Week 1 — Hierarchies
3 core concepts:
1. Policy - a statement made by a government, company or organisation about what it intends
to do.
2. Institutions - human-made constraints that structure political, economics and social
interactions. Both formal (through laws) and informal (through norms)
3. Governance - all actors + institutions that govern an issue area; a spaghetti bowl of
overlapping rules, actors and initiatives.
Environmental governance: set of processes and organisations through which political actors
in uence environmental actions and outcomes. Di erent levels of governance: local, national and
international.
4 key developments in environmental governance:
1. State-led → market-led: people lost faith in state as protector and this re ects political shifts
(neoliberalism, globalisation)
2. Government → companies: from bans and limits to incentives and prices
3. Command and control → market-based instruments
4. Public authority → hybrid collaborations
3 types of governance:
1. Hierarchial modes of governance rely on coercion and state authority
2. Market-based rely on price incentives and private responsibilisations
3. Network-based rely on cooperation between various types of actors
Ideal types of environmental governance
Mode Basis Mechanism Con ict Resolution Culture
Hierarchy Authority Laws, rules Penalties, enforcement Bureaucracy
Market Property rights Prices, incentives Courts Competition
Network Reciprocity Trust, collaboration Dialogue Norms
Environmental policy making happens in a political arena in which actors compete for attentions.
Policies come with trade-o s.
Module 1: hierarchies
Hierarchies are a form of top-down decision making with the state as the dominant force with the
legitimate authority yo impose and enforce rules. Bureaucracies implement policies of command
and control and are based on Weberian principles:
1. Division of labour
2. Regulations specify behaviour
3. Decisions are implememted from top-down
4. Bureaucracies are neutral
5. Bureaucrats are the experts
→ this creates command and control governance with bans, limitations, nes, permits, etc., and
this is the most familiar form of environmental governance, but also the most politically sensitive.
Key take-aways for exam
Topic What You Must Remember
Policy A statement of intent by a government or organization.
Institutions Formal and informal rules shaping behaviour.
1
fl fl ff ff fifl
, Governance All actors + institutions governing an issue area.
Three modes Hierarchy (rules), Markets (prices), Networks (collaboration).
Historical trend State → market → hybrid governance.
Hierarchy Weberian bureaucracy, top-down, C&C tools.
Origins 1960s–1970s environmental movement; Stockholm 1972.
Governance is political Trade-o s, power, justice, constant contestation.
readings
Extensive Academic Summary of Chapter 2 – Governance in Public Administration
(Kjær 2004, short version)
Anne Mette Kjær traces the evolution of public administration from traditional Weberian
bureaucracy to contemporary governance, explaining why states increasingly rely on markets,
networks, and hybrid arrangements. She begins by outlining the Weberian model, characterized
by hierarchy, rule-bound procedures, predictability, and a strict division between politics and
administration. Although never perfectly realized, this model provided the normative foundation of
twentieth-century administration.
From the 1970s onward, expanding welfare states exposed the limits of rigid bureaucracies.
Governments faced scal pressures, administrative overload, and rising public dissatisfaction.
These conditions gave rise to New Public Management (NPM), a reform movement emphasizing
results, e ciency, decentralization, performance measurement, and managerial autonomy.
International organizations promoted these reforms globally as a way to modernize the state.
Structural changes accompanied these managerial reforms. Privatization shifted service delivery
to private actors; agenci cation fragmented government by creating semi-autonomous agencies;
decentralization transferred responsibilities to lower levels of government; and competition-
based tools reshaped public services through mechanisms such as school choice, competitive
tendering, and performance-based pay. Simultaneously, reforms increased frontline discretion and
encouraged citizen participation, though this often generated new accountability problems.
These developments contributed to what scholars called the “hollowing out” of the state: the
perception that central governments lost control to networks of agencies, rms, and international
organizations. Kjær argues, however, that the state has not disappeared — its steering
mechanisms have transformed. Modern governance operates through networks involving public,
private, and civil-society actors, which are necessary for managing complex, cross-sectoral
issues.
Ultimately, governance becomes a hybrid system where hierarchy provides legal authority,
markets promote e ciency, and networks enable coordination. Rather than signalling state
decline, governance represents the recon guration of state power into more exible and
collaborative modes of steering.
Introducing environmental policy and governance
This text introduces the interdisciplinary eld of environmental policy and governance by de ning
its core concepts, explaining why environmental issues require unique governance approaches,
and outlining how the eld developed historically. Environmental governance involves state and
non-state actors who shape rules and actions related to environmental protection, functioning
through three main modes: hierarchical, market-based, and networked governance.
