Skip to main content
Registrieren
Springer Professional
SUCHE
MENÜ 1 2 3 4
main-content
nach oben

Tipp

Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences 2/2018

01.03.2018 | Research Article

A novel understanding of experimentation in governance: co-producing innovations between “lab” and “field”

verfasst von: Jan-Peter Voß, Arno Simons

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
share
TEILEN

Abstract

What do experiments do for governance? Along with pragmatist and performative conceptions, we argue that they do not test already existing conditions of governing, but actively transform such conditions. Experiments help to realize specific models of governance by co-producing collective knowledge and material practices. We analyze a series of experiments with “emissions trading” in the USA between 1968 and 2000. The historical perspective shows how different types of experiments worked together: experiments in the laboratory and in the field supported each other in creating epistemic and political authority. This “ping-pong between lab and field” produced subjects and objects, facts and values, knowledge and power and aligned them in a new socio-material configuration, thus realizing emissions trading as a new form of governance.
Vorheriger Artikel The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments
Nächster Artikel “Pioneers but not guinea pigs”: experimenting with climate change adaptation in French coastal areas
Fußnoten
1
Data sources include academic literature, policy documents, websites, personal archives, and interviews (conducted in 2010) with experts involved in the developments described here.
 
2
We have worked extensively on this case. To see how our account differs from alternative explanations for how emissions trading emerged as a policy, see Voß (2007a, b), Voß and Simons (2014), Simons and Voß (2018, 2015), Simons (2015, 2016).
 
