This post, contributed
by Max Iacono, starts from the proposals and the ideas in the site
"Cognitive
Works" with regard to communicating the
urgency of the problem of climate change. It develops into is a complex post examining various ways to attain change in organizations, from companies to whole states.
Guest post by Max
Iacono
Abstract. This
post attempts to describe succinctly the relevant intellectual
territory with respect to both macro and micro types of policies and
strategies at both the national and the organizational levels.
It also highlights similarities and differences between
"policies" and "strategies". It does this
to encourage those who are environmentally engaged to
consider how their own environmental agendas could be advanced
through the range of macro and micro policies and strategies
identified, and their many variables. It also brings
attention to some of the generic political and political economy
obstacles which both policy-making and "strategy-making"
actors and stakeholders typically face in the course of the complex
and ongoing multi-actor processes of policy (or strategy)
formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation. An
additional related objective is to provide an introduction and
cursory review of the website "Cognitive
Policy Works", identify some of the
novel ways it works with policy-making actors and stakeholders, and
bring attention to its excellent work on the "framing"
of issues and the tacit "mental models" which may be
in use.
Outline of the post
1. Introduction
2. Cognitive Policy
Works
3. Strategic planning
4. Frame Analysis
5. The realm of policy
and strategy
6 . Policies
7. Macroeconomic
public policies
8. Sector – level
public policies
9. Synergy of multiple
policy areas and national public policy frameworks
10. Organizations and
their strategies and policies at the organizational level
11. Organizational
level macro variables and the Mc Kinsey 7-S model
12. Organisations and
their strategies at functional areas of management level
13. Implementing
change at national and organizational levels
14. Conclusion
14. Conclusion
1. Introduction
I was asked by a
colleague to review and comment the very interesting website
“Cognitive
Policy Works” and provide my views and
opinions, and so I did. My analysis and comments follow below.
I would like to state from the outset that these are only my
own personal views which I don’t consider necessarily either
complete nor necessarily a correct analysis or representation of the
site and of its contents. (both of which are very rich and with a
good deal of complexity embedded in them). But I also would like
to say that I thought the website and the work which its creators are
doing seem very worthwhile and useful to me. And definitely
have a role to play in various areas and aspects of environmentalism.
But thinking about the site and its contents also prompted me to
consider some other aspects of policy and of its various meanings and
domains of application, which I then did in the second half of
this post. Various policies and aspects of policy also can play a
constructive role in the environmentalism agenda.
2. Cognitive Policy
Works
The site "Cognitive
Policy Works" starts off with a
title and name that I thought engaged in a bit of a play on words.
Cognitive Policy "works" can mean that the site
presents some "works," that is some think pieces and
articles, or tools and educational materials in "cognitive
policy", in whichever ways such a concept may be defined
and understood; but it also can mean that Cognitive Policy
"works" in the sense that it functions and can achieve (or
help to achieve) certain objectives. (including, I believe,
various objectives of an environmental nature)
Regarding the second
meaning, the site then makes a distinction in one of its readings
between "cognitive policy" and "material policy".
I think this is important because "policy" has
a cognitive or intellectual dimension but it also has a practical
dimension which has to do with its processes of formulation and
implementation.
In other words it is a
necessary condition to have the right ideas or understandings, (the
so-called "cognitive policy" piece) but this is different
from: a) formulating (and adopting) actual policy and b)
implementing (and evaluating) actual policy. Both of which, moreover,
are part of a single ongoing cycle rather than necessarily
being two distinct activities which occur in sequence. And
often the entire process is simply called "policy making";
that is, as current policies are being implemented, new revised
policies (or the same policies) are being formulated.
The cycle almost never
“stops” so that its actors can have time to prepare brand new
policies calmly and from scratch, since the old ones (whether
explicit or tacit) are always in the process of being implemented,
and this with all of their attendant flows of effects, outcomes and
impacts. Please also note that a policy cycle can be conceived
in various ways but often includes also policy adoption and policy
evaluation stages, as well as an initial broad policy agenda-setting
phase, in addition to the more commonly considered policy
formulation and policy implementation stages, for specific policies
or policy areas.
And as I understand
it, some of the articles and think pieces and their ideas found
on the site "cognitive policy works", would form an
input to the policy formulation process. Which is itself not a
simple "one-time" activity but rather a process with
various steps and which takes place over time and typically involves
many actors and their groupings. And these include both those
actors who traditionally we may consider as being “policy
makers” (e.g. parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, parliamentary
think tanks and special governmental policy and planning units,
and etc.) as well as many others who play various types of roles.
