mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Conflict and legitimacy: Explaining tensions in Swedish hunting policy at the local level
Luleå University of Technology. (Hållbar samhällsutveckling)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3187-8620
2008 (English)In: Environmental Politics, ISSN 0964-4016, E-ISSN 1743-8934, Vol. 17, no 1, p. 105-114Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article reveals the existence of a so-called "ghost policy" (informal tradition and/or obsolete policy rules) that resists new official policy concerning the management of natural resources in Sweden. These ghost policies are often ignored in the Swedish policy making process inhibiting, therefore, viable and legitimate solutions to the profound negative consequences that costly local conflicts of interest have on democracy. These conflicts of interest expose and represent a classic and current problem intrinsic to the communitarian policy process in Sweden. That is, since the Swedish policy process has a blind spot, it focuses on the views of experts and interest organisations and, subsequently, overlooks the perceptions of those stakeholders (in this case local game hunters) affected by policy. This undermines the policy's goals since they are alien to local tradition. Furthermore, not just the existence and ubiquity of ghost policies, but even social facts such as the physical size and membership of an organisation influence conflicts of interest. This implies that there is still room for collaborations with locals as well as social engineering in the policy process. In order then for the Swedish policy process to gain more legitimacy from stakeholders involved with natural resource management the government must review and change its present processes of policy making.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2008. Vol. 17, no 1, p. 105-114
Keyword [en]
Conflict, Legitimacy, Policy, Hunting
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-24181DOI: 10.1080/09644010701811707ISI: 000252988800008Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-39049118473OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-24181DiVA, id: diva2:687467
Funder
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Available from: 2014-01-14 Created: 2014-01-14 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Fell, Terence

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fell, Terence
In the same journal
Environmental Politics
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 19 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf