IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v16y2012icp102-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflections on theories in forest policy: Testing, combining or building?

Author

Listed:
  • Weber, Norbert

Abstract

Theories constitute an important part of science and contribute to its advancement. As a consequence of the variety of scientific approaches available, students of forest policy can choose between three alternatives: (i) relying on and applying an existing theory, (ii) attempting to combine several theories in a new context or (iii) creating a new theory based on their own experiences and findings from desk research and/or empirical surveys. Whereas alternatives (i) and (ii) have been chosen in the majority of scientific studies focusing on the relationship between forests and people, theory building has not as yet been commonly applied in forest policy research. Seeking to discern both the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches, the methodological aspects of each are emphasised in this paper. Subsequent to an outline of the general significance of theories for scientific research practised in the social sciences, and a depiction of the features of ‘good’ theories, the widespread procedure for testing existing theories is outlined. This is followed by descriptions of several techniques employed in theory building. Finally, some conclusions on the application of existing theories and on theory building in the context of forest policy are presented. It is argued that given its innovative potential, theory building should not be neglected in forest policy discipline.

Suggested Citation

  • Weber, Norbert, 2012. "Reflections on theories in forest policy: Testing, combining or building?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 102-108.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:16:y:2012:i:c:p:102-108
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934111000141
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sasser Erika N. & Prakash Aseem & Cashore Benjamin & Auld Graeme, 2006. "Direct Targeting as an NGO Political Strategy: Examining Private Authority Regimes in the Forestry Sector," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 1-34, December.
    2. Lijphart, Arend, 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 682-693, September.
    3. Krott, M., 2000. "Gaining relevance by a sound theoretical basis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 113-114, August.
    4. Sasser, Erika N. & Prakash, Aseem & Cashore, Benjamin & Auld, Graeme, 2006. "Direct Targeting as an NGO Political Strategy: Examining Private Authority Regimes in the Forestry Sector," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 1-32, December.
    5. Serbruyns, Inge & Luyssaert, Sebastiaan, 2006. "Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 285-296, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lenka Halušková, 2022. "The Slovak forest policy arrangement: Post-1989 residues and changes," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(10), pages 395-412.
    2. Arts, Bas & Behagel, Jelle & Turnhout, Esther & de Koning, Jessica & van Bommel, Séverine, 2014. "A practice based approach to forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 4-11.
    3. Krott, Max & Giessen, Lukas, 2014. "Learning from practices — implications of the “practice based approach” for forest and environmental policy research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 12-16.
    4. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    5. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Živojinović, Ivana & Nedeljković, Jelena & Petrović, Nenad & Jarský, Vilém & Oliva, Jiří & Šálka, Jaroslav & Sarvašová, Zuzana & Weiss, Gerhard, 2020. "Actor power in the restitution processes of forests in three European countries in transition," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chris F. Wright, 2016. "Leveraging Reputational Risk: Sustainable Sourcing Campaigns for Improving Labour Standards in Production Networks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 195-210, August.
    2. John S. Ahlquist & Layna Mosley, 2021. "Firm participation in voluntary regulatory initiatives: The Accord, Alliance, and US garment importers from Bangladesh," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 317-343, April.
    3. Kadam, Parag & Dwivedi, Puneet & Karnatz, Caroline, 2021. "Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Carolyn Fischer & Thomas P. Lyon, 2014. "Competing Environmental Labels," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 692-716, September.
    5. Polakova, Aija, 2018. "Name and shame? Evidence from the European Union tax haven blacklist," Discussion Papers 2018/18, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    6. Stoll, Joshua S. & Johnson, Teresa R., 2015. "Under the banner of sustainability: The politics and prose of an emerging US federal seafood certification," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 415-422.
    7. Baron, David P., 2011. "Credence attributes, voluntary organizations, and social pressure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1331-1338.
    8. Andrea Prado & Arch Woodside, 2015. "Deepening Understanding of Certification Adoption and Non-Adoption of International-Supplier Ethical Standards," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 105-125, November.
    9. Lily Hsueh & Aseem Prakash, 2012. "Incentivizing self‐regulation: Federal vs. state‐level voluntary programs in US climate change policies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 445-473, December.
    10. Erin Leitheiser, 2021. "How domestic contexts shape international private governance: The case of the European Accord and American Alliance in Bangladesh," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1286-1303, October.
    11. Geoffrey Martin & Luis R. Gómez–Mejía & Pascual Berrone & Marianna Makri, 2017. "Conflict between Controlling Family Owners and Minority Shareholders: Much Ado about Nothing?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(6), pages 999-1027, November.
    12. Frank Wijen & Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2019. "Controversy Over Voluntary Environmental Standards: A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Marine Stewardship Council," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-02071504, HAL.
    13. van der Loos, Hendrik Z. Adriaan & Kalfagianni, Agni & Biermann, Frank, 2018. "Global aspirations, regional variation? Explaining the global uptake and growth of forestry certification," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 41-50.
    14. Erica Johnson & Aseem Prakash, 2007. "NGO research program: a collective action perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(3), pages 221-240, September.
    15. Erin M. Reid & Michael W. Toffel, 2009. "Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(11), pages 1157-1178, November.
    16. Luc Fransen, 2013. "The Embeddedness of Responsible Business Practice: Exploring the Interaction Between National-Institutional Environments and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 213-227, June.
    17. Erin Marie Reid & Michael W. Toffel, 2008. "Responding to Public and Private Politics: Corporate Disclosure of Climate Change Strategies," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-019, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2009.
    18. Lui, Ariel K.H. & Lo, Chris K.Y. & Ngai, Eric W.T. & Yeung, Andy C.L., 2021. "Forced to be green? The performance impact of energy-efficient systems under institutional pressures," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    19. Guillaume Lescuyer & Raphaël Tsanga & Samir Nziengui & Eric Forni & Claudia Romero, 2021. "Influence of FSC certification on the governance of the logging sector in the Congo basin," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(3), pages 289-304, August.
    20. Gallemore, Caleb & Guisinger, Amy & Kruuse, Mikkel & Ruysschaert, Denis & Jespersen, Kristjan, 2018. "Escaping the “Teenage” Years: The Politics of Rigor and the Evolution of Private Environmental Standards," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 76-87.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:16:y:2012:i:c:p:102-108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.