(e.g. external think tanks, lobbyists, NGOs, political parties, and
also many others) .
But "cognitive
policy" also could interest itself with the policy formulation
and implementation processes themselves (and their steps) (in
addition to the content of various policies) and thereby be able
to inform and make a contribution regarding how better to
achieve improved policy formulation or improved policy
implementation. (for any policy, or at least for various
different specific policies with different contents and objectives).
The site then has four
parts each of which features various resources: Strategic Planning,
Frame Analysis, Resource Center (which provides tools and
methodologies with which to do those activities covered by each of
the other three parts) and Training and Workshops -which
identifies courses, workshops and seminars to train people in how to
work with the preceding concepts, tools and methodologies.
The term "Policy"
can be understood in different ways and also applies to different
contexts. Typically the word is used to refer to the policies
of governments (whether central, regional or local) in which instance
it is typically called “public policy”. If a public policy
formulation and implementation process is transparent, responsive to
real needs, accountable, and follows the law, and is reasonably well
regulated, and its actors are honest and not corrupt, and also are
held accountable (democratically and/or bureaucratically) ex-post,
one then often says that the country or region displays so called
"good governance". So public policy plays a role in
government and in governing, as well as in governance and its
quality.
Private sector
entities and N.G.O.s -and civil society institutions more
broadly- (e.g. universities) also can and do have "policies".
National level policy making processes (at the level of a
nation or of a province or of a region or locality) have some similar
but also some different characteristics from organizational level
policies and strategies at the level of organizations or groups.
Coming now to the four
sections or parts of the website, I found the section on
Frame Analysis much more interesting (and potentially more useful)
than the section on Strategic Planning.
3. Strategic planning
Strategic Planning as a
concept and as a practice has been around for a very long time (and
much has been written on it) and although it can help the actors who
participate in organizational strategic planning processes to
understand where they and their organization want to go, most often
the plans themselves are "dead on arrival". Meaning
that often something else ends up being done rather than the
Strategic Plan which was formulated, and in some instances even
formally endorsed by management and adopted. And this is
because both external and internal organizational conditions and
contexts are always evolving and changing, and ever more so under
current conditions of advancing and accelerating
globalization, including also the arrival of its many “game
changers”. But that does NOT mean that such exercises
are useless. I would say the contrary. They are very
useful because they help their participating actors figure out much
better what they want and where they stand with respect to various
internal or external issues facing the organization. But then
once their ideas meet reality, (which as I just indicated is also
often rapidly changing) the plans often will need to be
modified or adjusted with the result that the Strategic Plan and the
Strategic (or actual) Execution will end up being different.
I also can perhaps
usefully mention that during a period (a long time ago) when I
worked at the Economic Development Institute of the World Bank
(from 1990 to 1993) the Institute had established a Strategic
Planning methodology and a corresponding training workshop series for
N.G.O.s of developing countries and at that time the program
was considered an innovation and a pilot program to be tested and
then perhaps scaled up. I was not directly involved with that
program but I knew the person who ran it , and we sometimes discussed
its interim results. (which I believe overall were mixed and
probably did not bring about sustainable organizational change) But I
also am quite sure that the program has since then been revised and
upgraded and improved (and scaled) many times. Knowledge Management
also has become a key area of interest and activity for the World
Bank as a cursory look at the World Bank Institute website quickly
will reveal to anyone who may be interested.
4. Frame analysis
Returning now to
Cognitive Policy Works with a focus on its relevance to environmental
agendas, personally I found the material on "Frame
Analysis" far more interesting (and also far more innovative)
because -as the introduction to that section states- "frame
analysis reveals spin and manipulation". And since the
areas which we, the readers of Cassandra Legacy, are most interested
in always involve PLENTY of spin and manipulation, it is useful to
obtain ideas and tools and methods for countering it so that the
truth about these issues can reach the wider public and so that -as a
result- positive and constructive action can be taken.
So anything that can
help make various policy actors (either upstream actors involved in
policy formulation or downstream actors involved in policy
implementation) see much better their own ideology, their own biases,
their own mental models, as well as of course those of others
who may not share them or who they may be trying to influence or
convince to take various specific actions, can (at least potentially)
be very useful. Since if one has the wrong understanding or
"framing" or "mental model" of a problem or an
issue (e.g. climate change) it is almost impossible to decide
to implement effective actions or any meaningful change in that area.
