|
Broadly defined, my work lies in the fields of U.S. and comparative environmental policy and politics. I am particularly interested in:
- The dynamics of scientific knowledge as a variable in environmental decisionmaking, including the ways in which scientific knowledge is invoked and/or manipulated in the policy process, the organization of expert advice, and the practical implications of such knowledge politics in terms of policy, regulatory, and conservation outcomes
- The politics of environmental risk, especially the causes and consequences of similarity and difference in the way different societies define particular environmental risks and in the ways they deal with them through domestic and/or international policy recourses
- The democratic and conservation consequences of non-state, market-based initiatives in environmental governance, such as eco-labelling and other forms of product certification, especially in the context of fisheries and aquaculture
Thematically, I am particularly interested in marine environmental issues, and in the ways newly understood as well as long-standing ecological risks – such as those presented by marine aquaculture, biological invasions, resource overexploitation and marine debris – are perceived and confronted by governments and societies across a range of affected countries. I aim to analyze how interacting scientific, normative, political, and institutional factors produce particular policy and regulatory responses to such issues, and to understand the conservation implications of similarity and difference in such responses.
My comparative focus is motivated by both practical and theoretical concerns.
On the practical side, for example, we frequently hear calls for improving particular aspects of environmental and resource management by implementing conceptual, technical or administrative approaches that have proven successful in advancing similar environmental and resource goals elsewhere. The asserted success of IFQs as a tool for managing Icelandic and New Zealand fisheries, for example, has bolstered calls for the broad application of IFQs to fisheries management in the U.S. And my coastal and marine policy students were quick to suggest that the U.S. adopt Denmark’s approach of streamlined permitting for offshore wind power so as to advance its own production of renewable energy.
What such calls for improvement through imitation frequently overlook, however, is that
both the definitions of what constitutes an environmental problem or objective and the administrative arrangements put in place to address such problems and objectives
are the product of complex social and political negotiation whose dynamics and outcomes are shaped by national political traditions, institutional structures, forms of social and political mobilization, etc.; and that policy prescriptions which overlook historical, cultural and institutional specificities in environmental decisionmaking are not unlikely to produce policy failure.
It is precisely such specificities that my work aims to reveal.
On the analytical side, comparative work in general, and applying a comparative lens to the dynamic and previously little explored empirical context of marine policy in particular, helps deepen our understanding of political cultures, policy institutions, and regulatory processes. It also offers excellent opportunities for examining interactions between science and politics in environmental decisionmaking. |
