IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v33y2015i6p1484-1500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics of visibility: competing for legitimacy in North Carolina fisheries governance

Author

Listed:
  • Candace K May

Abstract

In the collaborative natural resource governance literature, stakeholder participation is most often treated as instrumental to the normative legitimacy and, thus, effectiveness of the environmental state. This study adds a perspective of stakeholder legitimacy as the outcome of competition among groups with differential power operating under the influence of powerful systemic forces. Stakeholders with differential capacities engage in a politics of visibility to determine what is and is not made transparent. What remains invisible is the result of privileged accounts, supported by broader societal values regarding economic development. The research for this paper stems from ethnographic field work of a campaign by conservation and recreational fishing interests to ban the use of commercial gill nets in North Carolina. Conservation and recreational fishing interests gained a greater degree of legitimacy in fishery decision-making processes by utilizing a politics of visibility that reinforced destructive patterns of environmental rights and resource use.

Suggested Citation

  • Candace K May, 2015. "Politics of visibility: competing for legitimacy in North Carolina fisheries governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1484-1500, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:33:y:2015:i:6:p:1484-1500
    DOI: 10.1177/0263774X15614180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X15614180
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0263774X15614180?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. Stone, Clarence N., 1980. "Systemic Power in Community Decision Making: A Restatement of Stratification Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 978-990, December.
    2. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    3. Tomas M. Koontz & Elizabeth Moore Johnson, 2004. "One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(2), pages 185-204, June.
    4. Martin Nie, 2008. "The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(2), pages 139-164, June.
    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. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    2. Yung, Esther H.K. & Sun, Yi, 2020. "Power relationships and coalitions in urban renewal and heritage conservation: The Nga Tsin Wai Village in Hong Kong," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Mark Sandford, 2020. "Conceptualising ‘generative power’: Evidence from the city-regions of England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(10), pages 2098-2114, August.
    4. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5405 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    6. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    7. Han Wang & Yueli Xu, 2024. "Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Patricia Romero-Lankao & Sara Hughes & Angelica Rosas-Huerta & Roxana Borquez & Daniel M Gnatz, 2013. "Institutional Capacity for Climate Change Responses: An Examination of Construction and Pathways in Mexico City and Santiago," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(5), pages 785-805, October.
    9. Janmaat, Johannus A., 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement in Land Development Decisions: A Waste of Effort?," MPRA Paper 6147, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Vilma Atkociuniene & Sigitas Vaitkevicius & Egle Stareike, 2021. "Development of Sustainable Partnership Organizational Mechanism (POM): Case of Local Action Groups (LAG)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Abrams, Jesse, 2019. "The emergence of network governance in U.S. National Forest Administration: Causal factors and propositions for future research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Mary Dengler, 2008. "Finding the Political ‘Sweet Spot’: Sectional Interests, Consensus Power, and the Everglades Restudy (1992–2000)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(4), pages 766-784, April.
    13. S. Franceschini & G. Marletto, 2017. "The dynamics of social capital during public participation: new knowledge from an on-going monitoring," Working Paper CRENoS 201706, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    14. McDonald, Sara L. & Rigling-Gallagher, Deborah, 2015. "Participant perceptions of consensus-based, marine mammal take reduction planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 216-226.
    15. Yung Yau & Tin Choi Cheung, 2021. "Revisiting the Concept of the Property State: Private Landowners and Suburban Development in Hong Kong," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(2), pages 427-464, March.
    16. Eitan, Avri & Herman, Lior & Fischhendler, Itay & Rosen, Gillad, 2019. "Community–private sector partnerships in renewable energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 95-104.
    17. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    18. Prudence R. Brown & Alastair Stark, 2022. "Policy inaction meets policy learning: four moments of non-implementation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 47-63, March.
    19. Jennifer Dodge, 2014. "Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 161-185, June.
    20. Rob Tulder & M. May Seitanidi & Andrew Crane & Stephen Brammer, 2016. "Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 1-17, April.
    21. Eberhard, Rachel & Johnston, Nathan & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 678-687.

    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:33:y:2015:i:6:p:1484-1500. 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.