Adaptation task

Governance emergence explanation
You are here: Home / Pathfinder / Identifying adaptation measures / Public / Collective / Institutional analysis

Governance emergence explanation

Institutional emergence approaches take as a fundamental theoretical assumption that it is inherently difficult to predict outcomes of institutions because of the complexity in action-outcome linkages and the importance of contextual factors. What follows is that it does not make sense to address the question of which institutions or policies are adequate in order to achieve a policy goal (such as, e.g., reduced climate vulnerability). Rather, governance emergence approaches strive to understand the existing institutions addressing the question of which contextual factors give rise to a particular institutional arrangement in a given case.

AP interactive decision tree - click any node to select it

Question addressed

Explaining the emergence of governance systems which enables adaptation.

Conditions of applicability

Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability are a result of many actors interacting and making many interrelated decisions.

Theoretical assumptions

Attributing an outcome to an institution is only possible on a case by case basis. see understanding cases. It is difficult to attribute outcomes to a particular institution. see generalising design principles.

Steps taken

see understanding cases. see generalising design principles.

Results achieved

Recommendations on a case by case basis. see understanding cases. Design principles to be contextualised in a given case. see generalising design principles.

Issues involved

[text to be added]

Example cases from literature

see understanding cases. see generalising design principles.

MEDIATION Toolbox

Read more in the Toolbox under the following category:

Governance emergence
  • Pathfinder overview diagram
References AP home Glossary

This section is based on the UNEP PROVIA guidance document

Criteria checklist

1. You want to identify adaptation measures.
2. Your focus is on public actors and on collective actions.
3. The interdepencence is two-way.
4. There is no coordination solution.
5. It is not sufficient to describe actors and institutions.
6. Outcomes of institutional arrangements can not be predicted.