The push factors that initially triggered migration to cities, especially landlessness, are still extant. When the urban poor go back to the countryside, they do not return to their own land because they do not have any. Moreover, after a generation or more in the cities, the number of these landless urban dwellers has swelled. Consequently, those who return to the countryside have to find new lands to cultivate.
Many will seek to survive by clearing forest or taking lands previously set aside for agro-industry or luxury elite uses, such as golf courses. Others may turn to illegal hunting of endangered species of flora and fauna or to illegal logging. Such activities may be understandable where starvation is the alternative.
The environmental impacts, however, may be considerable, especially where the landless use fire to clear land or drive out animals; a cheap and quick method that is polluting and often illegal. The situation is compounded when such land takings are unauthorized and give no secure title to occupants.
In such cases, the landless face strong short-term imperatives to clear and use land, but none to maintain and sustain it over the longer term. Negative Environmental Impacts from Policy Responses. Current and future policy responses to the crisis may lead to negative environmental impacts. This may be intentional, if the environment is seen as a luxury concern that can no longer be afforded in the crisis; or unintentional, given that policy responses are driven by economic agencies, with little or no knowledge of environmental concerns and costs.
The environmental impacts from policy responses are hard to predict. One major reason is that economic policy prescriptions differ among different economists and agencies. While there has also been a notable change in the tenor of the IMF and World Bank since the earlier days of the crisis, three general edicts remain operative. The first is the prescription for countries to export themselves out of the crisis. The second is the mandate to attract foreign direct investment.
The third, and most general, is the aim to re-start the economy and return to high growth rates. This is especially so in the case of trade. Many of the exports in the region e. Many are also highly polluting in their production processes, especially given lower standards in regulations and weak systems to enforce such regulations. The international trade system in the WTO does not assist in this regard. It has pointedly and repeatedly set aside environmental conditions imposed by importing countries in favor of unfettered free trade.
As for investment, no international rules currently govern international investment. Such rules could potentially provide a framework for all governments in which to define and enforce the environmental responsibilities of foreign investors Zarsky b. Currently, it is up to the national governments in the region to screen foreign investment for environmental impacts.
Most countries have laws or policies to do so and to undertake environmental impact assessments before deciding on foreign investment. But their track record has been mixed, and exceptions or absences were notable even before the crisis. The political will to raise environmental performance may be even weaker now, given increased hunger for FDI and investor concerns about the competitiveness and stability of the region. Finally, blind to environmental and social costs, most economists see the task at hand as simply the need to re-start stalled economic engines under business-as-usual social and environmental policies If the progress of the Asian Miracle provided any consolation to environmentalists, it was that greater affluence would eventually propel higher environmental standards.
If the hypothesis is true, then continued rapid growth would eventually drive Asians to demand-and be able to afford-more environmental protection. With the drop in the per capita income of most countries, it would seem that the region is being driven through another round of the lower end of the inverted U, when growth coincides with high levels of pollution. With the crisis, the search for environmentally sustainable development seems like a game of snakes and ladders: the Asian economies have been brought back to the bottom of the inverted U-shaped snake.
The tendency for the environment to be sacrificed in the plans for recovery and re-starting growth cannot be underestimated. This is despite some early reports from countries in the region which suggest that the environmental damage of the crisis has not been as bad as originally feared. On the other hand, the crisis has triggered hope for better environmental protection in the future. In large part, this hope is premised on the emerging importance of civil society, both a more competitive and efficient business sector and a greater voice for a myriad of community, religious, advocacy, professional and other non-governmental organizations.
A significant increase in the role of NGOs vis a vis the state may especially bode well for the environment. Within more open systems of governance, NGOs may be able to better identify and articulate environmental and social concerns, as well as to build the political will needed to enact and implement new policies. The Character of Civil Society in Asia. Presuming that Asian countries continue to move down the path towards democratization, civil society groups will in the future play a larger constructive role in political life.
They may be especially central to the project of developing new and stronger forms of environmental governance. Indeed, the central impact of civil society may be to build the political will to drive significant policy reform. To understand and anticipate the potential role of civil society in environmental governance, two key questions must be examined, both of which we grapple with in this section. First, what is the character of environment-oriented civil society groups in Asia?
