Концепт многоакторной перспективы как аналитический инструмент для исследования перехода к устойчивому развитию

Рекомендуемая ссылка на статью:

ГУЛЬМИРА АДЫЛКАНОВНА ТОЛГАНБАЕВА^а

^аКанадско-Евразийская бизнес-ассоциация

DOI: 10.22394/2070-8378-2022-24-5-64-72

Аннотация:
В статье рассматривается концепция многоакторной перспективы (далее – MАP), предложенной представителями нидерландской научной школы управления переходом к устойчивому развитию. Автором статьи проводится сравнение МАР с более распространенным аналитическим инструментом MLP (многоуровневой перспективой переходов) и выделяются отличительные особенности МАР. Эти особенности заключаются в анализе разных видов акторов управления переходом (государство (правительство), рынок (бизнес), сообщество, третий сектор) на разных уровнях их агрегирования (секторы, организационные акторы, отдельные, индивидуальные и групповые, акторы). Секторы рассматриваются как специфические «институциональные контексты» или «дискурсивные поля», в которых взаимодействуют организации или отдельные акторы. Границы секторов не фиксируются и периодически оспариваются акторами, размываются, меняются, что создает очаги конкуренции и сотрудничества между различными участниками. Автор статьи считает, что МАР может рассматриваться как особый тип модели коммуникации власти и общества в ходе перехода к устойчивому развитию, так как касается не просто проблем перераспределения власти и полномочий между участниками перехода, но и позволяет понять коммуникационные модели управления переходом к устойчивому развитию. Ценность МАР для исследования процессов управления переходом к устойчивому развитию в том, что она позволяет раскрыть не только вертикальные, но и горизонтальные коммуникации, дает возможность определить связи разных типов власти, выявить потенциал третьего сектора и потенциал слабо организованных сообществ для перехода к устойчивому развитию.

Abstract:
The article discusses the concept of a multi-actor perspective (hereinafter referred to as MAP), proposed by the representatives of the Dutch research institute for transitioning to sustainable development. The author compares MAP to the more widely used analytical tool MLP (Multi-Level Perspective) and highlights the characteristics of MAP. These characteristics include the analysis of different types of transition management actors (state (government), market (business), community, and the third sector) at different levels of their aggregation (sectors, organizational actors, and separate (individual and group) actors). Sectors are considered specific «institutional contexts» or «discursive fields» where organizations or individual actors interact. Sector boundaries are not fixed and are challenged periodically by actors, blurred and changed, creating competition and cooperation between various actors. The author believes that MAP should be considered as a specific type of communication model between government and society during the transition to sustainable development, as it addresses not only the problems of redistribution of power and authority between the participants during the course of transition but also allows us to understand the communication models for managing the transition to sustainable development. The value of MAP in studying the processes of managing the transition to sustainable development is that it reveals not only vertical but also horizontal communication, provides an opportunity to uncover the links of different types of power, identifies the potential of the third sector and the potential of poorly organized communities for transitioning to sustainable development.

Ключевые слова:
устойчивое развитие, переход к устойчивому развитию, социальное управление, акторы устойчивого развития, социальные взаимодействия, коммуникационный режим

Keywords:
sustainable development, transition to sustainable development, social management, actors of sustainable development, social interactions, communication mode

Дата поступления статьи в редакцию:
5 сентября 2022 года

Received:
September 5, 2022

Литература:
Комлева В.В., Шевелева Ю.Р. Нидерландская школа социального управления переходом к устойчивому развитию: теоретико-методологические взгляды. Государственная служба. 2021. № 5. С. 67–74.
Толганбаева Г.А. Научные основы управления переходом к устойчивому развитию в Нидерландах. Государственная служба. 2021. № 4. С. 43–50.
Arts B., Van Tatenhove J. Policy and power: a conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms. Policy sciences. 2004. Vol. 37(3–4). P. 339–356. In English
Avelino F. Power in transition: empowering discourses on sustainability transitions (PhD-thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2011. In English
Avelino F., Rotmans J. A dynamic conceptualization of power for sustainability research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2011. Vol. 19(8). P. 796–804. In English
Avelino F., Bosman R., Frantzeskaki N., Akerboom S., Boontje P., Hoffman J., Wittmayer J. The (self-)governance of community energy: Challenges & prospects. DRIFT PRACTICE BRIEF nr. PB 2014.01. Rotterdam: DRIFT. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265694629_The_Self-Governance_of_Community_Energy_ Challenges_Prospects. In English
Avelino F., Frantzeskaki N., Bosman R. A complex transition perspective on community energy: Exploring the dynamics of community energy from a complex transition perspective // Quist J., Wittmayer J., Umpfenbach K., Bauler T. (Eds.) Pathways, transitions and backcasting for low-carbon and sustainable lifestyles. In English
Sustainable consumption transitions series. Issue 3. Proceedings of SCORAI Europe Workshop, 7–8 October 2013. Rotterdam. P. 141. http://scorai.org/wp-content/uploads/Proceedings-InContext-SCORAI-Pathways-Workshop-FINAL.pdf. In English
Avelino F., Rotmans J. Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory. 2009. Vol. 12(40). P. 543–569. In English
Avelino F., Wittmayer J. Exploring tools for facilitating transformative social innovation (TSI) lessons from transition facilitation methods (TRANSIT discussion paper, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2–1) Grant agreement no: 613169. 2014. http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/TRANSIT%20outputs/111%20 TRANSIT%20D2.1%20Game-changers%20&%20Transformative%20Social%20Innovation.pdf. In English
Callero P.L. From role-playing to role-using: understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1994. Vol. 57(3). P. 228– 243. In English
Clegg S.R. Frameworks of power. Chicago: Sage, 1989. In English
Evers A., Laville J.L. (Eds.). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004. In English
Farla J., Markard J., Raven R., Coenen L. Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2012. Vol. 79(6). P. 991–998. In English
Frantzeskaki N., Avelino F., Loorbach D. Outliers or frontrunners? Exploring the (self-) governance of community-owned sustainable energy in Scotland and the Netherlands, as chapter 11 // Michalena E., Hills J. (Eds.) Renewable energy governance: Understanding the complexities and challenges of RE implementation, energy lectures series. Berlin: Springer, 2013. P. 101–116. In English
Frantzeskaki N., Loorbach D., Meadowcroft J. Governing societal transitions to sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 2012. Vol. 15(1–2). P. 19–36. In English
Franz H.W., Hochgerner J., Howaldt J. Challenge social innovation: Potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society. Berlin: Springer, 2012. In English
Fyfe N.R. Making space for “neo-communitarianism”? The third sector, state and civil society in the UK. Antipode. 2005. Vol. 37(3). P. 536–557. In English
Geels F.W. Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005. In English
Geels F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 2011. Vol. 1(1). P. 24–40. In English
Geels F.W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society. 2014. Vol. 31(5). P. 21–40. In English
Geels F.W., Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research policy. 2007. Vol. 36(3). P. 399–417. In English
Grin J. Understanding transitions from a governance perspective, part III // Grin J., Rotmans J., Schot J. (Eds) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge, 2010. P. 223–319. In English
Grin J., Rotmans J., Schot J. Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge, 2010. In English
Grin J., Rotmans J., Schot J. On patterns and agency in transition dynamics: some key insights from the KSI programme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 2011. Vol. 1(1). P. 76–81. In English
Haan de J.H., Rotmans J. Patterns in transitions: understanding complex chains of change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011. Vol. 78(1). P. 90–102. In English
Hargreaves T., Hielscher S., Seyfang G., Smith A. Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Global Environmental Change. 2013. Vol. 23(5). P. 868–880. In English
Hermans L. Actor Analysis // Enserink B., Hermans L., Kwakkel J., Thissen W., Koppenjan J., Bots P. (Ed.) Policy analysis of multi-actor systems. TheHague: Boom Lemma Uitgevers, 2010. P. 79–108. In English
Hess D.J. Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective. Research Policy. 2013. Vol. 43(2). P. 278–283. In English
Jørgensen U. Mapping and navigating transitions – The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development. Research Policy. 2012. Vol. 41(6). P. 996–1010. In English
Kisby B. The big society: power to the people? The Political Quarterly. 2010. Vol. 81(4). P. 484–491. In English
Loorbach D. Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance. 2010. Vol. 23(1). P. 161–183. In English
Loorbach D., Rotmans J. The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures. 2010. Vol. 42. P. 237–246. In English
Moulaert F. (Ed.). The international handbook on social innovation. Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013. In English
Moulaert F., Ailenei O. Social economy, third sector and solidarity relations: a conceptual synthesis from history to present. Urban Studies. 2005. Vol. 42(11). P. 2037–2053. In English
Pestoff V.A. Third sector and co-operative services – an alternative to privatization. Journal of Consumer Policy. 1992. Vol. 15(1). P. 21–45. In English
Ransome P. “The big society” fact or fiction? – a sociological critique. Sociological Research online. 2011. Vol. 16(2). P. 18. In English
Rip A., Kemp R. Technological change // Rayner S., Malone E. (Eds.) Human choice and climate Change. Columbus, OH: Battelle, 1998. Vol. 2. In English
Rotmans J., Kemp R., Van Asselt M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight. 2001. Vol. 3(1). P. 15–31. In English
Rotmans J., Loorbach D. Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: a systematic and reflexive approach // Grin J., Rotmans J., Schot J.W. (Eds) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long-term transformative change. 2010. P. 105–222. In English
Seyfang G., Haxeltine A. Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community based social movements in sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning. 2012. Vol. 30(3). P. 381–400. In English
Smith A., Raven R. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy. 2012. Vol. 41(6). P. 1025–1036. In English
Walker G., Devine-Wright P., Hunter S., High H., Evans B. Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy. 2010. Vol. 38. P. 2655–2663. In English

References:
Komleva V.V., Sheveleva Yu.R. The Dutch school of thought on social management for transitioning towards sustainable development: theoretical and methodological views. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba. 2021. No. 5. P. 67–74. In Russian
Tolganbaeva G.A. Scientific basis for managing the transition to sustainability in the Netherlands. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba. 2021. No. 4. P. 43–50. In Russian

Статьи в режиме Open Access публикуются в соответствии с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY).