Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Lecture 2 Introduction to Problem Structure
2
Plagiarism Write down, and sign, your definition of plagiarism
Video on plagiarism
3
Four Types of Claims and Inferences
Descriptive claims/inferences: Claims about how world IS or WAS Inferences about past which can’t observe Causal claims/inferences: Claims about WHY the world is as it is (causes & effects) Inferences about causes which we can’t observe Video example – what bent the trees Normative claims: Claims about how world SHOULD be Prescriptive claims: Claims about what SHOULD be done
4
How environmental problems differ
“Problem structures” differ Differences matter for: Difficulty of resolving Types of solutions that are politically possible Types of solutions that are effective Not all problems look alike
5
Structure vs. Agency Structural factors impose constraints
Intentions don’t always produce outcomes Political, economic, social, technological factors are “structures” Certain options not available Other options not seriously considered Agency still matters Within constraints, human choices matter “Free will vs. determinism” revisited
6
Why environmental problems more common at international level?
Demand side – need for governance More types of demands on resources Larger amounts of demands on resources Supply side – supply of governance Ability to supply rules is more challenging Interstate rivalry, nationalism, relative gains concerns Ability to supply enforcement is more challenging
7
Upstream/Downstream Problems e.g. Rhine
Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Upstream States Environmental Impacts Some actors contribute Downstream State Interests
8
Upstream/Downstream Problems e.g. Rhine
Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Upstream States Environmental Impacts Some actors contribute; OTHERS are harmed Downstream State Interests
9
Direct Tragedy of the Commons e.g. fisheries .
Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes Behaviors that resolve problem are SAME as those that cause it Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests
10
Direct Tragedy of the Commons e.g. fisheries .
Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybody is harmed Behaviors that resolve problem are SAME as those that cause it Harming/Mitigating Behaviors Interests
11
Indirect Tragedy of the Commons
Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests
12
Indirect Tragedy of the Commons
Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybody is harmed Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests
13
Indirect Tragedy of the Commons, e.g. climate
Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests Environmental Impacts Everybody contributes; Everybody is harmed BUT behaviors that resolve problem DIFFER from those that cause it Mitigating Behaviors Harming Behaviors Interests
14
Other forms of variation in problem structure
Transparency of behaviors Capacities To engage in “good” behaviors To engage in “bad” behaviors Degree of value conflict Distribution of power among actors Contextual factors (e.g. Cold War, War on Terror)
15
Variation in solutions
How to address climate change Broad or deep first? Intergovernmental, unilateral, local, NGO, MNC Stringent with high noncompliance or loose with high compliance All gases or just some Mechanisms of influence on behavior: sticks, carrots, locks, opportunities, labels, sermons
Similar presentations
