1. 1 The Emergence of Partnerships for Sustainable Development Theoretical Considerations Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) Man-San Chan, Aysem Mert, Philipp Pattberg, Frank Biermann 2007 Amsterdam Conference on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 24-26 May 2007

2. 2 Outline Background Explanations from existing theories Patterns of Emergence: –Geographic –Policy Area –Participartory Conclusion WSSD Type 2 / CSD registered partnerships Conclusion

3. 3 Background What are WSSD partnerships? – Why look at them? Why look at emergence in a Large-N database of WSSD partnerships? Theory poor, theorising or theory informed?

4. 4 Theoretical Perspectives 1 FUNCTIONALISM Partnerships emerge from perceived needs. (Arts 2003 / Haas 2004) Partnerships emerge because states are failing. (Biermann & Dingwerth 2004) NETWORK THEORIES (Börzel 1998) Partnerships emerge because they better coordinate dispersed resources under conditions of globalization. (Reinicke 1997) Partnerships emerge as in response to distribution problems in meso-economic markets (Cutler e.a. 1999)

5. 5 Theoretical Perspectives 2 INSTITUTIONALISM Partnerships emerge because they are ‘out there’ as best practices. (Lober 1997 / Pattberg 2004) DISCOURSE Partnerships emerge because a language of inevitability. (Pauly in: Biersteker 2003) NEO GRAMSCIANISM Partnerships emerge because elites use them to retain and consolidate their positions. (Levy & Newell 2002)

6. 6 Patterns of Emergence ContradictoryContradictory theoretical explanations  They cannot be equally as true! normative ideaPartnership as a normative idea “Partnerships should / should not emerge”  Need for empirical backing! Theories discussed assume specific implications for patterns of emergence of partnerships: –Geographic –Policy area –Participatory

7. 7 Geographic Patterns of Emergence FunctionalismPartnerships emerge in places where government is capability decreasing More partnerships in places where governments retreat Policy network theories Partnerships emerge in places with high organisational density More partnerships in places with many non-state actors InstitutionalismPartnerships emerge in places where many similar arrangements are in place Partnerships are especially abundant in a few countries Neo- Gramscianist Partnerships emerge in places where business is strong More partnerships are found in places with many MNCs

8. 8 Policy Area Patterns of Emergence FunctionalismPartnerships emerge in policy areas where government is capability decreasing More partnerships In areas with low government involvement Policy network theories Partnerships emerge in policy areas where organisational density is high More partnerships in areas with many non- state actors InstitutionalismPartnerships emerge in policy areas with many similar institutions More partnerships in areas that are densely institutionalized Neo- Gramscianist Partnerships emerge in policy areas where business is strong More partnerships in monopolistic and oligopolistic markets

9. 9 Participatory Patterns of Emergence FunctionalismPartnerships emerge where governments’ capability is decreasing In most partnerships government is a partner, not the lead partner Policy network theories Partnerships emerge bottom-up by non- state actors Many partnerships are led by civil society actors InstitutionalismPartnerships emerge in social groups and epistemic communities Partnerships resemble in composition and in divisions of tasks Neo- Gramscianist partnerships emerge among elites that consolidate positions Partnerships are initiated and led by strong business and states

10. 10 CSD Partnerships: Patterns of Emergence GEOGRAPHIC High number in Indonesia & South Africa (Andonova & Levy 2003)  relation with intergovernmental process POLICY AREA Low interest for urgent issues like food security, biodiversity and fresh water; higher interest for capacity building and information for decision making. Sudden rise of number of water related partnerships in 2005  relation with intergovernmental process PARTICIPATORY Meagre business involvement, in spite of initial support. Underrepresented major groups, no reflection of a ‘vibrant civil society’

11. 11 Conclusions Many theories, few empirical support; need for a larger N analysis Systematic formulation of hypotheses for statistical analyses Different theories assume different patterns of emergence, that can be tested by looking at the actual patterns of emergence Too early to conclude on CSD registred partnerships, however, hypotheses from functionalism and network theories seem to not to be as robust as some suggest We expect differences across countries and political systems The CSD partnerships patterns of emergence suggest a link to intergovernmental agendas

12. 12 Thank you! Man-san Chan (Partners Research Project) sander.chan@ivm.vu.nl VU University Institute for Environmental Studies De Boelelaan 1087 1081 HV Amsterdam