relations and Environmental Policy: LiOctober 13, 2006October 13, 2006October 13, 2006ess, 1993), pp. 24-45.
*Lai, Hsiao, Liu, Nicro, and Lee, “The Contradictions and Synergy
of Environmental Movements and Business Interests,” in Asia’s
Environmental Movements, pp. 269-86.
*J. Szarka, “Environmental Policy and Neo-Corporatism in France,”
Environmental Politics, Vol. 9, no. 3 (2000).
Bryner, ch. 2: “Environmentalism in the United States,”
pp. 31-67.
III. Political Institutions and the Environment: Federalism, Centralization,
Separation of Powers (October 3, 8, 10)
*Tatenhove and Leroy, “The Institutionalization of Environmental
Politics,” and Arts, Tatenhove and Leroy, “Policy Arrangements,”
in Tatenhove, Arts, and Leroy, Political Modernization and the Environment,
pp. 17-34, 53-70.
Lundqvist, “Do Political Structures Matter in Environmental Politics:
The Case of Air Pollution Control in Canada, Sweden, and the United States,”
in American Behavioral Scientist, pp. 731-50.
Weale, Pridham, Williams and Porter, “Environmental Administration
in Six European States: Secular Convergence or National Distinctiveness,”
in Public Administration, Vol. 74 (Summer 1996), pp. 255-74.
*Orie, “Constitutional Approach to Sustainable Environmental Management,”
in Environmental Policy and Law, vo. 25, nos. _ (1995), pp. 43-51.
*Robinson, “Comparative Environmental Law: Evaluating How Legal
Systems Address ‘Sustainable Development’,” in Environmental
Policy and Law, vol. 27, no. 4 (1997), pp. 338-45.
Crepaz, “Explaining National Variation of Air Pollution Levels:
Political Institutions and Their Impact on Environmental Policy-Making,”
Environmental Politics, Vol. 4, no. 3 (1999)
Scruggs, “Institutions and Environmental Performance in Seventeen
Western Democracies,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol.
29 (1999), pp. 1-31.
IV. National Political Capacity
A. Introduction (October 10)
*Janicke, “The Political System’s Capacity for Environmental
Policy,” in Janicke and Weidner, eds., National Environmental Policies:
A Comparative Study of Capacity-Building (Berlin: Springer, 1997), pp.
1-24.
B. Pioneers (October 15)
Andrews, “United States,” in Janicke and Weidner, pp. 25-44
C. Models (October 17)
Janicke and Weidner, “Germany,” in Janicke and Weidner,
pp. 133-56, Janicke and Jorgens, “National Environmental Policy
Planning in OECD Countries: Preliminary Lessons from Cross-National Comparisons,”
Environmental Politics, Vol. 7, no. 2 (summer 1998), pp. 27-54 (Undergrads
choose one, grads read all)
D. The Incapacitated (October 22)
Mao, “China;” Salau, “Nigeria;” and Petravny
and Weizenburger, “Russia,” in Janicke and Weidner, pp. 237-99
(undergrads choose one; grads read all)
E. Global Environmental Policy Learning (October 24)
Janicke and Weidner, pp. 299-314.
(For this section, chs. 2-10 of Desai, ed., Ecological Policy and Politics
in Developing Countries, pp. 47-294 are recommended too. The chapters
treat the government, politics, and environmental policies of China, Indonesia,
Thailand, Taiwan, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Czech Republic.)
V. Political Processes and Organizations
A. Parties and Elections (October 29)
*Inglehart, ch. 8 “The Rise of New Issues and Parties,”
in Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization, pp. 237-66.
Kitschelt, “The Green Phenomenon in Western Party Systems,”
in Kamieniecki, ed., Environmental Politics in the International Arena
(Albany: SUNY Press), pp. 92-112.
B. Ecological Movements
----> 1. The Americas (October 31, November 5)
*Szasz, “Grassroots Environmentalism in the United States,”
in Lee and So, Asia’s Environmental Movements (Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 1999), pp. 179-209
.
Part I. Popular Ecological Resistance in the Americas, in Bron Taylor,
ed., Ecological Resistance Movements (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1995), pp. 11-88 (undergrads read either Taylor or Edwards
and Lorentzen or Hadsell).
----> 2. Popular Ecological Resistance in Asia and in the Pacific
(November 5, 7)
Taylor, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements, pp. 89-160 (undergrads
choose two; grads read all). Recommended: Chapters on Taiwan, Hong Kong,
South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines in Lee and So, eds., Asia’s
Environmental Movements, pp. 31-178.
----> 3. Popular Ecological Resistance in Africa (November 12)
Taylor, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements, 161-200 (Undergrads read
either Tandon or Wisner)
.
----> 4. Popular Ecological Resistance in Europe (November 14)
Taylor, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements, 201-258 (undergrads read
Ruidig; grads read all).
----> 5. Reflections on the Global Emergence of Popular Ecological
Resistance (November 19, 21)
Taylor, ed., Ecological Resistance Movements, pp. 259-354 (undergrads
read Kamieniecki et al. and Taylor; grads read all).
C. Democratization (November 21, 26)
Janicke, “Democracy as a condition for environmental policy success:
the importance of non-institutional factors,” in Democracy and the
Environment: Problems and Prospects, edited by William M. Lafferty and
James Meadowcroft (Brookfield: Elgar, 1996).
*Mumme and Korzetz, “Democratization, Politics, and Environmental
Reform in Latin America,” in Latin American Environmental Policy
in International Perspective, edited by Gordon MacDonald, Nelson, Daniel,
and Stern, Mar (Boulder: Westview, 1997).
Lee, Hsiao, Liu, Lai, Magno and So, “The Impact of Democratization
on Environmental Movements,” in Asia’s Environmental Movements,
pp. 230-51.
VI. National and Local Responses to Global Environmental Problems
Bryner, ch. 4: “The Global Environmental Movement,” pp.
105-36.
A. Biodiversity (November 28)
Swanson, “Why is there a biodiversity convention? The international
interest in centralized development planning,” in International
Affairs, 75, 2 (1999), pp. 307-33.
*Perrings and Lovett, “Policies for biodiversity conservation:
the case of Sub-Saharan Africa,” in International Affairs, 75, 2
(1999), pp. 281-305
B. Climate Change (December 3)
Bryner, ch. 5: “Climate Change: A Case Study of Environmental
Politics,” pp. 137-76.
*Newell, “Conclusion: States, NGOs and the future of global climate
politics,” in Newell, Climate for Change: Non-state Actors and the
Global Politics of the Greenhouse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), pp. 154-72.
C. Deforestation (December 5)
*Rigg and Stott, “Forest Tales: Politics, Policy Making, and the
Environment in Thailand,” in Desai, ed., pp. 87-120.
Reiche, “Technologies for Sustainable Forest Management in the
Northern Zone of Costa Rica,” in Pichon, Uquillas and Frechione,
pp. 184-94.
D. Pollution and Waste Disposal (December 10)
O’Neill, “The Changing Nature of Global Waste Management
for the 21st Century,” in Global Environmental Politics 1,1 (2001):
77-98.
Recommended: Luton, The Politics of Garbage: A Community Perspective
on Solid Waste Policy Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1996).
VII. Conclusion (December 12)
Bryner, ch. 6: “Environmental Politics, Sustainability and Self-Interest,”
pp. 177-204.
Desai, Poverty, Government, and the Global Environment,” in Desai,
ed., pp. 295-302.
|
 |
|