Hierarchical governance uses state authority to set and enforce rules, commonly applied to
pollution limits or environmental standards. Market-based governance uses price incentives —
carbon taxes, emissions trading, or payments for ecosystem services — assuming actors respond
to economic signals. Networked governance brings together governments, rms, scientists, and
NGOs to address complex issues such as climate change or deforestation that cannot be
managed by a single actor.
2
ffffi ffifi fi fi fifi fi fifl fi
, Environmental policy is distinct because environmental problems are inherently complex,
uncertain, and interdisciplinary, often labelled “wicked” or “super wicked.” Science plays a
central role, yet scienti c knowledge is shaped by political decisions regarding funding,
representation, and interpretation. Environmental problems also stem from economic systems,
making environmental governance deeply intertwined with economic policy.
Historically, environmental governance emerged in the late twentieth century, driven by in uential
literature (e.g., Silent Spring, Tragedy of the Commons) and public concern. Since the 1970s,
thousands of international agreements have been established, later complemented by private and
hybrid governance initiatives. Recently, states have reasserted their role through green industrial
policy designed to steer economic transformation.
Key debates persist around balancing economic growth with ecological limits, the role of
technology, and how to ensure fairness and e ectiveness in global environmental governance.
Command & control (CC) policies:
CC rules impose detailed, legally enforceable limits or requirements om polluters. CC relies on
regulation (permisssions, prohibitions, standards) rather than nancial incentives (OECD).
3 core feautures of CC:
1. Legally binding rules
2. Enforcement mechanisms → nes or jail
3. Used often for point-source pollution: stationary (factories) or non-stationary (airports)
State says what must be done and compliance is mandatory
3 types of CC:
1. Setting an environmental standard (limit, phase-out or ban)
2. Setting a performace standard → limit of emissions per unit. Jevons paradox: when
e ciency improves, total consumption may increase
3. Technology forcing: only certain technologies are allowed or make certain technologies more
expensive
Pro’s and cons of CC policies
Pro Con
Stringent target (science based) Restrictive → limits freedom
High certainty Economically ine cient
Mandatory → e ectiveness Can become a morass: overlapping
Clear roles for regulators Tech standards can freeze industries
Predictable rules for businesses Public unaware of trade-o s
Industries in uence regulators
Bureaucracies may be underfunded
CC can be e cient when science is clear, institutions are strong, alterantives exist and a single
pollutant is targeted.
The public policy cycle:
1. Agenda-setting: issue → problem (protest, lobbying, crisis)
2. Policy forumulation: experts design solutions
3. Legitimation: proposal is approved
4. Implementation: rules are enforces
5. Evaluation: succes is monitored
3
ffi fl ffiff ffi fiff fi ff fi fl
, 6. Mainainance / feedback
7. Termination: rare, most policies live forever
The policy cycle is a descriptive and prescriptive model that allows us to see complexity.
But it is heuristic and not a theoretical model. It is also a linear sequence, so no interactions.
Stake-holders: actors a ected by, or in uencing, the policy. Engaging with di erent stakeholders
is crucial for policy making.
Interest-in uence matrix: stakeholders are placed on a matrix according to their relative interest
and in uence: key players, context setters, crowd and subjects.
Kingdon’s multiple stream model: for something to get on the political agenda, 3 steps must
converge:
1. Problem stream
2. Policy stream
3. Politics stream
When these align → policy window opens
But…
- This applies mostly to US
- Vague about what counts as a window
- Underplays power imbalances
- Not all stakeholders have equal access to agenda setting
Key take-aways command and control
Topic What You Must Know
C&C
Legally binding rules: standards, performance, tech forcing.
de nition
Three types Standards, performance standards, technology forcing.
Pros Certainty, enforceable, science-based, e ective.
Cons Ine cient, rigid, complex, capture, enforcement costs.
Examples Noise pollution, ozone, lead bans, Schiphol.
Agenda → formulation → legitimation → implementation → evaluation → feedback
Policy cycle
→ termination.
Limitations Linear, apolitical, simplistic, ignores power.
Stakeholders Interest–in uence matrix.
Kingdon
Problem + policy + politics → window.
model
readings
Birkland, “Introducing the Policy Process,” Chapter 1 — Summary
Birkland introduces public policy as a complex set of government actions, inactions, and
interpretations rather than a single decision or law. Policy is inherently political because it
distributes bene ts and burdens, re ecting con icts over competing values. Problems do not
naturally emerge but are constructed and framed by actors such as interest groups, experts,
and media; thus, understanding policymaking requires examining how issues gain attention.
He presents the policy process tradition, which studies how policies are made rather than how
they should be made. The chapter introduces the policy cycle — agenda setting, formulation,
adoption, implementation, evaluation — as a simpli ed but useful analytical heuristic. In reality,
policymaking is nonlinear, ambiguous, and shaped by negotiation, institutional constraints, and
incremental change.
