Steering for Sustainable Development: a Typology of Problems and Strategies with respect to Ambivalence, Uncertainty and Distributed Power

Abstract

Special features of sustainable development as a governance problem are contrasted with a conventional rationalist ideal of steering based on the unambiguous determination of goals, availability of knowledge to predict consequences and concentration of power to implement strategies. This leads into the elaboration of three problem dimensions of steering for sustainable development: ambivalence of sustainability as a goal, uncertainty of knowledge due to complex interactions between society, technology and nature, and distributed power to shape structural change in society. The problem dimensions are taken as a basis for a typology of steering situations and a review of existing theoretical concepts of steering in society. The paper argues for a differentiated discussion of steering capacities in respect to concrete situations. Along these lines, it presents an approach to match strategies with problems.

Keywords:

• Policy
• problem
• typology
• sustainable development
• goals
• ambivalence
• knowledge
• uncertainty
• control
• distribution of power

Notes

1. Several aspects of this dilemma have been articulated in many places in the literature on environmental policy and sustainable development (see, for example, Bolin et al. (2001), Brand (2002), Elzen et al. (2004), Jänicke (1986), Kenny & Meadowcroft (1999), Lafferty (2004), Meadowcroft (2005) and Weber (2005)).

2. Our concept of steering can be related to a broader concept of governance (Kooiman, 1993b; Lindberg et al., 1991; Pierre, 2000b). We see steering activities to be embedded in and part of broader patterns of social regulation that comprise formal and informal institutions, actor networks, discourses and technology. Within these patterns various actors carry out steering activities that interfere with each other and create and reproduce these patterns (Voß, 2007). Governance as patterned societal self-regulation thus is an emergent outcome of distributed steering activities (across levels and domains). At the same time, existing governance structures provide an enabling and constraining context for steering (Czada & Schimank, 2000). This notion of governance includes various types of patterns, such as hierachical governmental control, competitive markets, discursive settings or bargaining practices. It differs from a narrow denomination of governance as co-operative rule-making in networks of public and private actors.

3. A rationalist conception of steering is likewise called into question with respect to other problems and in various contexts of public policy, management of organizations and planning (Dobuzinskis, 1992; Forester, 1989; Rip, 2006; Stacey, 1996; Stone, 1988). The integrative and long-term character of sustainable development, the scope of addressed changes and its prominence in political debate make steering problems in this area particularly salient.

4. In choosing these three dimensions we build on an analysis of steering problems by three guiding questions: What ought to be? What is? What can be done? Of course, the isolation of other problem features, such as scale etc., would also be possible. We suppose, however, that those aspects relevant for steering can be meaningfully subsumed under goals, knowledge or power.

5. Vagueness also allows for agreement on general principles as a first step. It can thus also be productive in fostering the development of collective action capacities in a gradual manner.

6. The type of problem-setting of a steering context may, of course, also change over time, due to ongoing changes or as a steering process goes through different phases. Therefore, it is relevant to reassess the steering situation repeatedly over the course of extended steering processes.