4.7 Article

Absolute and relative power gains among state agencies in forest-related land use politics: The Ministry of Forestry and its competitors in the REDD plus Programme and the One Map Policy in Indonesia

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 131-141

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.018

关键词

Power theory; Bureaucratic politics; Norway-Indonesia Lol; REDD plus Programme; The Ministry of Forestry; International influences

资金

  1. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
  2. Eva Mayr-Stihl Foundation
  3. German Research Foundation [PAK 813]
  4. Indonesian Directorate General of Higher Education (DIKTI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More than ever, state agencies responsible for forest issues are required to balance the social, economic and environmental demands on forests in domestic and international spheres. New and often crosscutting issues may threaten the position and power of traditional forest bureaucracies through, e.g., a redistribution of power among a number of other land-use-related state agencies. This paper analyzes the absolute and relative power of the Ministry of Forestry (MoF) in two selected policy processes originating on the international and domestic levels, namely the REDD+ Programme and the One Map Policy. Building on a behavioralist conception of power and bureaucratic politics theories, we study these processes to reveal the power dynamics between the MoF and other state bureaucracies, based mainly on documents on tasks assigned to these bureaucracies. Our results show a clear decline in the relative power of the MoF, most notably in the case of incentive and coercive power, though we also show a continuation of power resulting from dominant information. However, due to political intervention from the new president, traditional forest bureaucracy is now reclaiming most of relative power elements in these cases. We discuss the core findings and conclude that both REDD+ and the One Map Policy are likely to become effective policies only if the bureaucratic, sectoral and multi-level conflicts of interest we examine are addressed and fewer leading agencies (or one) assume responsibility for policy formulation and implementation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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