Moreover, civil society in Asia is emerging in the context of globalization, both of economies and social norms. The second key question is whether and how Asian governments will respond to the transformative potential of civil society, especially in relation to environmental and social governance.
Given crisis-engendered fiscal constraints, as well as the turn towards greater openness to market forces, the logic of involving civil society in governance has become compelling. Government response will be shaped by a variety of cultural, political economic forces and pressures, both internal and external.
(PDF) CHAPTER I1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE | Balu Nasiva - jihaqazofy.gq
A Contested Concept. After a century of neglect, 1 the contemporary discussion of civil society was revived in the struggles against authoritarian socialist states in Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, military dictatorships in Latin America Tismaneanu , Pelcynski In Eastern Europe, civil society was primarily a code word to demand rights which the Western liberal democracies already have, as well as to delegitimate non-liberal regimes.
But this is not the only interpretation. Indeed, civil society is a contested concept. Its meaning has become entangled with different political debates, such as the differences between Asia and the West; the defense of the welfare state against neo-conservative anti-statism; rights-orientated liberalism against communitarianism; and elite versus participatory democracy Cohen and Arato These debates have added to and sometimes deviated from the East European idea of a civil society opposed to the state.
Broadly speaking, two additional, emerging conceptions of civil society can be discerned. The first views civil society as a means to assist and trim back the state. The argument is that, as civil society grows, it should unburden the state of social and cultural duties such as the protection and promotion of religion, arts, families, and education. It helps buttress neo-conservative notions that reject the social welfare model of democracy and argue that the state should do less.
There is another, quite different strand of the concept of civil society which emphasizes the role of civil society in furthering democracy and keeping democratic culture vibrant. Proponents of this view — of which de Tocqueville was perhaps the first major theorist— consider civil society to be the lifeblood of political culture, essential to the socialization of the citizen De Toqueville, Whitehead A lively civil society is the best safeguard for a stable democracy and the prevention of domination by any one group over the others. It is also what best brings the individual rights-holders together for common cause.
Rather, the role of civil society is to make the state more democratically accountable to the citizenry and to better enable the widest possible participation in governance. Present proponents of this democratic concept of civil society reject the notion that civil society should be equated with or dominated by the bourgeois middle-class.
They call for civil society to be a pluralist entity, with fully representative participation that cuts across race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender and economic status. The three concepts outlined — a civil society opposed to the state; a civil society assisting a minimal state; and a pluralist civil society demanding an accountable state — are not merely academic conceptions.
The discourse of civil society has been contested and shaped by different political agendas. The way we define civil society affects our expectations of what it means to be in favor of or opposed to nurturing it Tay In Asia, civil society is very much a received concept. There are, of course, native, indigenous ideas that correspond to the broad idea of community representation, self-organization and action.
After all, society long preceded the state in pre-colonial Asia. Each society and sub-group has its banjar, kampung, kapitan or other unit of community Reid Yet, the place of civil society on the agenda stems less from indigenous antecedents than from intellectual fashion. Accordingly, there has been a growing literature on civil society in Asia. Riker characterizes state-civil society relations as emerging in three differing waves. First, by the mid s, civil society groups were seen by elites as having a complementary role in promoting development, especially in enabling the process of privatization.
Towards the start of the s, a second wave of civil society development emerged, one characterized as an autonomous and countervailing power to the state. Some also began to challenge development policies. In some countries, the second wave of civil society has fostered new arrangements and forms of political organization within existing political parties. New, cross-cutting alliances have emerged among different sectors of civil society such as students, the media, the middle class and even business interests. A stark example was seen in the push for democratic reforms in Thailand in the aftermath of the May protests.
The third wave of civil society evolution in Asia is a reaction by governments to moderate growing pressures from civil society groups and to incorporate them as an instrument of state. Observers have noted the trend for governments in Asia to place legal controls on NGO activities and to try to co-opt and demobilize the more political, policy advocacy groups. The three waves identified by Riker correspond somewhat to the different conceptions of civil society earlier outlined.