But again the issue is
most often not only one of making cognitive changes so that various
people will frame important issues in a better or more realistic and
productive way, (for instance the reality of climate change, or of
peak oil, or of limits to growth and the carrying capacity of the
planet) but rather being able to counter the political influences and
the interests which bring about those wrong framings and mental
models in the first place.
In other words
"cognitive policy"' training is not likely to help Fox
Channel to "frame" climate change differently (or to
receive less funding from the Koch Brothers) nor will pointing out
correct ideas necessarily change the behavior and practices of the
many so-called "trolls" who often appear on blogs.
I also am assuming that
the people who came up with the website are at least in part a
commercial venture and therefore market and sell their various (quite
useful) services which they list. And it looks to me like they may
have started out with policy as it applies to N.G.O.'s (Oxfam and
etc.) and then perhaps "graduated" to providing their
services also to private sector entities and to governments. Or
at least to participants coming also from those sectors.
Probably, whether from "developed" countries or from
"developing" countries; which incidentally is itself
a "framing" and a "mental model issue".
That is, what do we understand by "developing" or
"developed"?; and given the understanding which we may have
of that term, we then might proceed to attempt to bring about
further “development” through various national and micro policies
in quite different ways. For instance, does “development”
mean creating more industry or does development mean creating more
human rights or more gender equality, or much improved education of
girls, or more environmental or ecological businesses and fewer
polluting ones, or various other such? And what
kinds of public or corporate policies will favor each type of
national development, and what should be the priorities in
various countries at various stages of their “development”?
And also what kinds of
policies are more generally involved in development and how are they
made and implemented?
5. The realm of policy
and strategy
Roughly speaking we can
divide the realm of policy and strategy as follows: There exist
national public policies and strategies (for the 196 nation states
and their administrative subdivisions that now exist in the world and
which sit at the United Nations) and there also exist a broad range
of organizational or company or N.G.O. policies and strategies,
for the very large numbers of such organizations which also exist in
the world. Each of these categories can be further
subdivided into “core or macro policies” and “sector or micro
policies”. All of these policies are relevant in one manner
or another and to some extent or another to key environmental issues.
Influencing the policy process at organizational levels is
considerably easier than influencing the public policy process
at national levels but both can be done (or at least attempted).
At the national level, political economy of change issues and
politics are factors which I believe typically cannot be handled by
"cognitive policy", or at least not by cognitive policy
alone (which deals mostly with having the correct ideas) because good
ideas are not sufficient to shift or change the positions of various
interest groups which shape and determine actual policy. But
such political economy issues also can exist at the broad
organizational level and if you consider your own university as a
possible example, (the colleague who asked me to review the website
is also a university professor) I am sure you easily can see
how internal university politics and the interests of various actor
groups ends up shaping university policies or “strategies”,
or at least easily may end up shaping what is actually done or not
done operationally, or what emphasis is given to what types of
activities (e.g. research or teaching or consulting) by the
administration and by the faculty, and through such actions or
inactions, also eventually will shape various educational
outcomes. I chose universities and academic institutions as one
example of a type of civil society organization but I believe these
kinds of issues apply to all organizations and whether found in the
private sector or in the civil society “sector”. (or for
that matter, also in the public sector as some of its many public
entities and agencies)
6. Policies
I would now try to
define and exemplify the term “policy” a bit better. I ask
readers to remember that this is not an academic treatise on what
policy is, or what kinds of policies or strategies exist, -but only a
summary-, and that many good articles and literature on policy DO
exist and can be consulted by anyone who is interested in learning
more about the topic.
I would reiterate the
few distinctions I have made above also here. Policies as they exist
(or as the term is typically being used) at the national level and
policies as they exist or are being used at the organizational
level. (e.g. at the level of a corporation or of a civil
society organization or a public agency)
A further distinction
is the one between so called “macro” policies which affect an
entire country or a region, and “sector or industry level
policies”, that is, of those “micro” policies which
affect particular sectors, districts, neighborhoods or groups.
I will start off with a basic definition of “public policy” which
can be found in the Wikipedia and then I will provide a number of
examples and illustrations of each type of policy. But please
note that various other definitions of the term “policy” also
exist, and that different definitions apply to the policies
(and strategies) of organizations than those which apply to “public
policy or policies”.
