Institutional Diagnostics

Another  approach  is  to  conduct  a  diagnostic  that  can  identify  the  areas  in  need  of  reform.  Young   (2002)   contends   that   the   diagnostic   approach   guards   against   the   panacea   problem   by   moving   beyond  a  view  that  environmental  problems  can  be  characterised  as  a  generic  type,  to  an  approach   focused  on  identifying  the  significant  elements  of  the  challenge  at  hand.  “The  defining  feature  of   the   [diagnostic   approach]   is   an   effort   to   identify   important   features   of   issues   arising   from   environmental  changes  that  can  be  understood  as  diagnostic  conditions.”  (Young,  2002a;  p.  176).  

In  contrast  to  the  principles  discussed  previously,  this  approach  emphasises  the  importance  of  the   problem  attributes.  It  is  flexible  and  allows  the  analyst  to  generate  a  framework  that  is  tailored  to   the  specific  problem  type.  Like  a  doctor  diagnosing  a  patient,  the  institutional  analyst  can  diagnose   the  institutional  problem  and  recommend  potential  courses  of  appropriate  treatment  (e.g.  reforms   or  additional  governance  tools)  (Young,  2002a).  The  approach  is  similar  to  that  employed  in  theory-­‐ based  program  and  policy  evaluation,  in  which  a  practitioner  seeks  to  understand  how  a  program   works   or   fails   to   work   based   on   a   set   of   logical   assumptions   about   how   the   intervention   works   (Weiss,  1997).  In  this  case,  the  intervention  is  the  biodiversity  governance  regime,  and  the  set  of   logical  assumptions  will  be  built  from  the  research  literature.    

The   diagnostic   framework   developed   for   this   research   will   incorporate   both   general   diagnostic   conditions   associated   with   governance   and   those   that   are   specific   problems   of   biodiversity  

conservation  and  the  most  important  drivers  in  the  study  regions.   To  aid  researchers  seeking  to   design   institutional   arrangements   that   will   solve   environmental   problems,   Young   (2008)   also   provides  a  set  of  queries  grouped  into  four  categories:  problems,  politics,  players,  and  practices.   The  basics  of  these  categories  are  described  below  (Young  2008):  

• Problems:   An   institutional   diagnostic   should   begin   with   an   assessment   of   the   major  

characteristics  of  the  problem.  For  example,  is  a  one-­‐off  solution  possible  or  is  an  ongoing   or  long-­‐term  solution  required?    

• Politics:  Institutional   design   is   a   decidedly   political   process,   and   many   actors   involved   in  

the   process   will   have   a   stake   in   promoting   their   causes   in   the   design   process.   In   an   institutional   diagnostic,   the   focus   is   on   surveying   the   political   landscape,   rather   than   fixating   on   the   minutia   of   the   bargaining   process   with   specific   stakeholders.   Example   questions   here   include:   How   is   power   dispersed   or   concentrated   amongst   stakeholders?   Can  the  problem  be  readily  addressed  using  tried  and  tested  policy  instruments?  

• Players:   The   diagnostic   method   directs   attention   to   the   key   actors   or   players   who   are  

causing   the   problem,   likely   to   be   affected   by   the   problem,   or   in   a   position   to   solve   it.   Questions   to   be   asked   about   the   players   include,   for   example,   whether   the   actors   are   homogeneous   or   heterogeneous.   This   also   includes   the   model   of   the   actor   that   will   be   adopted,  which  in  my  PhD  is  the  social-­‐practice  model  (Table  1,  Section  1.1).  

• Practices:  This   category   of   questions   is   related   to   the   institutional   setting,   such   as   the  

formal   institutional   frameworks,   in   which   the   problem   takes   place.   Here   the   researcher   should   ask   questions,   for   example,   about   who   is   permitted   to   participate   and   what   the   roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  relevant  actors  are.  

Guided   by   these   questions,   my   PhD   will   seek   answers   from   existing   literature   on   biodiversity   conservation   governance,   the   relevant   policy   instruments,   and   interviews   with   actors   in   each   of   the   study   regions.   An   institutional   diagnostic   can   begin   with   three   categories   of   conditions:   ecosystem   properties,   actor   attributes,   and   implementation   issues.   These   simple   diagnostics   can   provide  a  starting  point  for  developing  complex  diagnostics,  which  are  necessary  where  individual   diagnostic   conditions   interact   in   significant   ways   (Young,   2002a;   Young,   2008).   Other   diagnostic   conditions  will  be  developed  from  the  literature  and  information  generated  by  other  researchers  in   the  LaP  Hub  (e.g.  drivers  and  disturbances).    

Although  it  offers  many  advantages,  development  of  an  original  diagnostic  framework  also  has  a   number  of  weaknesses.  Although  a  useful  approach  for  addressing  design  issues,  it  is  important  to   note  that  a  diagnostic  tool  is  not  meant  to  address  the  question  of  causality,  which  is  one  of  the   chief  challenges  in  institutional  analysis.  As  noted  previously,  institutions  have  a  role  to  play  in  both   causing  and  solving  environmental  problems,  but  the  relative  strength  of  influence  of  institutions   as  compared  to  other  drivers  and  disturbances  is  difficult  to  measure  (Young,  2002a).  A  diagnostic   approach   is   not   intended   to   answer   the   question   of   causality.   Again   theory-­‐based   evaluation   provides  an  apt  comparison,  as  this  method  strives  to  examine  mechanisms  of  causality  (Davidson,   2005;  Rogers,  2007;  Weiss,  1997).  Weiss  (1997)  advised  that  most  evaluation  should  examine  both   how   the   program   is   carried   out   (implementation   theory)   and   the   mechanisms   that   intervene   between   inputs   and   outcomes   (programmatic   theory).   One   of   the   ongoing   challenges   in   theory-­‐ based   evaluation   is   developing   programmatic   theories,   which   are   central   to   understanding   the   mechanisms   of   causality   (Rogers,   2007).   Although   the   diagnostic   conditions   will   be   developed   based  on  theories  in  the  literature  and  the  input  of  experts,  the  ability  of  institutional  analysis  to   determine  causality  is  similarly  limited  (Section  7.1).  As  yet,  there  is  no  cohesive  theory  to  guide  

research   in   the   area   of   causality,   and   researchers   typically   must   employ   a   suite   of   methods   to   contribute  incrementally  to  our  understanding  of  causality  (Young,  2002a).  Given  these  challenges,   this   research   is   based   on   an   assumption   that   the   regime   is   one   source   of   biodiversity   loss   or   decline,  although  the  degree  of  causality  will  remain  unknown.    

The  other  weakness  of  the  diagnostic  approach  is  that  the  generality  of  the  framework  developed   for   this   study   will   remain   untested.   For   the   same   reasons   that   case   studies   are   better   for   exploration   than   confirmation   –   and   seek   replication   rather   than   statistical   sampling   –   the   generality  of  the  framework  cannot  be  evaluated  in  this  research  (Poteete  et  al.,  2010).  To  address   this   issue,   the   study   will   draw   upon   an   existing   meta-­‐theoretical   framework,   the   IAD   framework   (Ostrom,  2005;  Ostrom  and  Kiser,  1982),  to  inform  development  of  the  diagnostic  tool.