The second wave is a little murkier. There is, of course, a difference between opposing the state and demanding that governments be publicly accountable. However, the line between them can get fuzzy. Certainly, in the minds of many governments unaccustomed to being questioned-and perhaps to civil society groups unaccustomed to questioning—the difference is often not felt.
To those in power, a demand for public accountability is often viewed as a confrontation which can only lead to an erosion of their power. Indeed, sometimes it does. Present and unfolding developments since the advent of the economic crisis in have revitalized interest in civil society. In South East Asia, where the changes have been dramatic, especially in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, some observers see vindication of their thesis that a democratic, pluralist and politically effective civil society will take root in the region.
Others are concerned with the failure of governance and a rising tide of anarchy, especially in Indonesia. They are less sanguine about the strength and capacity of emerging democrats to govern effectively and therefore to deal with possible back-lash. Civil Society Roles in Environmental Governance.
Since the s, an increasing environmental consciousness has emerged among the people of East Asia Lee and So This consciousness stems in part from the ever- more-apparent environmental degradation and resource depletion which has accompanied rapid economic growth; and in part from the increasing political space occupied by NGOs, local community groups, and other civil society groups, especially advocates for those hardest hit by ecological decline such as small farmers, fishers, the rural and urban poor, and indigenous groups. Business leaders as well have voiced greater awareness, sometimes via their interaction with consumer or diplomatic demands from rich Western countries.
The central question for governments in Asia is-or should be—how to harness the transformative potential of this growing popular consciousness and burgeoning civil society towards greatly improving environmental performance. In essence, this means creatively bringing business and NGOs squarely into the task of environmental governance. Shifting to a development path which greatly reduces the energy, materials, pollution and waste intensity of urban-industrial growth will require significant investment in reshaping the structure of environmental governance.
Policies will need to be developed which give the right market signals to innovators, entrepreneurs, managers, consumers, and families. Rules and regulations will need to be established and enforced. Information about environmental performance and ecological health will need to be created and strategically disseminated. Trade-offs between economic, environmental and social goals will need to be debated and fairly resolved.
Investment for large-scale infrastructure projects for transport, energy, water sanitation, waste management will need to be mobilized and projects implemented. These are roles for government. Capable, credible, fair and efficient government is a the bedrock of effective environmental governance. Governments face constraints, however, in Asia as elsewhere. As briefly outlined earlier, these constraints have been exacerbated by the crisis.
Business and civil society could play central roles in overcoming these obstacles. In the context of market-oriented, democratic or democratizing societies, public opinion and popular demand play a large role in shaping public policy. An effectively mobilized and articulate citizenry is central to the task of building and sustaining strong, capable, publicly accountable governments with the political will to meet the sustainability challenge.
Environmental quality and public health are issues in which most people feel themselves to be stakeholders. Concern for children in the strong family-centered societies of Asia is an especially potent mobilizing force. In Japan, civil society as a whole emerged largely to demand protection against local industrial pollution Yamatomo Popular demand for better environmental performance is likely to be increasingly framed both in the language of efficiency and of human rights.
The first — the pursuit of efficiency — is largely accepted as legitimate in Asia, though it is often cast aside if it entails the disruption of state or other elite monopolies. The second — human rights — remains controversial. While many Asian countries use the language of human rights, there remain gaps in practice. Many Asian analysts suspected such arguments to be self-serving figleaves by authoritarian governments Tay , Bell and Bauer The Asian values argument is now largely discredited and the language of human rights is increasingly likely to civil society demands for environmental protection Sachs ; Boyle and Anderson, Human rights need not be viewed as being encompassed wholly by civil and political rights.
Rather, they include all human rights in full recognition of their indivisible and interdependent nature. After all. The right to health and to clean air and water can be seen as an extension of economic rights. Moreover, there is an increasing clamor in the international community for the articulation and embrace of a charter of Environmental Rights Earth Council In addition to building popular support and political will, the mobilization of business, community and other civil society organizations can also help to overcome fiscal constraints. Government revenues have dropped in the post-crisis era and in many cases, have been reallocated away from environmental projects.
Business and non-governmental organizations NGOs can fulfill a variety of functions that would either otherwise fall to government or that governments simply cannot accomplish see Part III. Business and NGOs are also potentially key players in designing, monitoring and enforcing the regulation of industry. Even if their capacity and will to regulate was greatly enhanced, governments cannot adequately monitor thousands of companies and other agents to ensure regulatory compliance.
Effectively mobilizing community monitoring capacities and using them to spur better industry performance is central to effective environmental governance. The fourth constraint on government capacity to govern stems from globalization. Competition for foreign investment and trade can act as a force of gravity dragging down environmental commitments.
Even if governments do not lower standards in order to attract FDI, they often do not enforce standards and are wary of raising them. International NGOs INGOs and coalitions between INGOs and local groups are important players in the push to change the character of globalization by incorporating environmental and social standards into the governance of the global economy.
Globalalization and Social Norms. The environmental and social impacts of globalization are at the heart of the concerns of many Asian and international NGOs. In the wake of the crisis, critiques of globalization have grown stronger. Even in the heyday of the Asian miracle, doubts were voiced about social and cultural aspects of globalization. Many Asian leaders and intellectuals advocated globalization for the economy but regional or national particularities for culture and society.
They posited a world of convergence in economics but of essential and essentialized differences in social norms, such as human rights and environmental protection, as well as culture and politics. Beyond Asia, environmental NGOs, labor, and other advocacy groups throughout the world have raised concerns about adverse costs of globalization. In the West, many focus on the outflow of jobs from the more developed and more expensive economies to cheaper centers of production in Asia and elsewhere. Others voice concern about the accompanying social and cultural costs in environmental pollution and degradation, or the lack of protection of human and labor rights, and the exploitation of vulnerable sectors of the populace, such as undocumented migrant workers, women and children.
In the debate over globalization, one focal point is the relationship between international trade and the environment. The US has tried, unsuccessfully, to close its markets to goods that harmed species it wanted to protect, such as canned tuna caught in ways that resulted in the accidental killing of dolphins, and shrimp imports captured in ways that killed sea turtles. In human rights, the Asian values debate has generated controversy, especially in relation to did Western sanctions against China and Myanmar.
Some view the choices starkly between the McWorld of convergence and the Jihad of radical difference. These debates about convergence and difference have not been resolved by the crisis. They have instead become more complicated. In the West, a new triumphalism has emerged, especially as regards the Asian values debate in human rights and democracy. The U. US hegemony is associated with the urging of free and open markets and the promotion of democracy, human rights and to a lesser degree environmental protection.
Critics have pointed to a new arrogance in U. To some, it may seem like a repeat of the Western euphoria after the Cold War. Yet differences between Asia and the West can be better understood and made less controversial, areas of convergence can be better recognized and built upon.
Otherwise, the thin fabric of community and consensus in the Asia-Pacific can be torn. Indeed, consensus about the benefits of globalization itself can be shaken. The international community is based on the idea that all states are sovereign and equal. No state has the right to compel another and each state is free to order its internal, domestic affairs.
However, newer trends have eroded this concept of sovereignty. With globalization, increased interdependence has increased the need for international cooperation and supervision.
- Prospects and Challenges for People-Centred Development!
- Advanced Democracies.
- Precision Engineering!
- Log in to Wiley Online Library!
The nation-state has not disappeared but the nature of its sovereignty has changed. The ability of nation-states to govern unilaterally has diminished. In the economic sphere, global law, for example, limits the range of actions that a state can take against private investors and increases the rights such non-state actors hold in relation to the state.
In international trade, the WTO regime binds states to observe the key principles of national treatment and non-discrimination, thus limiting what states can do unilaterally to promote domestic economic and commercial interests. International rule-making on human rights and environment is often even more controversial, since it explicitly challenges the anarchic concept of national sovereignty and targets the internal norms and policies of states.
Global concerns to conserve biodiversity and control climate change, for example, have propelled the concept that rainforests within national territorial boundaries are a global heritage not only of all peoples but of all generations. Given their colonial histories, as well as the continuing imbalance of global power, many developing country governments have resisted these aspects of global law as intrusions on their sovereignty. Both human rights and international environmental law are strongly associated with NGOs.
