Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services

By R. Muradian, L. Rival. 2012

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The spread of the ecosystem services framework has been accompanied by the promotion of market-based policy instruments for environmental governance. In this paper we clarify the rationale, policy goals and governance challenges of the ecosystem services framework. After systematizing the limitations of market-based policy tools for enhancing the provision of ecosystem services, we argue that hybrid regimes are more suitable (compared to pure markets or hierarchies) to deal with the governance challenges derived from the characteristics of ecosystem services, particularly their common good character and their intrinsic complexity. The paper pleads for an alternative conceptual underpinning of market-based instruments, in order to make them more compatible with hybrid forms of governance. We discuss the major implications of such analytical shift.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0597f6104b5a983836e815eda2534cbe87959db8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. E. Corbera
2. B. Matzdorf
3. Sarah Schomers
4. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
5. R. Muradian
6. A. Vatn
7. R. Norgaard
8. G. Hecken

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
2. B. Matzdorf
3. Sarah Schomers
4. E. Corbera
5. R. Muradian
6. R. Norgaard
7. Nicolás Kosoy
8. G. Hecken

Citations in the corpus

• Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions (2013, background): “The debate about PES has been muddled by insufficient acknowledgment of the difference between incentives and market transactions (Muradian and Rival 2012).”
• Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “Other challenges include potential misapplication of MBIs (Lockie, 2013); the propensity to commoditize nature (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), which could lead to reductions in ecological complexity and a ‘commodity fiction’ (Gomez-Baggethun and Ruíz-Perez, 2011; Muradian and Rival, 2012; Robertson, 2012”
• In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem services governance (2015, background): “The practical implication is that most cases of policy approaches aiming to govern ecosystem services correspond to “hybrid” arrangements, combining market and hierarchical elements (Muradian and Rival, 2012).”
• Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “However, what is crucial for the success of PES is the interplay of the whole institutional setting (cf. Corbera et al., 2009; Muradian and Rival 2012).”
• Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice (2017, unknown): “019 tional hierarchical, top-down governance processes (Muradian and Rival, 2012; Primmer et al., 2015).”