“Public policy is the
principled guide to action taken by the administrative executive
branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner
consistent with law and institutional customs. In general, the
foundation is the pertinent national and substantial constitutional
law and implementing legislation such as the US Federal code in the
U.S. Further substrates include both judicial interpretations and
regulations which are generally authorized by legislation.
Some scholars define it
as a system of "courses of action, regulatory measures, laws,
and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a
governmental entity or its representatives." Public policy is
commonly embodied "in constitutions, legislative acts, and
judicial decisions.
“A policy at the
organizational level is instead defined as a principle or rule to
guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is an intent,
and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally
adopted by the Board of or senior governance body within an
organization whereas procedures or protocols would be developed and
adopted by senior executive officers. The term may apply to
government, private sector organizations and groups, and individuals.
Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and
parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy
differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors
(e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely
guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired
outcome”
7. Macroeconomic
public policies
The main widely
recognized national level so-called “macro-economic” public
policies are (roughly) the following:
- Fiscal policy
(also called revenue policy –or its subset of “tax
policy”-, and expenditure policy –or budget policy-
(including also public investment policy), and their
various component policies. And the two main policies of revenues and
expenditures should be viewed together. Revenue policy usually
comes under the Ministry of Finance or the Treasury and budget or
expenditure policy (including public investment) usually comes under
a variety of core and line ministries and agencies
- Monetary policy
(including interest rate policy and money supply policies and etc.)
usually comes under the Central Bank which often also enjoys a
certain degree of independence from the rest of government.
- Trade policy
- Exchange rate policy
Macroeconomic policies
are basically those national level policies which deal with monetary,
fiscal, exchange rate, and trade conditions which in turn affect
economic growth, employment and inflation. And with respect to
which different national or regional (e.g. EU) monetary and fiscal
authorities also may have different objectives or mandates.
Governments typically can shape and determine the four policies
above, which then indirectly shape and affect economic growth,
employment and inflation (which are effects). In other
words “the levers” which governments have with respect to
employment, inflation and growth are “through” the above core
macro policies but also through some of the associated sector
policies that now follow:
8. Sector – level
public policies
Examples of six
“micro” policies which typically also are quite important are:
- Education policy or
policies (for primary, secondary and tertiary education, and for
training and development)
- Health policies
(publicly or privately provided and also regarding the balance
between preventive or curative care, and the access to health
care by various social groups)
- Infrastructure investment policies (for various types of infrastructure that are needed and used for various purposes and national or local objectives in both the infrastructure and the social sectors.
- Research and
Development policies (usually directed at trying to improve
medium and long term competitiveness and productivity)
- Active labor market
policies typically to better orient and improve the quality and
quantity of employment (which as indicated above, is largely a
derivative effect of macroeconomic policies)
- Transport sector
policies for land, sea and air and for multi-modal transport. (these
can be particularly important for supply and value chains and for
their logistics but also for the movement of persons and the mobility
and flexibility of the labour market)
Please note that other
very important cross-cutting policies such as Energy Policy,
Population Policy, and Communication and Information Policy are
not normally considered to be “macroeconomic” policies because
they are not directly or strictly speaking “economic”.
Therefore they are not typically listed as part of the above previous
“macro economic policies” of a country, that is alongside with
fiscal, monetary, trade and exchange rate policies. But because
they typically affect the entire nation and not just segments or
sectors or particular areas of it, they nonetheless can be considered
to be “macro” policies, instead of being considered only as
some additional micro level policies or sector policies.
Additionally the
presence or absence and the nature of various other: a)
industrial (or industry) policies, b) agricultural policies and c)
policies regarding various services (including banking and financial
services) also are very important.
9. Synergy of multiple
policy areas and national public policy frameworks
There is clearly also
an interaction between these types of sector or micro level policies
and what happens at the national level depending on how such sector
policies interact with the main macroeconomic policies.
A clear example of this is the effect of the EU’s common
agricultural policy both on the fiscal position of various member
countries –and the foregone potential alternative use of funds and
budgets- as well as on national and global trade balances; (the EU’s
CAP contributed to the failure of several “Doha Rounds” ) and
another example is how banking sector policies (including those for
banking regulation and banking supervision, or lack thereof)
–and the policies and practices of some of the major banks
regarding such items as mortgages, derivatives, so called leverage,
and reserve capital requirements, have affected the fiscal and
macroeconomic stability position of various countries.