Such NGO movements have become increasingly strong and acknowledged sources of influence in the international sphere, with established roles in various UN fora. The mass and partially violent demonstrations against the WTO meeting displayed a frustration with an approach to the governance of globalization that the demonstrators perceived as undemocratic, environmentally disastrous, and bad for their individual economic prospects.
Through their intensive use of the Internet, protestors from many sectors and many countries developed a sophisticated common critique and common language. A host of groups and sectors from around the world is seeking new, ethically-based approaches to global and national governance.
This has two major implications for the potential role of Asian civil society in environmental governance. First, it suggests that the evolution of environmental and social norms in Asia, both at the popular and NGO level, will be determined by external as well as internal forces.
In the future, civil society in Asia is likely to call for more government accountability on issues of environment and human rights, as well as for a new approach to development which promotes equity. There will be an on-going debate between Asian civil society groups seeking to withdraw from and those seeking to expand and reform the processes of globalization. It is also likely that trans-Pacific environmental partnerships and NGO coalitions will blossom in the next decade based not only on ethics but ecological self-interest.
In March, , a new report found that airborne chemicals from Asia-carbon monoxide, radon, aerosols, hyrdrocarbons, and other chemicals-were reaching the West Coast of theUnited States. Rising concern and activism in the U. The second implication of the increasing globalization of economies and social norms is that governments in Asia will feel increasingly pressed by contradictory external forces.
On the one hand, they will be pressured not to raise industry environment standards for fear of losing foreign investment and trade competitiveness. On the other hand, they will be forced to accept higher standards set by North American or European states as conditions of market entry. Contentious environmental issues will continue to be on the agenda for global and regional trade diplomacy and NGOs will press hard to have their voices heard.
In many states in Asia, the primary reaction to international civil society and global public policy networks has often been denial. However, this will be increasingly difficult as such networks gain influence. Moreover, denial is counterproductive. Rather than interfering with state objectives, international civil society can be a resource for peace and development, helping the state deal with the negative consequences of globalization and the present economic crisis. Indeed, NGOs, both domestic and international, can help states deal with the contradictory pressures of globalization and find innovative ways to raise environmental and social standards while promoting economic development.
What is needed is more dialogue between states and international civil society. To make such dialogue constructive, it is not only states but also civil society groups who must change. In Asia, indigenous civil society and NGO networks will need to be strengthened and assisted both to enhance their work at home and to enable their participation in global networks. If global public policy networks are to claim legitimacy, they cannot reflect only the interests of one or a narrow group of nations and cultures, typically rich and Western.
Rather, they must truly incorporate citizens and groups from all countries, finding common cause beyond borders. The participation of East Asians in such networks is likely to blossom in the next decade. Civil society groups, from both business and NGO sectors, can play a wide variety of functional roles in governance, including environmental governance.
To some degree, the functional roles of civil society differ depending on the overarching governance model. In other models, citizen groups and market incentives are key agents in raising, designing, monitoring and enforcing environmental standards. This section first describes six broad functions that civil society groups can play in environmental governance and then outlines three, alternative governance models.
Six Broad Functions. Civil society groups can fulfill six broad functional roles in environmental governance. This independent source of creative intellectual input and visionary thinking provides an important channel for the development of strategic rather than reactive approaches to development challenges Edwards and Hulme This function of civil society groups has been the subject of considerable controversy and attention Broad and Cavanagh In Thailand, for example, the overseas Thai engineers which helped the government write and implement its first environmental laws;.
In large coastal urban areas, for example, the involvement of communities in water and sewerage services can help to reduce marine pollution Zarsky and Hunter In this capacity, NGOs often implement policies and programs designed and promoted by government. This is an important function especially where countries attempt decentralization in response to environmental issues.
In such cases, there is very often a lack of local authority and resources to deal with environment problems. Webster There is substantial evidence that community group pressure is an important determinant of firm-level environmental performance in Asia New Ideas in Pollution Regulation Philanthropic foundations and individuals provide resources for independent thinktanks and other NGO activities, often stemming from their own visionary leanings and interest in solving problems.
Philanthropic foundations also sometimes provide funds for government and business activity. Many NGOs undertake multiple functions, while others have a strong identity as serving one particular function. Some are national or regional and may have links or indeed be chapters or representatives of Western-based, international environmental NGOs e. Others remain mainly local movements Kalland and Persoon Moreover, a range of underlying values and philosophies guides environmental NGOs.
