|
|
Professor Richards & Dr D. Fitzpatrick: The Technical, Governance and Regulatory Complexity of Diffuse Non-Agricultural Water Pollution
| Funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) |
|
This interdisciplinary research project involving colleagues from the Department of Civil and Structural Engineering and Town and Regional Planning [UoS] sets out to explore the problems presented by diffuse water pollution (DWP) and the number of distinct technical, governance and regulatory challenges it presents. The non-specific nature of diffuse water pollution, which is distinguished from pollution that can be traced back to an identifiable source (such as a sewage outfall), means it is often characterised as a ‘wicked problem’: complex, open-ended and intractable (Rittel and Webber 1973). The phenomenon of DWP is inherently dynamic; although the main sources of DWP are known, the proportion of pollutants from each source is not certain; as such, it is inherently resistant to a clear statement of the problem and resistant to a clear and agreed solution. The diverse nature of diffuse water pollution has resulted in a complex distribution of competencies, involving multiple state and non-state actors operating on a number of terrains: European, national, regional, and catchment based level. The interplay of a multiplicity of stakeholders with conflicting preferences and the incomplete, uncertain and contradictory understanding of DWP has led to a lack of ownership and accountability.
This research project examines the evolution of the governance of non-agricultural (i.e. urban) diffuse water pollution in England. The challenges of DWP are particularly acute in an urban setting, where issues of fragmentation, contestation and ownership are even more pronounced; contributing factors range from road run-off, involving car manufacturers, the Highways Agency, local authorities, and water companies amongst others, to the misconnected drains of individual householders. It has been argued in policy debates on water resource management that the greatest challenge to providing water and sanitation services today is not so much technical as organisational and institutional. This research aims to contribute to this debate by clarifying the nature of the relationships in this complex governance arena, in order to proffer viable sustainable solutions to the problem of non-agricultural water pollution. In so doing it sets out to:
- Establish a data-base on current technical issues/approaches/solutions to DWP.
- Formulate a longitudinal study of the technical/educational campaigns related to DWP.
- Map the governance and regulatory arrangements underpinning DWP.
- Provide a comparative ‘lesson-drawing’ analysis drawn from overseas case-studies in relation to different approaches towards DWP.
- An evaluation of the various, multi-disciplinary theoretical/analytical/methodological approaches to be employed in researching the technical, governance and behavioural issues related to DWP.
|
|
|
|
Professor Geddes: DIAMINT: Science-Society Dialogues on Migration and Integration in Europe
| Funded by the VolkswagenStiftung (2011- 2013) |
| Professor Andrew Geddes is a research partner in the DIAMINT project - an international comparative project that is coordinated by the Erasmus University, Rotterdam. The focus is on the role that the social sciences have played in shaping public understanding of processes of immigrant integration. The project analysis how over the past few decades research–policy dialogues on these processes have developed into a much more complex science-society dialogue in several European countries. This is done from the perspective of the changing role of science in a society that itself is also in transformation. The research provides an in-depth analysis of how the social transformations just mentioned have contributed to a reconfiguration of science-society dialogues on immigrant integration in a number of European countries (Austria, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom) as well as on the EU level. |
|
Professor Ian Bache, Professor Matthew Flinders and Dr Ian Bartle: Multi-level governance, transport policy and carbon emissions management
| ESRC |
|
This ESRC-funded project is being undertaken in collaboration with the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds, the University of Glasgow and Napier University, Edinburgh. The primary goal of the research is to examine whether governance structures make a difference to policy effectiveness and accountability within the field of carbon emissions management in the transport sector. The research is examined through the analytical lens of multi-level governance. Specifically we will map the changing structures and processes of multi-level governance in the transport sector (1993 to present) with a particular emphasis on carbon emissions management; identify the distinct formal and informal governing arrangements that have developed in different parts of the UK; explore how different actors utilize and cultivate a range of resources to shape policy outcomes; and consider the degree to which a transition has occurred from bureaucratic governance structures to a reliance on markets and networks. We aim to undestand the impacts of this on policy-making efficacy and accountability and analyse the extent to which it informs theories and models of multi-level governance and enables lessons to be drawn to inform future governance arrangements.
Methodologically we adopt a comparative case study approach informed by a variety of methods, including: the analysis of primary and secondary literature; semi-structured elite interviews; expert group work and participatory public events. The focus of the research is on surface transport emissions. Four case studies centred on major metropolitan areas – Greater Manchester, Leeds/West Yorkshire, Glasgow/Strathclyde and Edinburgh – have been selected that capture a significant degree in variation in formal institutional structures across England and Scotland. In addition to the cross-territorial comparisons, analysis of different transport modes will allow us both to chart complex and potentially overlapping structures of multi level governance in relation to carbon emission management and to make comparisons across transport subsectors within and across territories. The case study areas each have different transport systems and travel patterns, different degrees of interaction with national road and rail networks and different formal institutional structures. Other factors being considered include the degree of difference in carbon target setting ambition and the tradition of attracting resources from and working at a European level. Further details can be found on the project website.
|
|
Professor Bache: An idea whose time has come? Explaining the rise of well-being in UK and EU politics
| University of Sheffield Rapid Response Knowledge Transfer Fund |
|
Concern with wellbeing/quality of life has risen up the political agenda rapidly in a range of political arenas. In the UK, PM David Cameron instructed the Office for National Statistics (November 2010) to investigate ways in which measures beyond GDP might be used to evaluate domestic progress. This initiative followed action in the EU - the European Commission’s August 2009 communication to Council of Ministers proposing to move ‘beyond GDP’ in guiding policies – and the report of the global-level Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, led by Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, which was published in September 2009. These initiatives suggest evidence of an idea whose time has come - in principle, if not yet generally in practice.
Funded by the University of Sheffield’s Rapid Response Knowledge Transfer Fund, Professor Bache has recently completed research seeking to explain how and why wellbeing/quality of life has risen up the agenda in different context, focusing on developments in Britain and the EU.
|
|
| European Commission (Mar 2010 - Sep 2011) |
PROSINT evaluates the impact of admission related integration policies on the integration of newcomers, analyses the different logics underlying integration policy making and investigates the main target groups of compulsory and voluntary integration measures. It analyses European and national policy frameworks in 9 countries through empirical analyses of: post-arrival integration measures for newcomers, pre-arrival measures; the socio-economic impact of admission related integration measures; and integration trajectories for recent migrants not targeted by integration programmes for newcomers.
For more details visit the project website. |
|
Professor Waylen: Gendered Ceremony and Ritual Programme
| Leverhulme Trust (Oct 2007 - Sep 2011) |
The University of Sheffield, in collaboration with Birkbeck College, Warwick and Bristol Universities, has been awarded £875,964 by the Leverhulme Trust for a four-year programme to study the importance of ceremony and ritual in the UK, South African and Indian Parliaments.
This programme of work will be undertaken Prof. Georgina Waylen in collaboration with Prof. Shirin Rai (Warwick University), Prof. Joni Lovenduski (Birkbeck College), and Prof. Sarah Childs (Bristol University). Ceremony and ritual play a role in how people working in political institutions are socialized and made part of the culture. This can have both positive and negative effects. For instance, some people find parliamentary ceremonies empowering; ritualized forms of speech in debating chambers can enable participation while ensuring heated exchanges do not get out of hand. However, ritual can also mark people as outsiders, alienating them in terms of gender, race or class. By comparing the Parliaments of South Africa, India and the UK the programme will be able to consider how distinct political cultures have evolved from the Westminster model. This will be the first such comparative study. that will allow us to understand the role played by ceremony and ritual so that we better understand how different groups can have a sense of belonging as well as can feel excluded through these. We hope to gain insights that will help to invigorate democratic practices and participation. As part of the research programme three doctoral studentships and three post-doctoral fellowships will be offered at the Universities of Warwick, Sheffield, Bristol and Birkbeck. Two Visiting Fellows will also participate. Visit the programme website for further information about the progress and outcomes of the research. |
|
Dr Heron: Promoting Trade-related Capacity Building in Small States: The Case of Post-liberalisation Adjustment in Preference Dependent Economies
| ESRC First Grants Scheme RES-061-25-0198 (Sep 2009 - Sep 2011) |
The importance of trade-related capacity building (TRCB) to developing and least-developed countries (LDCs) was affirmed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. TRCB refers to financial and technical assistance in areas such as trade policy implementation, infrastructure, productive capacity and trade-related adjustment, and is designed to enable developing countries and LDCs to participate more effectively in world trade. Although funding for TRCB from bilateral and multilateral sources has grown significantly over the last few years, relatively little research has been conducted on the impact - both potential and realised - of this on recipient states. The purpose of this research will be to investigate the effectiveness of TRCB in addressing the trade and investment losses associated with the erosion of non-reciprocal tariff and quota preferences in small, middle-income countries. The research will focus on six cases which have historically enjoyed favourable access to OECD markets as a result of preferential trade, namely, Jamaica, Belize, Swaziland, Lesotho, Mauritius and Fiji.
Although TRCB is neither aimed exclusively at small states nor the problem of preference erosion, it has nevertheless come to assume a special significance in relation to this issue for two reasons. First, while trade liberalisation entails adjustment costs for both large and small developing countries, preference erosion is particularly onerous for small states because they tend to rely on preferential trade more than larger states and also specialise in export sectors that have been subject to recent or ongoing liberalisation pressures. Second, the promotion of TRCB is underpinned by a policy consensus among bilateral and multilateral aid donors which questions the wisdom of preferential trade and suggests that preference-dependent countries are best supported by aid donors in ways that are ‘non-trade distorting’ for third parties.
Against this backdrop, this research will: (1) examine the origins and consequences of trade liberalisation measures affecting preferential trade and map out the social and economic impact of this in the countries identified above; (2) explore the role of TRCB in the post-liberalisation adjustment policies promoted by aid donors and adopted by the countries in question, and assess the extent to which these have been implemented successfully; and (3) evaluate the above both in terms of assisting post-liberalisation adjustment within small states and in facilitating more effective global policy coordination among bilateral and multilateral aid donors.
Research will be carried out in 12 countries covering the Caribbean, Southern Africa, the Indian Ocean and South Pacific, as well as Europe, North America and Australia. It is anticipated that findings from the research will make a major contribution to the international political economy and development studies literatures, while generating policy-relevant empirical findings that will be of interest to a range of stakeholders, including bilateral and multilateral aid donors, think tanks and NGOs.
For more details see the project webpage. |
|
Dr Sleat: Liberal Realism
| White Rose Consortium (Feb 2009 - Feb 2011) |
Much recent contemporary liberal political philosophy has taken place against the assumed social backdrop of peace, stability, and consensus about liberal values such as toleration, equality and freedom. Terrorist events in New York, Madrid, Bali, and London, and the increased awareness of dissent from liberal values both within and beyond liberal societies have cast significant doubt on the validity of this assumption. As such, contemporary liberal theory now finds itself without the intellectual resources necessary to understand properly or address the most pressing political problems of our time and runs the risk of seeming irrelevant or redundant in the new context of insecurity and fundamental disagreement. A new approach to liberal theorising which is compatible with an acknowledgement of profound moral conflict and insecurity and better-placed to offer reflection and recommendation on the political problems of this changed context is very much in order.
For more details visit the project website. |
|
Professor Smith & Dr A. White: Privatisation and the Regulation of Domestic Security
| ESRC RES-000-22-3062/SIA Research Grant (Oct 2008 – Mar 2010) |
The past three decades have witnessed the pluralisation of policing systems in advanced democratic countries across the globe. There has been a widespread shift from a ‘monopoly’ system of policing, in which state institutions assume exclusive responsibility for the provision of internal security, to a ‘networked’ system of policing, in which both state and non-state institutions are actively engaged in the delivery of this core function. This shift has been especially evident in British policing sector. For while policy-making in this sector was once controlled by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) within a closed ‘policy community’ and provision was dominated by the public police forces, both of these functions are now increasingly being undertaken by a number of non-state actors such private security companies and trade associations, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens. Private security companies in particular have become central players in this policing network, with estimates suggesting that there are now many more private security guards than public police officers operating in Britain today.
In order to bring these private security guards in line with ‘good’ policing practices, the Private Security Industry Act was passed in 2001 and provided for the creation of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) – a non-departmental public body accountable to the Home Office – to undertake the important task of reforming and regulating the industry. The SIA was officially established in 2003 and given three core objectives: 1) Internal Reform – to reduce criminality and improve standards within the industry; 2) Service Delivery – to facilitate the integration of the private security companies into the ‘wider crime-fighting family’; 3) Perception – to enhance the image of the industry in the eyes of the general public so as to contribute towards the broad state objective of reducing fear of crime. In undertaking these core objectives, then, the SIA has come to assume a critical position within the system of networked policing in Britain today. To date, however, there has been limited research into the pluralisation of security in contemporary Britain and none into the effectiveness of the SIA in its role as the regulatory body responsible for reforming and regulating the private security industry in England, Wales and Scotland. The purpose of this project is to address this notable gap by examining the changing networks of security in Britain, with a specific emphasis on the emerging role of the SIA in its role as the regulator the private security industry. This research raises two critical questions: in conceptual terms, to what extent is security provision being brought into the orbit of state authority and delivered as a genuine public good?; and, in practical terms, with the 2012 Olympics demanding an exceptional level of security and the European Commission speculating about the establishment of an internal market for private security provision and the harmonisation of regulatory regimes, does the SIA have the capability to regulate the vast number of security suppliers operating within Britain in the 21st century? |
|
