IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v31y2013i4p619-632.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reining in the Executive? Delegation, Evidence, and Parliamentary Influence on Environmental Public Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Duncan Russel

    (Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, Devon, England)

  • John Turnpenny

    (Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England)

  • Tim Rayner

    (School of Political, Social and International Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, England)

Abstract

With this paper we explore the potential of committees in parliamentary systems of government to influence environmental public policy making. We draw on delegation theory to argue that parliamentary committees are crucial ex post mechanisms used by the legislature (the principal) to monitor the activities of the executive (its agent). To examine this relationship in depth, we focus on the United Kingdom's Environmental Audit (select) Committee (EAC), which is an innovation as the world's first cross-cutting environmental parliamentary committee. We find that delegation theory provides fresh insights into the relationship between the EAC, the legislature, the executive, and the wider public. We find that an incomplete system of delegation in the United Kingdom has left an accountability deficit, meaning that the EAC's ability to exert influence on the executive's environmental policy is limited.

Suggested Citation

  • Duncan Russel & John Turnpenny & Tim Rayner, 2013. "Reining in the Executive? Delegation, Evidence, and Parliamentary Influence on Environmental Public Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(4), pages 619-632, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:31:y:2013:i:4:p:619-632
    DOI: 10.1068/c11330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c11330
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c11330?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David H Guston, 1996. "Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 229-240, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Braun, Dietmar & Benninghoff, Martin, 2003. "Policy learning in Swiss research policy--the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1849-1863, December.
    2. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    3. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    4. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    5. Cash, David & Clark, William, 2001. "From Science to Policy: Assessing the Assessment Process," Working Paper Series rwp01-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Van der Meulen, Barend, 1998. "Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 397-414, August.
    7. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    8. Clark, William & Mitchell, Ronald & Cash, David & Alcock, Frank, 2002. "Information as Influence: How Institutions Mediate the Impact of Scientific Assessments on Global Environmental Affairs," Working Paper Series rwp02-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Fonseca, Paulo F.C. & Pereira, Tiago Santos, 2014. "The governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context: Entangling approaches," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 16-27.
    10. Bae, Sung Joo & Lee, Hyeonsuh, 2020. "The role of government in fostering collaborative R&D projects: Empirical evidence from South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Anna‐Lena Rüland & Nicolas Rüffin, 2024. "A comparison of British and German parliamentary discourses on science diplomacy over time," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(2), pages 247-259, May.
    12. Xavier Tezzo & Simon R. Bush & Peter Oosterveer & Ben Belton, 2021. "Food system perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 73-90, February.
    13. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    14. Avery Sen, 2017. "Island + Bridge: how transformative innovation is organized in the federal government," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 707-721.
    15. Takayuki Hayashi, 2003. "Bibliometric analysis on additionality of Japanese R&D programmes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 301-316, March.
    16. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    17. Ouyang, Hongwu Sam, 2006. "Agency problem, institutions, and technology policy: Explaining Taiwan's semiconductor industry development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1314-1328, November.

    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:sae:envirc:v:31:y:2013:i:4:p:619-632. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.