In some cases, Asian perceptions of nature have a considerable influence on environmentalism Bruun and Kalland Additionally, some environmental NGOs and movements trace their roots to political movements, such as anti-colonialism, Marxism or feminism. Some developed from a concern about the poor and the need for environmental justice. Environmental movements in India, the Philippines and Thailand in particular tend to focus on what have been called the environmental problems of poverty: the lack of access by the poor to environmental resources or their suffering from the direct impact of pollution Lee and So Other environmental NGOs and movements in Asia, in contrast, have their origins and sources of support from the an emerging middle class.
Like their Western environmental countrerparts, such environmental NGOs and movements espouse post materialist concerns about overconsumption and the quality of life, as well as health and environmental impacts of industrialization. Typically, such concerns are the focus of environmental movements in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and other more developed economies in Asia Lee and So ; Eder Their different origins and sources of support tend to influence the functions and strategies that various environmental NGOs undertake. In Thailand and the Philippines, which have clearer self-identities as democracies, a thick web of NGOs is sprouting, with independent think tanks and NGOs taking on one or most often more of the functions outlined above.
This self-description suggests that NGOs wish to go beyond a membership based in urban, middle-class elites and reach out more at the grass roots level. This is especially necessary given the expanse and stretch of the Philippines as an archipelagic state and parallels the devolution of many governmental functions to the local or baranguay level since the fall of the martial law regime of President Ferdinand Marcos Silliman and Noble , Solidarity Yet another important feature of civil society organizations in the Philippines is their extraordinary ability to form broad coalitions, networks and umbrella groups.
This affords them greater legitimacy, opportunities to share resources and a platform to exchange opinions among each other. These factors in turn allow NGOs within these coalitions to gain better access to government decision-making processes. Those who wish to deliver services to supplement the action or inaction of government also have access to a broad array of partners and resources.
In so doing, NGOs begin to appreciate the benefits from cooperating with government when the occasion arises. In Thailand, too, environmental NGOs have been on the rise. In many cases, NGOs have arisen out of rural development and environmental issues such as local access to and ownership of forests Nicro ; Poffenberger However, urban and largely middle class groups concerned with the environment have also mushroomed.
In the main, these civil society groups have not been welcomed by the government Lohmann The response of Asian governments to civil society has been uneven and at times uncertain. In many cases, governments have not welcomed civil society as a partner but have been suspicious of it and have sought to control or co-opt civil society actors. Independent national think tanks that wish to advocate public policy for the environment or contend for intellectual leadership on these issues are still rare in some countries in East Asia, such as China, Indo-China, Malaysia and Singapore.
In part, this is because they are kept under control by wary governments Ooi and Koh However, times may be changing. In Singapore, there is a recognized role for NGOs to work in environmental education and to help provide services to supplement government action. Mekani and Stengel Indonesia too has witnessed a growth of environmental civil society organizations and NGOs.
Before the crisis, NGOs tended to grow up around particular issues, such as opposition to dams, or for conservation. Hirsch and Warren However, as a result of the political and economic crisis in Indonesia, local environmental struggles have often been linked to broader politics. Not all observers are optimistic about the possibility of an independent civil society developing under authoritarian regimes in Asia. Hewison , Murphy Nevertheless, a growing web of national and also regional civil society organizations and NGOs can clearly be discerned. It is possible that, in future, similar regional networks of NGOs and civil society organizations may evolve for environmental issues, especially in response transboundary to environmental problems.
The euphoria and the contest over civil society in Asia has often led to confusion in the terms of the debate. It has also bred rigidity in conceiving of actual and potential relationships between the state and civil society. For example, if the oppositional idea of civil society is rigidly held, then the idea of joint civil society-state projects and policy-development must be read to mean that participating civil society actors have been co-opted or otherwise compromised by the state.
Blindly followed, the oppositional idea of civil society demands political contestation and refuses cooperation. In this formulation, civil society can and must be only a handmaiden to state-directed policy, taking on only the tasks that the state assigns to it and no longer wishes to fulfill. In this mindset, there is no role for civil society in policy formulation or advocacy.
