 
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Local Agenda 21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
v Focus of Research v Publications |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Focus of Research | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Has There Been a Paradigmatic Shift in Political Ecology? A Look at the German Discussion of Local Agenda 21 (Pettenkofer) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This paper reports on the social science debate in Germany over the environmental policy program, "Local Agenda 21" (LA 21). It attempts a preliminary reconstruction of the specific form the LA 21 processes have taken, and it tries to show how they deviate from the traditional West German notion of political ecology. The paper examines theoretical issues and questions in light of this new phenomenon; in particular, it considers the appropriateness of the modernization-theoretical perspective with which participants and observers have scrutinized LA 21. Contrary to their suppositions, the success LA 21 has enjoyed does not appear to have stemmed from fact that problems generated by differentiation processes have been resolved through a reasonable consensus based upon universal norms. It is more likely that particularistic instances have played a decisive roll in LA 21's success - not only in terms of calculated pursuit of selective benefits, but also in terms of the impacts of local identities, which can be more accurately described using "communitarian" concepts. Precisely because of this particularistic orientation, it appears that LA 21 represents a fundamental shift within German political ecology. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Participation in Local Agenda 21 (LA 21) in Berlin | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In chapter 28 of the final document "Agenda 21" of the Rio Conference 1992, the local municipalities were asked to develop local action programs to implement sustainable development. After all of the former 23 boroughs of Berlin became involved in the Local Agenda 21 process, the Berlin Senate passed a resolution in September 1999 to develop a Berlin-wide Local Agenda 21. This paper investigates the activities and experiences with the agenda processes in the individual boroughs of Berlin and afterwards compares these to citywide developments. According to the criteria "participation", "public relations" and "policy commitment", which are identified as central for a successful course of action, the Berlin process cannot be considered as being stabilized. Although participation had just begun to decrease borough-wide, low participation and professional actors characterized the citywide process from the very outset. This paper suggests that the vague concept of "participation" should be abandoned, in favor of a distinction between consensus and dissent. Criticism of the Local Agenda 21 consensus strategy by local actors should be taken fully into account. The tendency among social movements to reject consensus and win-win strategies, in favor of new dissent strategies is discussed here. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Social Capital and Local Agenda 21. Local Environmental Initiatives in the United States (Geißel/Kern) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The starting point of this article is the relationship of social capital and Local Agenda 21 processes and/or environmental policy initiatives in the United States. Following a brief overview of conceptual-theoretical approaches to social capital, three key issues are investigated: First, how important is the form and degree of social capital in a given city or local community for the rise and development of environmental policy initiatives? Second, what are the possible repercussions of these initiatives on social capital, assuming that the corresponding procedures contribute to an increase in social capital? Third, what is the role of the state in creating (or destroying) social capital? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Publications | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kern, Kristine, Claudia Koll und Malte Schophaus 2003:
Local Agenda 21 in Germany from a Comparative
Perspective - Local versus Translocal Capacities and
Networks, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für
Sozialforschung, Discussion Paper (forthcoming). Kristine Kern, Claudia Koll and Malte Schophaus 2002: Die Lokale Agenda 21. Ein innerdeutscher und internationaler Vergleich, Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen 15: 40-48. FS II 01-303 Andreas Pettenkofer: Paradigmenwechsel in der politischen Ökologie? Zur deutschen Diskussion über die Lokale Agenda 21. 59 S >Abstract FS II 01-306 Malte Schophaus: Bürgerbeteiligung in der Lokalen Agenda 21 in Berlin. 63 S. >Abstract Geißel, Brigitte und Kristine Kern 2000: Soziales Kapital und Lokale Agenda 21. Lokale umweltpolitische Initiativen in den USA, in: Hubert Heinelt und Eberhard Mühlich, Lokale Agenda 21-Prozesse. Erklärungsansätze, Konzepte und Ergebnisse, Opladen: Leske+Budrich (Band 7 der Reihe „Städte und Regionen in Europa“), S. 257-276. Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Last change: 2005-03-22 13:35 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
