IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v33y2015i6p1484-1500.html

Politics of visibility: competing for legitimacy in North Carolina fisheries governance

Author

Listed:
  • Candace K May

Abstract

In the collaborative natural resource governance literature, stakeholder participation is most often treated as instrumental to the normative legitimacy and, thus, effectiveness of the environmental state. This study adds a perspective of stakeholder legitimacy as the outcome of competition among groups with differential power operating under the influence of powerful systemic forces. Stakeholders with differential capacities engage in a politics of visibility to determine what is and is not made transparent. What remains invisible is the result of privileged accounts, supported by broader societal values regarding economic development. The research for this paper stems from ethnographic field work of a campaign by conservation and recreational fishing interests to ban the use of commercial gill nets in North Carolina. Conservation and recreational fishing interests gained a greater degree of legitimacy in fishery decision-making processes by utilizing a politics of visibility that reinforced destructive patterns of environmental rights and resource use.

Suggested Citation

  • Candace K May, 2015. "Politics of visibility: competing for legitimacy in North Carolina fisheries governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1484-1500, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:33:y:2015:i:6:p:1484-1500
    DOI: 10.1177/0263774X15614180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X15614180
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0263774X15614180?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ribot, Jesse C. & Agrawal, Arun & Larson, Anne M., 2006. "Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1864-1886, November.
    2. Stone, Clarence N., 1980. "Systemic Power in Community Decision Making: A Restatement of Stratification Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 978-990, December.
    3. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    4. Tomas M. Koontz & Elizabeth Moore Johnson, 2004. "One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(2), pages 185-204, June.
    5. Martin Nie, 2008. "The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement in natural resource conservation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(2), pages 139-164, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    2. Julia Brown, 2014. "Evaluating Participatory Initiatives in South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    3. Yung, Esther H.K. & Sun, Yi, 2020. "Power relationships and coalitions in urban renewal and heritage conservation: The Nga Tsin Wai Village in Hong Kong," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    5. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    6. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & di Gregorio, Monica & Dohrn, Stephan, 2008. "Decentralization, Pro-Poor Land Policies, and Democratic Governance," CAPRi Working Papers 44353, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Mark Sandford, 2020. "Conceptualising ‘generative power’: Evidence from the city-regions of England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(10), pages 2098-2114, August.
    8. Angelingis Makatta & Lupala ZJ & Faustin Maganga & Amos Majule, 2018. "Forest Governance at Village Level with Potential for REDD+ in Participatory Forest Management, Tanzania," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 8(2), pages 40-51, - January.
    9. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5405 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    11. Eliezeri Sungusia & Jens Friis Lund & Christian Pilegaard Hansen & Numan Amanzi & Yonika M. Ngaga & Gimbage Mbeyale & Thorsten Treue & Henrik Meilby, 2020. "Rethinking Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania," IFRO Working Paper 2020/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Fischer, Harry W. & Ali, Syed Shoaib, 2019. "Reshaping the public domain: Decentralization, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and trajectories of local democracy in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 147-158.
    13. Dobrynin, Denis & Smirennikova, Elena & Mustalahti, Irmeli, 2020. "Non-state forest governance and ‘Responsibilization’: The prospects for FPIC under FSC certification in Northwest Russia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Lawer, Eric Tamatey & Lukas, Martin C. & Jørgensen, Stig H., 2017. "The neglected role of local institutions in the ‘resource curse’ debate. Limestone mining in the Krobo region of Ghana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 43-52.
    15. Hotte, Ngaio & Kozak, Robert & Wyatt, Stephen, 2019. "How institutions shape trust during collective action: A case study of forest governance on Haida Gwaii," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    17. Nakakaawa, Charlotte & Moll, Ricarda & Vedeld, Paul & Sjaastad, Espen & Cavanagh, Joseph, 2015. "Collaborative resource management and rural livelihoods around protected areas: A case study of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-11.
    18. Long, Hexing & de Jong, Wil & Yiwen, Zhang & Liu, Jinlong, 2021. "Institutional choices between private management and user group management during forest devolution: A case study of forest allocation in China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    19. Han Wang & Yueli Xu, 2024. "Achieving Neighborhood-Level Collaborative Governance through Participatory Regeneration: Cases of Three Residential Heritage Neighborhoods in Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Verbrugge, Boris, 2015. "Decentralization, Institutional Ambiguity, and Mineral Resource Conflict in Mindanao, Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 449-460.
    21. Moser, Christine M., 2014. "Voter Response to Conservation Policies in Madagascar," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-103.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:envirc:v:33:y:2015:i:6:p:1484-1500. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.