IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5679-d557457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conditions and Constrains for Reflexive Governance of Industrial Risks: The Case of the South Durban Industrial Basin, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Llewellyn Leonard

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa (UNISA), Johannesburg 1709, South Africa)

  • Rolf Lidskog

    (Environmental Sociology Section, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden)

Abstract

Within sustainability development paradigms, state governance is considered important in interventions to address risks produced by the industrial society. However, there is largely a lack of understanding, especially in the Global South, about the nature and workings of the governance institutions necessary to tackle risks effectively. Reflexive governance, as a new mode of governance, has been developed as a way to be more inclusive and more reflexive and respond to complex risks. Conversely, there is limited scholarly work that has examined the theoretical and empirical foundations of this governance approach, especially how it may unfold in the Global South. This paper explores the conditions and constrains for reflexive governance in a particular case: that of the South Durban Industrial Basin. South Durban is one of the most polluted regions in southern Africa and has been the most active industrial site of contention between local residents and industry and government during apartheid and into the new democracy. Empirical analysis found a number of constrains involved in enabling reflexive governance. It also found that a close alliance between government and industry to promote economic development has overshadowed social and environmental protection. Reflexive governance practitioners need to be cognisant of its applicability across diverse geographic settings and beyond western notions of reflexive governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Llewellyn Leonard & Rolf Lidskog, 2021. "Conditions and Constrains for Reflexive Governance of Industrial Risks: The Case of the South Durban Industrial Basin, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5679-:d:557457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5679/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5679/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dianne Scott, 2003. "'Creative Destruction': Early Modernist Planning in the South Durban Industrial Zone, South Africa," Journal of Southern African Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 235-259.
    2. Eric Brousseau & Bernd Siebenhuner & Tom Dedeurwaerdere, 2012. "Reflexive Governance for Global Public Goods," Post-Print hal-01493503, HAL.
    3. Dryzek, John S. & Pickering, Jonathan, 2017. "Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 353-360.
    4. Risako Ishii & Farhad Hossain & Christopher Rees, 2007. "Participation in Decentralized Local Governance: Two Contrasting Cases from the Philippines," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 359-373, December.
    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. Healy, Hali, 2023. "Pulp and participation: Assessing the legitimacy of participatory environmental governance in Umkomaas, South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).

    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. Napong Tao Rugkhapan, 2016. "Unseeing Chinatown: Universal Zoning, Planning Abstraction and Space of Difference," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 601-620, May.
    2. Healy, Hali, 2023. "Pulp and participation: Assessing the legitimacy of participatory environmental governance in Umkomaas, South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    3. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. Charmaine B. Distor & Odkhuu Khaltar, 2022. "What Motivates Local Governments to Be Efficient? Evidence from Philippine Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Elif Oral, 2024. "The environmental rule of law and the protection of human rights defenders: law, society, technology, and markets," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 393-421, September.
    6. Evelien de Hoop, 2020. "More Democratic Sustainability Governance through Participatory Knowledge Production? A Framework and Systematic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-30, July.
    7. Jason Alexandra, 2021. "Navigating the Anthropocene’s rivers of risk—climatic change and science-policy dilemmas in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Thambiran, Tirusha & Diab, Roseanne D., 2011. "Air quality and climate change co-benefits for the industrial sector in Durban, South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6658-6666, October.
    9. Winter, Amanda K. & Karvonen, Andrew, 2022. "Climate governance at the fringes: Peri-urban flooding drivers and responses," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. Goodell, John W., 2017. "Trust and Governance: The conditioning role of national culture," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 80-86.
    11. Rodríguez-Piñeros, Sandra & Martínez-Cortés, Oscar & Villarraga-Flórez, Liz & Ruíz-Díaz, Alejandra, 2018. "Timber market actors' values on forest legislation: A case study from Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    12. Roberto Falanga & Jessica Verheij & Olivia Bina, 2021. "Green(er) Cities and Their Citizens: Insights from the Participatory Budget of Lisbon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Francesca Galli & Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori, 2016. "Handling Diversity of Visions and Priorities in Food Chain Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Mathy, Sandrine & Fink, Meike & Bibas, Ruben, 2015. "Rethinking the role of scenarios: Participatory scripting of low-carbon scenarios for France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 176-190.
    15. Tilsted, Joachim Peter & Bjørn, Anders & Majeau-Bettez, Guillaume & Lund, Jens Friis, 2021. "Accounting matters: Revisiting claims of decoupling and genuine green growth in Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    16. Clive Barnett & Dianne Scott, 2007. "Spaces of Opposition: Activism and Deliberation in Post-Apartheid Environmental Politics," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(11), pages 2612-2631, November.
    17. Justus Enninga & Ryan M. Yonk, 2023. "Achieving Ecological Reflexivity: The Limits of Deliberation and the Alternative of Free-Market-Environmentalism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, April.
    18. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    19. Lehtonen, Markku, 2019. "Ecological Economics and Opening up of Megaproject Appraisal: Lessons From Megaproject Scholarship and Topics for a Research Programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 148-156.
    20. Jonathan Pickering & Carola Betzold & Jakob Skovgaard, 2017. "Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5679-:d:557457. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.