4.7 Article

Practicing policy mobility of payment for ecosystem services through assemblage and performativity: Lessons from China's Xin'an River Basin Eco-compensation Pilot

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 191, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107234

关键词

Assemblage; Payments for ecosystem services; Performativity; Policy mobility; Xin'an River Basin

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [72074119, 71774088, 42101234]
  2. Social Science Foundation in Jiangsu Province [20GLB003]
  3. National Social Science Fund of China [18ZDA052, 17BGL142]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the policy mobility of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in China's Xin'an River Basin Eco-compensation Pilot through the lens of assemblage and performativity. It argues that PES policy mobility is shaped by various assemblage practices and local institutional and political support, with performativity playing a role in justifying economic rationality and guiding PES technologies. The study also highlights power reconfigurations between governments and the market, showcasing China's adaptive ecosystem governance in practicing PES policy mobility.
This paper explores the process and practices of policy mobility for the Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in China's Xin'an River Basin Eco-compensation Pilot, through the lens of assemblage and performativity. We argue that various practices of assemblage create the possibility for PES policy mobility, while the actualization of PES policy mobility also depends on local institutional and political support, for which performativity can help justify the economic rationality and channel PES technologies. PES policy mobility can trigger power reconfigurations between governments at different levels, and between the government and the market. Moving beyond the Western-centric interpretation of policy mobility, our detailed empirical study also reflects China's adaptive ecosystem governance in practicing PES policy mobility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据