ÇEVRESEL ORTAKLIK TİPOLOJİLERİ

Yıl 2006, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1-2, 1 - 20, 06.05.2014

Muhittin Acar

Öz

Çevre koruma amaçlı kumanda ve kontrol yaklaşımlarından yaygın yakınmalar; çevrecileri, iş dünyasını, kamu kurumlarını ve yerel toplulukları çevre sorunlarına yeni ve işbirliğine daha yatkın çözümler belirlemeye ve uygulamaya yöneltmiştir. Çevre sorunlarının çözümünü amaçlayan ortaklıklar, bu tür yaklaşımların örnekleridirler ve bu yazının konusunu oluşturmaktadırlar. Bu makalede ilk olarak mevcut çevresel ortaklık tipolojilerinden bazıları İncelenmektedir. İkinci olarak, üç yeni çevresel ortaklık tipolojisi ortaya atılmaktadır. Bunlardan ilki, ortaklığın çevre ile ilgili düzenlemelere göre durumunu temel değişken olarak alırken, İkincisi, James Q. VVİlson (1989)'ın kamu kurumlarını kuşatan dört farklı ortama ilişkin betimlemelerini kullanmakta; üçüncü tipoloji ise, ortaklıklarda kullanılan kamu parası ve kamusal yetki düzeylerini temel yönelimler olarak denkleme katmaktadır. Yazı, kısa bir değerlendirme ile son bulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre koruma; çevresel ortaklıklar; çevresel ortaklık tipolojileri; sektörlerarası işbirliği ve ortaklıklar; yeni yönetişim biçimleri.

Kaynakça

• Arnold, M. B., and Long, F. J., (1993). Environmental partnership agreements: Not business as usual. Journa/ of Environmental Law and Practice, 1 (2), 30-38.
• Berry, M. A., and Rondinelli, D. A. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 12 (2), 38—50.
• Bozeman, B., (1987). All organizations are pub/ic. Jossey—Bass: San— Francisco.
• Busch, P-O, Jörgens, H., and Tews, K. (2005). The global diffusion of regulatory instruments: The making of a new international environmental regime. ANNALS, AAPSS, 598 (March), 146.
• Clinton, B., and Gore, A., (1997). B/a/‘r house papers. NPR: Washington D.C.
• Cummings, S., Koebel, C. T., and Whitt, J. A., (1988). Public—private partnerships and public enterprise. Urban Resources, 5, 35- 36, 47—48.
• Durant, R. F., Chun, Y-P, Kim, B., and Lee, S. (2004). Toward a new governance paradigm for environmental and natural resources management in the 21St century? Admin/Stranen & Society, 35 (6), 643—682.
• Ebrahim, A. (2004). Institutional preconditions to collaboration—Indian forest and irrigation policy in historical perspective. Administration & Society, 36 (2), 208—242.
• EPA (1989). Public-private partnership case studies—Proıî/es of success in providing environmental services, The author, Washington, D. C.
• EPA, (1994). Science advisory board FY 1993 annual stan” report—— Forging partnerships. The author. Washington, D. C.
• Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative governance in administrative state. UCLA Law Review, 45 (1), 1-98
• Gilad, B., (1984). The case of the ‘partnership approach’ to public regulation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 5, 265—280.
• Gore, A. (1996). Reinvention’s next steps: Governing in a balanced budget world, NPR: Washington, D.C.
• Hoffman, A. J., Riley, H. J., Troast, Jr. J. G., and Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Cognitive and institutional barriers to new forms of cooperation on environmental protection—Insights from project XL and habitat conservation plans. American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (5), 820—845.
• Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy— Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37 (3), 281-320.
• Jennings, P. D., and Zandbergen, P. A., (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy Of Management Review, 20 (4), 1015—1052.
• Kamieniecki, S., Shafıe, D., and Sivers, J. (1999). Forming partnerships in environmental policy—The Business of emissions trading in clear air management. American Behavioral Scientist, 43 (1), 107-123. 17
• Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi l Muhittin ACAR
• Kogan, R. J. (1995). With change comes opportunity. Chemical Week, April 26, 48. *
• Long, F. J., and Arnold, M. B., (1995). The power of environmental partners/ups, The Dreyden Press.
• Manring, N. J. (1998). Collaborative resource management— Organizational benefits and individual costs. Adm/nistration & Society, 30 (3), 274—291.
• McKinsey & Co., (1992). Bui/dmg successful environmental partnerships: Findings from international ,oa/tnershio survey. A Report prepared for the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality.
• Moe, T. and Caldwell, M., (1994). The institutional foundations of democratic government: A comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. Journal of Inst/tutiona/ and Theoretical Economics, 150 (1), 171-195.
• Oye, K. A., and Maxwell, J. H., (1994). Self—interest and environmental management, Journal of Theoretical Pol/tics, 6, 593—624.
• Parker, C. (2000). Reinventing regulation within the corporation— Compliance—oriented regulatory innovation. Administration & Society, 32 (5), 529-565.
• Raines, S. S., and Prakash, A. (2005). Leadership matters—Policy entrepreneurship in corporate environmental policy making. Adm/n/stration & Society, 37 ( 1), 3—22.
• Reich, R. B., (1981). Regulation by confrontation or negotiation? Harvard Business Review, (May/June), 82—93.
• Scheberle, D. (2000). Moving toward community—based environmental management—Wetland protection in door county. American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (4), 565-579.
• T_vpologics OfEnvironmenlal Pannerships
• Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., and Bateman, I. (1993). Environmenta/ economics: An elementary introduction. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
• Wilson, J. Q., (1989). Bureaucracy—What government agencies do and Why they do it, Basic Books.
• Wilson, J. Q., (1994). Reinventing public administration. PS: Palit/tal Science & Poi/tics(December), 667—673.