4
fiffi fl
flfl fi ff fl flff fl fi ff
3 core concepts:
1. Policy - a statement made by a government, company or organisation about what it intends
to do.
2. Institutions - human-made constraints that structure political, economics and social
interactions. Both formal (through laws) and informal (through norms)
3. Governance - all actors + institutions that govern an issue area; a spaghetti bowl of
overlapping rules, actors and initiatives.
Environmental governance: set of processes and organisations through which political actors
in uence environmental actions and outcomes. Di erent levels of governance: local, national and
international.
4 key developments in environmental governance:
1. State-led → market-led: people lost faith in state as protector and this re ects political shifts
(neoliberalism, globalisation)
2. Government → companies: from bans and limits to incentives and prices
3. Command and control → market-based instruments
4. Public authority → hybrid collaborations
3 types of governance:
1. Hierarchial modes of governance rely on coercion and state authority
2. Market-based rely on price incentives and private responsibilisations
3. Network-based rely on cooperation between various types of actors
Ideal types of environmental governance
Mode Basis Mechanism Con ict Resolution Culture
Hierarchy Authority Laws, rules Penalties, enforcement Bureaucracy
Market Property rights Prices, incentives Courts Competition
Network Reciprocity Trust, collaboration Dialogue Norms
Environmental policy making happens in a political arena in which actors compete for attentions.
Policies come with trade-o s.
Module 1: hierarchies
Hierarchies are a form of top-down decision making with the state as the dominant force with the
legitimate authority yo impose and enforce rules. Bureaucracies implement policies of command
and control and are based on Weberian principles:
1. Division of labour
2. Regulations specify behaviour
3. Decisions are implememted from top-down
4. Bureaucracies are neutral
5. Bureaucrats are the experts
→ this creates command and control governance with bans, limitations, nes, permits, etc., and
this is the most familiar form of environmental governance, but also the most politically sensitive.
Key take-aways for exam
Topic What You Must Remember
Policy A statement of intent by a government or organization.
Institutions Formal and informal rules shaping behaviour.
1
fl fl ff ff fifl
, Governance All actors + institutions governing an issue area.
Three modes Hierarchy (rules), Markets (prices), Networks (collaboration).
Historical trend State → market → hybrid governance.
Hierarchy Weberian bureaucracy, top-down, C&C tools.
Origins 1960s–1970s environmental movement; Stockholm 1972.
Governance is political Trade-o s, power, justice, constant contestation.
readings
Extensive Academic Summary of Chapter 2 – Governance in Public Administration
(Kjær 2004, short version)
Anne Mette Kjær traces the evolution of public administration from traditional Weberian
bureaucracy to contemporary governance, explaining why states increasingly rely on markets,
networks, and hybrid arrangements. She begins by outlining the Weberian model, characterized
by hierarchy, rule-bound procedures, predictability, and a strict division between politics and
administration. Although never perfectly realized, this model provided the normative foundation of
twentieth-century administration.
From the 1970s onward, expanding welfare states exposed the limits of rigid bureaucracies.
Governments faced scal pressures, administrative overload, and rising public dissatisfaction.
These conditions gave rise to New Public Management (NPM), a reform movement emphasizing
results, e ciency, decentralization, performance measurement, and managerial autonomy.
International organizations promoted these reforms globally as a way to modernize the state.
Structural changes accompanied these managerial reforms. Privatization shifted service delivery
to private actors; agenci cation fragmented government by creating semi-autonomous agencies;
decentralization transferred responsibilities to lower levels of government; and competition-
based tools reshaped public services through mechanisms such as school choice, competitive
tendering, and performance-based pay. Simultaneously, reforms increased frontline discretion and
encouraged citizen participation, though this often generated new accountability problems.
These developments contributed to what scholars called the “hollowing out” of the state: the
perception that central governments lost control to networks of agencies, rms, and international
organizations. Kjær argues, however, that the state has not disappeared — its steering
mechanisms have transformed. Modern governance operates through networks involving public,
private, and civil-society actors, which are necessary for managing complex, cross-sectoral
issues.
Ultimately, governance becomes a hybrid system where hierarchy provides legal authority,
markets promote e ciency, and networks enable coordination. Rather than signalling state
decline, governance represents the recon guration of state power into more exible and
collaborative modes of steering.
Introducing environmental policy and governance
This text introduces the interdisciplinary eld of environmental policy and governance by de ning
its core concepts, explaining why environmental issues require unique governance approaches,
and outlining how the eld developed historically. Environmental governance involves state and
non-state actors who shape rules and actions related to environmental protection, functioning
through three main modes: hierarchical, market-based, and networked governance.
Hierarchical governance uses state authority to set and enforce rules, commonly applied to
pollution limits or environmental standards. Market-based governance uses price incentives —
carbon taxes, emissions trading, or payments for ecosystem services — assuming actors respond
to economic signals. Networked governance brings together governments, rms, scientists, and
NGOs to address complex issues such as climate change or deforestation that cannot be
managed by a single actor.