Institutions such as
the World Bank and in a different way also the IMF construct overall
“national policy frameworks” which include all the various public
policies –both at the macro and the sector level-, which typically
exist or that may apply to a country and to its economy and society
and which also try to take into account more holistically how various
policies or policy areas may interact to produce various desirable
overall effects or avoid undesirable ones. “Poverty reduction
strategy papers” are examples of such World Bank national policy
frameworks intended specifically to reduce poverty. Such public
policy national frameworks also could be designed and implemented in
ways that favor other important national objectives such as equity, a
reasonable widespread level of prosperity, and environmental
sustainability.
As stated earlier each
of the above policies and policy areas (both macro and micro) can be
thought of as having a policy formulation phase and a policy
implementation phase. In reality typically both these
phases are ongoing simultaneously. Old policies are being
implemented and evaluated while new ones are being formulated and
adopted. So the distinction between these phases is often
not clear or sharp. And each phase of policy is developed by
many different societal actor groups (acting sequentially or in
parallel) who try to influence policy formulation (according to the
cognitive policy ideas they may have and/or also according to the
various political and economic interests they are trying to represent
and favor or promote) and who then also will assist or hinder
policy implementation, and for much the same reasons or motives.
The politics and the
various economic interests and the political economy of these
processes, represent what could be called “the politics and
processes and the political economy of policy making and
implementation”. And also of “strategy making” if
one is considering the organizational level which I now will discuss
a bit more below.
10. Organizations and
their strategies and policies at the organizational level
So moving from the
national level to the organizational level, one finds various
differences in the ways policy is formulated and implemented and also
in what is considered to be “policy” and what is considered to be
“management”. And we all often have heard –and
whether this is correct or not- that “China is run more like a
corporation” than the Western democracies; so these differences are
in fact real and significant.
If one wishes to try to
create some similar categories (or a parallel taxonomy of policies)
to the one listed above for nations but for the core and sector
/ micro policies and strategies of large companies or corporations,
one could perhaps think and proceed as follows:
The equivalent of macro
economic policies at the national level could be considered to be the
following “core” policies or managerial and ownership strategies
at the corporate or company, or organizational level :
- The company’s (or
the organization’s) basic area(s) of business and its business
model(s) and what is often called the company’s “mission”
- The company’s
financing strategies (equity, debt, venture capital and other forms
of capital and working capital raising, and etc.)
- The company’s
human resources management policies and strategies
- Company strategies
on the sourcing of materials, equipment and supplies, as well as on
the marketing and sales of products and services
- Technology and
equipment strategies and policies.
In other words the key
“analogous” “macro” or core policies of a company and of
organizations which are somewhat equivalent to those of a nation
would be (if one were to use the word “policy” in the same way
that it is being used when talking about public policy at the level
of a country or region (and it is NOT used that way, but I will come
to that aspect in a minute) would be (as is the case for the macro
policies of a nation) those policies and strategies which determine
the fundamental elements and the basic cross cutting operational
workings and characteristics of any company, and which do so
company-wide.
That is, what is the
basic business model of the company and what is its mission, where
does the company get the money it needs to start and to operate the
business, how does it recruit and manage and further develop its
people, how does it handle its inputs and outputs and their
respective supply and value chains and logistics, and how does it
handle its throughput processes and transform materials, energy,
money and know how into marketable products and services?
But let me come
straight away to the fact that the term “policies” as used in the
term “company policies and procedures” typically has a far
narrower and restrictive meaning -which is much closer to “rules
and regulations”- than it is to the meaning of public
“policies” since it often refers to such aspects as the company
policy on matters like security, or working hours and flexi-time for
employees, or other personnel rules and regulations and procedures.
But there exist however also some company –wide “policies”
which can affect directly a company’s overall profitability such as
a company’s quality assurance “policies” and programs. And
typically there also exist such policies on company ethics, human
resources, customer service and accounting which equally have company
wide-effects and impacts just as macro-economic policies have
country-wide impacts.
Typically, what are
called “core or macro policies” at the national level are not
called policies at the company or organizational level but rather are
called “strategies” or areas of something called either Strategic
Management; or they are the activities that come under the
remit of General or “Top” Management and the layer of functional
management operating directly below it. And Strategic Management as
explained earlier also can be thought of as being made up of two
phases i.e. a Strategic Planning phase and a Strategic Implementation
phase, which can be thought of as having roughly the same
relationship as that described earlier for the national level as
Policy Formulation and Policy Implementation.
