4.3 Article

Disaggregating public-private governance interactions: European Union interventions in transnational private sustainability governance

期刊

REGULATION & GOVERNANCE
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 1230-1247

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/rego.12332

关键词

biofuels; European Union; organic agriculture; public-private governance interactions; sustainability

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [SES-1160361]
  2. MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University
  3. University of Toronto Scarborough

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article explores the interactions between transnational private sustainability governance and public authorities, analyzing how interventions in different areas can impact dynamics. Using case studies of EU policies on organic agriculture and biofuels production, it illustrates the varying dynamics of public-private governance interactions.
Transnational private sustainability governance, such as eco-certification, does not operate in a regulatory or jurisdictional vacuum. A public authority may intervene in private governance for various reasons, including to improve private governance's efficient functioning or to assert public regulatory primacy. This article argues that to properly understand the nature of public-private governance interactions-whether more competitive or complementary-we need to disaggregate a public authority's intervention. The article distinguishes between four features of private governance in which a public authority can intervene: standard setting, procedural aspects, supply chain signaling, and compliance incentives. Using the cases of the European Union's policies on organic agriculture and biofuels production, the article shows that public-private governance interaction dynamics vary across these private governance features as well as over time. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of active lobbying by private governance actors in influencing these dynamics and the resulting policy outputs.

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

4.3
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