IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v33y2013icp97-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Raitio, Kaisa

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to present an analytical framework for studying conflict management processes. The paper draws on discursive approaches to new institutional theory in integrating three inter-related elements of conflict management: collaborative practices; formal and informal institutions; and the ways the policy issues are understood and communicated (framed) by the different actors in contested situations. The Discursive Institutional Conflict Management Analysis framework (DICMA) draws focus to the interaction between these three elements during conflict management efforts. It also helps to identify challenges related to each of the elements when improving conflict management, and contributes to formulating necessary policy reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:33:y:2013:i:c:p:97-103
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112001293
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P M McGuirk, 2001. "Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(2), pages 195-217, February.
    2. Colin Hay & Daniel Wincott, 1998. "Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 46(5), pages 951-957, December.
    3. Ostrom, Elinor, 2009. "An Agenda for the Study of Institutions," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 89-110, December.
    4. Fréchette, Alain & Lewis, Nathalie, 2011. "Pushing the boundaries of conventional forest policy research: Analyzing institutional change at multiple levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 582-589, September.
    5. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I. & Herva, Vesa-Pekka & Saarinen, Jarkko, 2018. "Myths on local use of natural resources and social equity of land use governance: Reindeer herding in Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 322-331.
    2. Arts, Bas & Behagel, Jelle & Turnhout, Esther & de Koning, Jessica & van Bommel, Séverine, 2014. "A practice based approach to forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 4-11.
    3. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek, 2020. "A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Mäkelä, Marileena, 2017. "Environmental impacts and aspects in the forest industry: What kind of picture do corporate environmental reports provide?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 178-191.
    5. Kröger, Markus & Raitio, Kaisa, 2017. "Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 6-15.
    6. Mancheva, Irina, 2018. "Which factors spur forest owners' collaboration over forest waters?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 54-63.
    7. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    8. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
    9. Nousiainen, Daniela & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2022. "Characteristics and emerging patterns of forest conflicts in Europe - What can they tell us?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    10. Zachrisson, Anna & Beland Lindahl, Karin, 2013. "Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 39-46.
    11. Bismark Appiah Addae & Weiming Wang & Haiyan Xu & Mohammad Reza Feylizadeh, 2021. "Sustainable Evaluation of Factors Affecting Energy-Resource Conflict in the Western Region of Ghana Using Large Group-DEMATEL," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 847-877, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul, Bénédique & Garrabé, Michel, 2011. "Le capital institutionnel dans l'analyse du développement : Prolongement théorique et premier test empirique [Institutional Capital in Economic Development Analysis: Theoretical Continuation and Fi," MPRA Paper 39016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Baxter Jamie, 2019. "Leadership, Law and Development," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 119-158, January.
    3. Teodora Diana IACOB, 2017. "Evaluation of Cohesion Policy in Romania: new perspectives," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 9(3), pages 423-443, October.
    4. Fréchette, Alain & Lewis, Nathalie, 2011. "Pushing the boundaries of conventional forest policy research: Analyzing institutional change at multiple levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 582-589, September.
    5. Ayranci, Evren, 2010. "Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 3(3), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    7. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    8. Schmidt, Susanne K., 2002. "Die Folgen der europäischen Integration für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Wandel durch Verflechtung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    9. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    10. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Buitrago R., Ricardo E. & Barbosa Camargo, María Inés, 2021. "Institutions, institutional quality, and international competitiveness: Review and examination of future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 423-435.
    12. Blind, Georg, 2015. "Behavioural rules: Veblen, Nelson-Winter, Oström and beyond," MPRA Paper 66866, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. White, Thomas A., 1992. "Landholder Cooperation For Sustainable Upland Watershed Management: A Theoretical Review Of The Problems And Prospects," Working Papers 11887, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Training Project.
    14. Fritz W. Scharpf, 1991. "Games Real Actors Could Play: The Challenge of Complexity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 277-304, July.
    15. Monique Borges & Eduardo Castro & João Marques, 2014. "Decision support methodologies in public policy formulation," ERSA conference papers ersa14p899, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    17. Hotte, Ngaio & Kozak, Robert & Wyatt, Stephen, 2019. "How institutions shape trust during collective action: A case study of forest governance on Haida Gwaii," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    19. Hugo Marcelo Zunino, 2006. "Power Relations in Urban Decision-making: Neo-liberalism, 'Techno-politicians' and Authoritarian Redevelopment in Santiago, Chile," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(10), pages 1825-1846, September.
    20. Beata Stepien & Monika Sulimowska-Formowicz, 2016. "Economic Vs. Organisational Perspective On Inter-Organisational Relations’ Analysis – Are Economists On The Dead-End Track?," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(1), pages 159-177, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:33:y:2013:i:c:p:97-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.