2
ffffi ffifi fi fi fifi fi fifl fi
, Environmental policy is distinct because environmental problems are inherently complex,
uncertain, and interdisciplinary, often labelled “wicked” or “super wicked.” Science plays a
central role, yet scienti c knowledge is shaped by political decisions regarding funding,
representation, and interpretation. Environmental problems also stem from economic systems,
making environmental governance deeply intertwined with economic policy.
Historically, environmental governance emerged in the late twentieth century, driven by in uential
literature (e.g., Silent Spring, Tragedy of the Commons) and public concern. Since the 1970s,
thousands of international agreements have been established, later complemented by private and
hybrid governance initiatives. Recently, states have reasserted their role through green industrial
policy designed to steer economic transformation.
Key debates persist around balancing economic growth with ecological limits, the role of
technology, and how to ensure fairness and e ectiveness in global environmental governance.
Command & control (CC) policies:
CC rules impose detailed, legally enforceable limits or requirements om polluters. CC relies on
regulation (permisssions, prohibitions, standards) rather than nancial incentives (OECD).
3 core feautures of CC:
1. Legally binding rules
2. Enforcement mechanisms → nes or jail
3. Used often for point-source pollution: stationary (factories) or non-stationary (airports)
State says what must be done and compliance is mandatory
3 types of CC:
1. Setting an environmental standard (limit, phase-out or ban)
2. Setting a performace standard → limit of emissions per unit. Jevons paradox: when
e ciency improves, total consumption may increase
3. Technology forcing: only certain technologies are allowed or make certain technologies more
expensive
Pro’s and cons of CC policies
Pro Con
Stringent target (science based) Restrictive → limits freedom
High certainty Economically ine cient
Mandatory → e ectiveness Can become a morass: overlapping
Clear roles for regulators Tech standards can freeze industries
Predictable rules for businesses Public unaware of trade-o s
Industries in uence regulators
Bureaucracies may be underfunded
CC can be e cient when science is clear, institutions are strong, alterantives exist and a single
pollutant is targeted.
The public policy cycle:
1. Agenda-setting: issue → problem (protest, lobbying, crisis)
2. Policy forumulation: experts design solutions
3. Legitimation: proposal is approved
4. Implementation: rules are enforces
5. Evaluation: succes is monitored
3
ffi fl ffiff ffi fiff fi ff fi fl
, 6. Mainainance / feedback
7. Termination: rare, most policies live forever
The policy cycle is a descriptive and prescriptive model that allows us to see complexity.
But it is heuristic and not a theoretical model. It is also a linear sequence, so no interactions.
Stake-holders: actors a ected by, or in uencing, the policy. Engaging with di erent stakeholders
is crucial for policy making.
Interest-in uence matrix: stakeholders are placed on a matrix according to their relative interest
and in uence: key players, context setters, crowd and subjects.
Kingdon’s multiple stream model: for something to get on the political agenda, 3 steps must
converge:
1. Problem stream
2. Policy stream
3. Politics stream
When these align → policy window opens
But…
- This applies mostly to US
- Vague about what counts as a window
- Underplays power imbalances
- Not all stakeholders have equal access to agenda setting
Key take-aways command and control
Topic What You Must Know
C&C
Legally binding rules: standards, performance, tech forcing.
de nition
Three types Standards, performance standards, technology forcing.
Pros Certainty, enforceable, science-based, e ective.
Cons Ine cient, rigid, complex, capture, enforcement costs.
Examples Noise pollution, ozone, lead bans, Schiphol.
Agenda → formulation → legitimation → implementation → evaluation → feedback
Policy cycle
→ termination.
Limitations Linear, apolitical, simplistic, ignores power.
Stakeholders Interest–in uence matrix.
Kingdon
Problem + policy + politics → window.
model
readings
Birkland, “Introducing the Policy Process,” Chapter 1 — Summary
Birkland introduces public policy as a complex set of government actions, inactions, and
interpretations rather than a single decision or law. Policy is inherently political because it
distributes bene ts and burdens, re ecting con icts over competing values. Problems do not
naturally emerge but are constructed and framed by actors such as interest groups, experts,
and media; thus, understanding policymaking requires examining how issues gain attention.
He presents the policy process tradition, which studies how policies are made rather than how
they should be made. The chapter introduces the policy cycle — agenda setting, formulation,
adoption, implementation, evaluation — as a simpli ed but useful analytical heuristic. In reality,
policymaking is nonlinear, ambiguous, and shaped by negotiation, institutional constraints, and
incremental change.
4
fiffi fl
flfl fi ff fl flff fl fi ff