Literatur
Ansell, C. K., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics, 130, 64–73. CrossRef
Bohi, D. R., & Burtraw, D. (1992). Utility investment behavior and the emission trading market. Resources and Energy, 14(1), 129–153. CrossRef
Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375. CrossRef
Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 535–548. CrossRef
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409–429. CrossRef
Cason, T. N., & Plott, C. R. (1996). EPA’s new emissions trading mechanism: A laboratory evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(2), 133–160. CrossRef
Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(October), 1–44. CrossRef
Cook, B. J. (1988). Bureaucratic politics and regulatory reform. The EPA and emission trading. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Crocker, T. D. (1966). The structuring of atmospheric pollution control systems. In H. Wolozin (Ed.), The economics of air pollution (pp. 61–86). New York: Norton.
Dales, J. H. (1968). Pollution, property, and prices. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Dewey, J. (1986 [1938]). Logic: The theory of inquiry (John Dewey. The later works 1925–1953, volume 12: 1938). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (2012 [1927]). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Disch, L. (2010). ‘Faitiche’-izing the people: What representative democracy might learn from science studies. In B. Braun, S. J. Whatmore, & I. Stengers (Eds.), Political matter: Technoscience, democracy, and public life (pp. 267–296). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105(01), 100–114. CrossRef
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review Sociology, 33, 449–472. CrossRef
Dudek, D. J., & Palmisano, J. (1987). Emissions trading: Why is this thoroughbred hobbled. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 13, 217–258.
Elgert, L. (2010). Politicizing sustainable development: The co-production of globalized evidence-based policy. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 375–390. CrossRef
Ellerman, D., & Harrison, D. (2003). Emissions trading in the US: Experience, lessons, and considerations for greenhouse gases. Los Angeles: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Ellerman, A. D., Joskow, P. L., Schmalensee, R., Montero, J.-P., & Bailey, E. M. (2000). Markets for clean air. The U.S. acid rain program. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Evans, K. G. (2000). Reclaiming John Dewey: Democracy, inquiry, pragmatism, and public management. Administration & Society, 32(3), 308–328. CrossRef
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. CrossRef
Gomart, E., & Hajer, M. A. (2003). Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In B. Joerges & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead (pp. 33–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRef
Gorman, H. S., & Solomon, B. D. (2002). The origins and practice of emissions trading. Journal of Policy History, 14(3), 293–320. CrossRef
Guala, F. (2007). How to do things with experimental economics. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 128–162). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between the US politics and science. The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–111. CrossRef
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. CrossRef
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hahn, R. W., & Hester, G. L. (1989). Where did all the markets go-an analysis of EPA’s emissions trading program. Yale Journal on Regulation, 6, 109.
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Hyde, S. D. (2015). Experiments in international relations: Lab, survey, and field. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 403–424. CrossRef
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195. CrossRef
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge. CrossRef
Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order (pp. 13–43). London: Routledge. CrossRef
Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–394. CrossRef
Knorr Cetina, K. (1992). The couch, the cathedral and the laboratory. On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 113–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375. CrossRef
Knorr Cetina, K., & Mulkay, M. (1983). Science observed: New perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage.
Lane, R. (2012). The promiscuous history of market efficiency: The development of early emissions trading systems. Environmental Politics, 21(4), 583–603. CrossRef
Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed. Perspectives on the social studies of science (pp. 142–169). London: Sage.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2003). What if we talked politics a little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2(2), 143–164. CrossRef
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. CrossRef
Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: Free Press.
Lövbrand, E. (2011). Co-producing European climate science and policy: A cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225–236. CrossRef
Mann, C., & Voß, J.-P. (2018). Challenging futures: Concepts for engaging with dynamics of policy instrument design. In M. Padnamabhan (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity for sustainability (pp. 267–289). London: Routledge.
Marcus, A. A. (1980). Promise and performance. Choosing and implementing an environmental policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Meidinger, E. (1985). On explaining the development of ‘emissions trading’ in U.S. air pollution regulation 10. Law and Policy, 7(4), 447–479. CrossRef
Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The coproduction of science and social order (pp. 46–66). London: Routledge.
Montgomery, W. D. (1972). Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory, 5(3), 395–418. CrossRef
Muniesa, F., & Callon, M. (2007). Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 163–189). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nutley, S. M., Smith, P. C., & Davies, H. T. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Briston: Policy Press.
Oates, W. E. (2000). From research to policy: the case of environmental economics. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 4(1), 1–15. CrossRef
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum, 41(2), 169–174. CrossRef
Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. London: MacMillan.
Pooley, E. (2010). The climate war: True believers, power brokers, and the fight to save the earth. Wiley: e-book.
Popper, K. R. (1957). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.
Rosanvallon, P. (2006). Democracy past and future. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Rouse, J. (2011). Articulating the world: Experimental systems and conceptual understanding. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(3), 243–254. CrossRef
Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22. CrossRef
Saward, M. (2006). The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory, 5(3), 297–318. CrossRef
Schäpke, N., Stelzer, F., Bergmann, M., & Lang, D. J. (2016). Tentative theses on transformative research in real-world laboratories. First insights from the accompanying research forreal1. Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis, 25(3), 41–45.
Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520. CrossRef
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. NJ: Princeton University Press Princeton.
Simons, A. (2015). Documented authority. The discursive construction of emissions trading in the expert literature. Doctoral Dissertation. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.
Simons, A. (2016). Fact-making in permit markets: Document networks as infrastructures of emissions trading. In J.-P. Voß & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (pp. 177–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Simons, A., Lis, A., & Lippert, I. (2014). The political duality of scale-making in environmental markets. Environmental Politics, 23(4), 632–649. CrossRef
Simons, A., & Voß, J.-P. (2015). Politics by other means. The making of the emissions trading instrument as a ‘pre-history’ of carbon trading. In B. Stephan & R. Lane (Eds.), The politics of carbon markets (pp. 51–68). London: Routledge.
Simons, A., & Voß, J.-P. (2018). The concept of instrument constituencies: Accounting for dynamics and practices of knowing governance. Policy & Society, 37(1), 14–35. CrossRef
Stavins, R. N. (1998). What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO 2 allowance trading. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 69–88.
Stoker, G. (2010). Translating experiments into policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628(1), 47–58. CrossRef
Strassheim, H., & Kettunen, P. (2014). When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 10(2), 259–277. CrossRef
Tietenberg, T. H. (1985). Emissions trading. An exercise in reforming pollution policy. Washington, DC: Ressources for the Future.
Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343. CrossRef
Voß, J.-P. (2010). Innovation of governance: The case of emissions trading. In M. J. Arentsen, W. Rossum, & A. E. Stenge (Eds.), Governance of innovation: Firms, clusters and institutions in a changing setting (pp. 125–148). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Voß, J.-P. (2014). Performative policy studies: Realizing ‘transition management’. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), 317–343.
Voß, J.-P. (2016a). Realizing instruments: Performativity in emissions trading and citizen panels. In J.-P. Voß & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (pp. 127–154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Voß, J.-P. (2016b). Reflexively engaging with technologies of participation. Constructive assessment for public participation methods. In J. Chilvers & M. B. Kearnes (Eds.), Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics (pp. 238–260). London: Routledge-Earthscan.
Voß, J.-P., & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 9. CrossRef
Voß, J.-P., & Freeman, R. (Eds.). (2016). Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Voß, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable developement (pp. 3–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Voß, J.-P., & Schroth, F. (2018). Experimentation: The politics of innovation and learning in polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. Van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Voß, J.-P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply-side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754. CrossRef
Wilkinson, M. A. (2012). Dewey’s’ democracy without politics’: On the failures of liberalism and the frustrations of experimentalism. Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(2), 117–142. CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A novel understanding of experimentation in governance: co-producing innovations between “lab” and “field”
verfasst von
Jan-Peter Voß
Arno Simons
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9313-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Policy Sciences 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Research Article

Experimentation at the interface of science and policy: a multi-case analysis of how policy experiments influence political decision-makers

Research Article

Policy experimentation: core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts

Research Article

The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments

Research Article

“Pioneers but not guinea pigs”: experimenting with climate change adaptation in French coastal areas

Announcement

Note from the Editor: Lasswell Prize Announcement for volume 50 (2017)

Premium Partner

Pluta Rombach Rechtsanwälte
    Bildnachweise

    Version: 0.2061.0