To move beyond single and narrow formulations, it is useful to think in terms of a variety of models of state-civil society relations. One model is not inherently better in all circumstances. Rather, the optimal model will shift depending on the particular context or objective, even within the same society and with the same civil society actors.grupoavigase.com/includes/167/2089-como-ligar-en.php
DAINET NGO directory : a directory of non governmental organisations in India
The critical difference would be that the choice of model be dictated by context and policy goal, rather than ideology and habit. In the burgeoning corporate accountability movement, for example, the concept of being responsible to a broad range of company stakeholders, including workers and the local community, is supplementing a more narrow traditional focus on the financial bottom line.
The idea is that stakeholder involvement strengthens the long run performance of a company, including its profitability Svendson The stakeholder idea has been especially relevant to broad civil society demands for greater participation in environmental decisions. Along with social and economic welfare, environmental quality and public health are issues of concern to all members of a society. They are universal issues in which all are stakeholders, even future generations.
The poor often have the largest stake in environmental improvement, since they suffer the brunt of pollution and resource degradation. Mobilizing popular concern in order to chart an economically viable, socially just and ecologically sustainable development path-for themselves, for their families, for the people for whom they are advocates, for their societies—is a fundamental goal of many Asian NGOs. Another key stakeholder sector is business. Small and medium firms, multinational corporations and domestic big business, industry associations, chambers of commerce, and others have especial concerns about environmental governance.
As a whole, business tends to prefer stability and predictability in policymaking, including on the environment. Transnational companies find it useful for standards to be similar in different countries in which they operate and often adopt uniform internal company-wide standards. Others fear that raising the bar for environmental performance will disadvantage them in the marketplace. In either case, business is major stakeholder in government decisions, as well as NGO activities. The traditional model of environmental governance puts government, usually national government, in the role of regulator and enforcer as well as financier and often operator of public goods.
Whether in the U. While it has achieved some success in raising environmental performance in the U. On the regulatory front, the command-and-control model requires that substantial resources be devoted to enforcement. Moreover, there is no incentive for business to exceed standards. On the public goods front, government services are subject to problems of corruption, capture by sectoral interests, and political determination of prices. In East Asia, the command-and-control model has not been very effective.
While a spate of environmental legislation bloomed in the early s, enforcement has languished, in part due to lack of funds as well as political will. As providers of public goods, national governments have been constrained by ineffective tax systems, priorities for other kinds of spending especially military , and corruption—and, more recently, by financial crisis. Moreover, many East Asian countries lack strong traditions of law.
With stakeholders seeking to play a greater role, what governments should, and in many cases are, asking is how to best harness stakeholders to the task of raising industrial and urban environmental performance. There are three, potentially overlapping, models. Community Partnership. A Community Partnership model of governance rests on partnerships with NGOs and business in the undertaking of specific projects and implementation of specific policies and programs. Douglas and Ooi NGOs can also spearhead environmental education programs, develop school and workplace environmental trainings, etc.
Government may also help to finance projects or help to leverage private funds. The emphasis is on the service provision and problem solving roles of NGOs. Public-private partnerships between governments and business are a specific form of the community service model. Governments act as organizers and coordinators, bringing together various private interests to undertake socially beneficial projects such as the development of clean energy sources or power plants e.
The government could help to leverage private sector financing through innovative methods such as technology risk guarantees for technologies which are not commercially proven. The Community Partnership model has three benefits. First, by using volunteer and low paid community labor, governments can greatly stretch scarce revenues. Second, by providing opportunities for people to engage with and improve their own communities, they can encourage a greater sense of civic engagement.
There is substantial evidence that strong civic association is an important component of good governance, which in turn positively impacts economic growth.
In this model, government retains in central role as regulator and enforcer and continues to structure its relationships with business and community groups bilaterally and typically top-down. This is an advantage for those governments who are wary of the potential for social disruption or political challenge which might stem from a wider role for NGOs. In this sense, it could work as a transition model.
