Search

Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them. published

Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.

Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in 11 countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.

The environment is being destroyed at alarming rates, undermining prospects of reconciling human wellbeing and development and respect for planetary boundaries [1]. Even a thirty percent increase in global action towards goals already en - shrined in international agreements on environment, trade and development would not achieve widely shared sustainability goals without transgressing planetary boundaries [1]. In short, existing institutions are not steering us safely towards environmental sustainability and the common good.

A agricultura está profundamente relacionada com as mudanças ambientais globais, participando tanto das causas como das suas consequências, podendo acentuar a vulnerabilidade da sociedade em relação à segurança alimentar. Fazendo uma revisão crítica da literatura, este trabalho tem por objetivo contextualizar as relações entre a segurança alimentar e as mudanças ambientais globais. Aponta os riscos aos quais está sujeita a segurança alimentar da sociedade brasileira contemporânea, os aspectos de sua vulnerabilidade e as ações mitigatórias e adaptativas necessárias para sua garantia, e destaca os desafios para a política e pesquisa científica sobre o tema. Prioriza-se o debate sobre a fração da segurança alimentar relativa ao universo dos produtos agrícolas, deixando-se de lado os produtos provindos da pesca e produção animal., Agriculture is closely related to global environment change, being part of both its causes and consequences. Global environmental change can increase the vulnerability of society’s food security. From a holistic point of view of the food system, this texts seeks to contextualize the link between food security and global environmental change by means of a literature review. The study points out the risks posed to Brazil’s food security and its vulnerability, along with the mitigation and adaptation measures needed to overcome the problem. The authors highlight challenges for policy making and scientific research on global environmental change and food security in Brazil.

Este artigo avalia como os atores do setor produtivo da pecuária bovina brasileira compreendem o papel desta atividade econômica na segurança alimentar em um contexto de reprimarização da economia. Com base em 12 entrevistas semiestruturadas com representantes da cadeia produtiva brasileira, realizadas entre os anos de 2013 e 2014, demonstra uma contradição entre as suas definições e as da literatura científica contemporânea: enquanto a literatura científica aponta cada vez mais a necessidade de reduzir a produção e o consumo de carne para fortalecer a segurança alimentar em longo prazo, os entrevistados apresentam a produção pecuária como essencial para garantir a segurança alimentar em níveis nacional e mundial. O artigo argumenta que o discurso do setor paradoxalmente coloca em risco a segurança alimentar do país.