There is a great deal
of literature on both policy-making in nations and strategic
management in companies, and here I am only providing my own
personal summary based on those understandings and notions
which I have found useful, while also trying to draw some
parallels and highlighting some differences that I hope will be
interesting and thought-provoking.
11. Organizational
level macro variables and the Mc Kinsey 7-S model
Another way of
conceiving the main “macro” factors operating in an organization
is by using the Mc Kinsey so called Seven S model which views an
organization as the interaction and synergy of seven broad (or
“macro”?) factors (all of which start with the letter S) and
namely its: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Staff, Skills,
(managerial) Styles, and Shared Values (and/or organizational
culture). And please note that in a different way, these same
variables also can apply at the level of a nation. That
is, a nation too has a tacit or explicit economic and national
development strategy, a certain administrative or governmental
structure, certain fiscal and taxation and other systems,
appropriately skilled human resources and processes for how to create
and develop them, various political and bureaucratic
“styles”, and a national political, social and economic culture.
And to both of these
conceptualizations I also would add an “eighth S” namely the
Situation or the context of either the organization or the nation
which then will have various external dimensions such as the
political, economic, institutional, cultural, competitive,
technological and other broad dimensions which affect or interact
with either the internal context of the organization (thereby
affecting its internal 7S) or –with respect to the effects of
the various dimensions of globalization- will affect and interact
with the internal context (and above other 7S) of a nation.
All of these are of
course only “mental models” of organizations and of nations and
the actual realities are clearly more complex and also more “organic”
and integrated and hence also less amenable to simple reductionist
dissections and their categories. And like any other “mental
model”, may have been “framed” correctly, or incorrectly or
some situation-contingent combination of these.
12. Organisations and
their strategies at functional areas of management level
Finally, to complete
the above picture at least conceptually, the equivalent of
national “sector level and micro policies” - but at the
organizational level-, could be considered to be the so-called
“functional areas of management” and the respective company
strategies for each area. (e.g. for the marketing and sales
strategy) And once again with respect to the formulation and
implementation of environmental agendas both macro policies or
strategies, and micro policies or strategies -and their several
variables listed above- will end up playing a role.
I am listing here only
what I consider to be the top ten typical company functional areas of
management (each of which also will have a tacit or explicit
development and implementation strategy) but there could be others or
the ones I listed could be packaged differently in keeping with the
preferred organizational structure and functions decided upon by an
organization’s management. And these functions and their
strategies can then be “green” or “ecological” or
“environmental” in various ways, or not: i) planning ii) research
and development iii) technology support (engineering); iv) purchasing
and supply logistics v) production (of products or of services); vi)
finance and accounting; vii) human resources management and
development viii) marketing ix) distribution and sales ; x)
administration. And cross-cutting each of these basic
managerial or organizational functions are also the three levels of
so-called “organizational behavior” namely those of individuals,
groups or teams, and of the organization as a whole. (each of
which then will have their own properties, characteristics and
dynamics and various effects on the various functional areas)
13. Implementing
change at national or organizational levels
When we think of
trying to bring about change at either the national level (or at the
global level) or at the organizational or corporate levels –for
instance- in order to implement more climate friendly public policies
through better national or local energy policies- (and down to
their narrower specifics such as a carbon tax) and/ or through
improved company strategies which would introduce more renewable
forms of energy, and phase out fossil fuel energy , or
implement cleaner production, we are going to come up against at
least some of the above “generic policy and strategy”
variables and their respective political-economy-of change
realities. Complicating this already highly complex
picture further, is the issue of “framing” also addressed
quite well by the site “Cognitive Policy Works”.
__________________________________________
The above was a
brief summary intended to help readers arrive at their own
conceptualizations of the territory in order to better be able to
navigate it and influence it towards achieving various environmental
goals.
The Cognitive
Policy Works site is very well constructed and presented and readers
who are interested in these topics can consult it here.
For those
interested in climate change in particular, (probably the top
environmental issue in the world at the moment and therefore likely
to be near the top of any environmental agenda, but certainly not the
only issue) they can go directly here:
In addition to the
climate change category immediately above other categories also are
listed on the website and are available for review -and are certainly
worthwhile having a look at-. And these other categories
are -according to the site- those on communication, design science,
economy, environment, funding, marketing, news, the political mind,
poverty, progressive infrastructure, social movements, and training
and workshops.