Over the longer term, it is likely that groups and individuals who work in close partnership with government will seek not only to implement but also to design policy. Corporate Self-Regulation. The Corporate Self-Regulation model is based on two ideas. First, that companies will respond to consumer demands for better environmental performance regardless of government regulation; and second, that companies know better than governments how to improve their environmental performance.
There is also a related notion that large, transnational corporations, especially from the OECD, have superior technology and management. In this model, governments provide not an ever denser thicket of command-and-control style regulation but broad frameworks and guidelines, as well as open markets. Not only is business given a greater role in governance but the relationship of the community to business is influential. The most widely used form of corporate self-regulation in Asia is ISO, 14,, which sets environmental management standards for firms.
ISO 14, sets process but not performance standards. Companies commit themselves to auditing and monitoring their environmental impacts, as well as complying with domestic laws. Proof that they are doing both enables companies to be certified, which in turn, eases or even gains entry for company products to a number of OECD markets.
The hope is that the audits will uncover opportunities to save money by reducing wastes and improving energy and materials efficiency. The gains in eco-efficiency will spur companies to make production improvements. There is as yet little evidence as to the efficacy of the ISO approach. Environmentalists have typically been wary or downright cynical, suggesting that ISO means that the fox is guarding the hen house. A survey of US manufacturers, consultants and regulatory agencies found widespread concern on two fronts. First, that ISO 14, certification provides no guarantee of an actual and continuous improvement in reducing environmental impact; and second, that certification could become more of a paper chase than an effective tool to promote managerial innovation Marcus and Willing For Asian-based manufacturers, the concerns are quite the opposite.
There is suspicion that ISO standards are set by industrialized countries to provide a non-tariff barrier to trade, using a green excuse for protectionist intention. The sentiment is more strongly felt because of the differential impact that the same standards impose on the bulk of firms in Asia, which tend to be smaller enterprises, with limited access to technology, finance and know-how to change their methods of production to meet the new standards Voseenaar and Jha , Tay a, UNCTAD High visibility consumer-oriented companies like Reebok, Levi-Strauss, Intel and Hewlett-Packard have also joined the codes of conduct bandwagon.
Intel joined in response to intense community criticism of the environmental impacts of its production expansion plans in the U. Other groups which have generated codes of conduct include international organizations such as OECD, business support groups such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and other social interest groups, such as consumer, environmental, and church organizations. According to one comprehensive survey, codes of conduct tend to focus more on social than environmental issues, in part because than are more easy to specify than environmental issues SCOPE Some have argued that such corporate initiatives might be an increasingly important way to enforce human rights Cassel , Gibney and Emrick Nonetheless, environmental issues are becoming more common.
Do voluntary codes of conduct work? There is little information either about whether codes target the most significant environmental or social issues or whether TNCs comply with their own codes. One study underway is examining codes of conduct and the need for policy innovation to enhance social accountability in the context of the U.
Niet-gouvernementele organisaties. Economic policy. Economic development. Non-governmental organizations -- Asia. Asia -- Economic policy. Development Asia Contents 1. Riker 3. Riker 6. Korten and Antonio B. Quizon 7. Korten 8. Notes Includes bibliographical references p. Electronic reproduction. Martin's Press, Technical Details Master and use copy.
Journal of Democracy
Digital Library Federation, December Set up My libraries How do I set up "My libraries"? Australian Catholic University Library. Open to the public ; Australian National University Library. Open to the public. Curtin University Library. Deakin University Library. Flinders University Central Library.
La Trobe University Library. Bendigo Campus, Heyward Library. Borchardt Library, Melbourne Bundoora Campus. Monash University Library. Murdoch University Library.
- The challenges for better partnership of the government-NGO.
- Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry, 2nd Edition?
- Stretch: Reference to Go: 50 Stretches?
- Annotated List of Books.
- The Python Workbook;
The University of Melbourne Library. University of Queensland Library. Open to the public ; HC University of Sydney Library. Barr Smith Library. University Library. Victoria University Library. Hawkesbury Campus Library. Open to the public Book; Illustrated English Show 0 more libraries G63 Book; Illustrated English Show 0 more libraries None of your libraries hold this item. Found at these bookshops Searching - please wait We were unable to find this edition in any bookshop we are able to search.
These online bookshops told us they have this item:.