We analyse the Local Agenda 21 (LA21) implantation process in Western Europe from 1992 to the present day. Basing our work on a literature review and on our own direct observations, we construct a model that explains the development of LA21 processes. We term it the ‘isolated, supported, and connected’ (ISC) framework. Our model attempts to make a contribution to (1) LA21 literature and (2) policy network literature. On the one hand, previous LA21 literature discussed factors that hold back and drive LA21 processes, but a comprehensive conceptual framework has not been constructed. Our model integrates the different variables within a single conceptual ISC framework. On the other hand, conceptual policy network literature holds that fully connected models ought to be superior to less connected, or isolated, models, but empirical evidence is scanty and inconclusive. Our research supports the conclusion that policy networks are superior in terms of disseminating LA21 processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AallC, 2001, “Norway Local Agenda 21 as a means of interpreting and achieving sustainable production and consumption”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 266–304
2.
AdolfssonS, 2000, “Local Agenda 21 in practice—a Swedish example”Sustainable Development8201–214
3.
AdolfssonS, 2002, “Local Agenda 21 in four Swedish municipalities: A tool towards sustainability?”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management45219–244
BagchiP KPaikS, 2001, “The role of public–private partnership in port information systems development”The International Journal of Public Sector Management14482–499
8.
BakerSEckerbergK, 2007, “Governance for sustainable development in Sweden: The experience of the local investment programme”Local Environment12325–342
9.
BarrutiaJ MAguadoIEchebarriaC, 2007, “Networking for Local Agenda 21 implementation: Learning from experiences with Udaltalde and Udalsarea in the Basque autonomous community”Geoforum3833–48
10.
BjørnæsTNorlandH T, 2002, “Local Agenda 21: Pursuing sustainable development at the local level”, in Realizing Rio in Norway: Evaluative Studies of Sustainable Development Eds LaffertyW MNordskagMAakreH A (Prosus, Oslo) pp 43–62
11.
BradenburgerA MNalebuffB J, 1996Competition (Doubleday, New York)
12.
ButtelF H, 2000, “Ecological modernization as social theory”Geoforum3157–65
13.
CarterNDa SilvaNunes FMagalhaesF, 2000, “Local Agenda 21: Progress in Portugal”European Urban and Regional Studies7181–186
14.
CoenenF, 2001, “The Netherlands: Probing the essence of LA21 as a value-added approach to sustainable development and local democracy”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 153–179
15.
ConnerK R, 1991, “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm?”Journal of Management17121–154
16.
Dalal-ClaytonBBassS, 2000Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book (Earthscan, London)
17.
Di MaggioP JPowellW W, 1991, “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality”, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Eds PowellW WDi MaggioP J (University of Chicago press, Chicago, IL) pp 63–82
18.
EchebarriaCBarrutiaJ MAguadoI, 2004, “Local Agenda 21: Progress in Spain”European Urban and Regional Studies11273–281
19.
EckerbergK, 2000, “Sweden: Progression despite recession”, in Implementing Sustainable Development: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies Eds LaffertyW MMeadowcroftJ (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 209–244
20.
EckerbergKDahlgrenK, 2007, “Project or process? Fifteen years experience with Local Agenda 21 in Sweden”Ekonomiaz64130–149
21.
EckerbergKCoenenFLaffertyW M, 1999, “The status of LA21 in Europe: A comparative overview”, in Implementing LA21 in Europe: New Initiatives for Sustainable Communities Ed. LaffertyW M (ProSus, Oslo)
FrelsJ KShervaniTSrivastavaR K, 2003, “The integrated networks model: Explaining resource allocations in network markets”Journal of Marketing6729–45
26.
GomilaM F, 2000, “La Agenda 21 Local en Europa: Un análisis comparado” [Local Agenda 21 in Europe: A comparative analysis], in Local y Sostenible: La Agenda 21 Local en España [Local and sustainable: Local Agenda 21 in Spain] Eds FontNSubiratsJ (Icaria, Barcelona) pp 29–64
27.
Gram-HanssenK, 2000, “Local Agenda 21: Traditional gemeinschaft or late-modern subpolitics?”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning2225–235
HewittN, 1995European Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: How to Engage in Long-term Environmental Action Planning Towards Sustainability (ICLEI, Freiburg)
30.
ICLEI, 2002Local Agenda 21 Survey: A Study of Responses by Local Authorities and Their National and International Associations for Agenda 21International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto
31.
JoasMEvansBTheobaldK, 2007, “Local Agenda 21 in Europe—the second phase of ecological modernisation in local government”Ekonomiaz6492–111
32.
JonasA E GWhileAGibbsD C, 2004, “State modernisation and local strategic selectivity after Local Agenda 21: Evidence from three northern English localities”Policy and Politics32151–168
33.
KatzM LShapiroC, 1985, “Network externalities, competition, and compatibility”American Economic Review75424–440
34.
KenisPRaabJ, 2003a“What do policy networks do?”, paper prepared for the Conference on Democratic Network Governance, Copenhagen, Denmark, 22–23 May
35.
KenisPRaabJ, 2003b, “Wanted: A good network theory of policy making”, paper prepared for the 7th National Public Management Conference, Washington, DC, 9–10 October
36.
KernKLöffelsendT, 2004, “Sustainable development in the Baltic Sea region: Governance beyond the nation state”Local Environment9451–467
37.
KernKKollCSchophausM, 2004, “Local Agenda 21 in Germany: An inter- and intranational comparison”, DP SP VI 2004–104, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin
38.
KotlerP, 1999Kotler on Marketing: How to Create, Win and Dominate Markets (The Free Press, New York)
39.
KruegerRAgyemanJ, 2005, “Sustainability schizophrenia or actually existing sustainabilities? Toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US”Geoforum36410–417
40.
LaffertyW M, 2001, “Introduction”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 1–14
41.
LaffertyW MCoenenF, 2001, “Conclusions and perspectives”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 266–304
42.
LarrueCEmelianoffCDi PietroFHélandL, 2001, “France. LA21: A new tool for sustainable policies?”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 180–205
43.
Le GalèsP, 1995, “Introduction: Les réseaux d'action publique entre outil passe-partout et théorie de moyenne portée”, in Les Réseaux de Politique Publique: Débat autour des Policy Networks Eds Le GalèsPThatcherM (L'Harmattan, Paris) pp 13–27
44.
LindströmMJohnssonP, 2003, “Environmental concern, self-concept and defence style: A study of the Agenda 21 process in a Swedish municipality”Environmental Education Research951–66
45.
LorenzoRVannucciSFranchiniPLucciPLuiseA, 2004, “Agenda 21 Locale 2003: Dall' Agenda all'azione: Linee di indirizzo ed esperienze”, Agenzia per la protezione dell'ambiente e per i servizi tecnici, Dipartimento Stato dell'Ambiente e Metrologia Ambientale, Settore Sviluppo Sostenibile, Rome, http://www.apat.gov.it/site/_contentfiles/00137200/137279_Manuali_31_2004.pdf
46.
MeisterMJappP M, 1998, “Sustainable development and the global economy: Rhetorical implications for improving the quality of life”Communication Research25399–421
47.
MooreG A, 1999Crossing the Chasm (HarperBusiness, New York)
48.
MullallyG, 2001, “Ireland. Starting late: Building institutional capacity on the reform of sub-national governance?”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 130–152
49.
NarodoslawskyM, 2001, “A regional approach to sustainability in Austria”International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education2226–237
50.
NarodoslawskyMGrabherA, 2001, “Austria. From eco-social market economy to LA21”, in Sustainable Communities in Europe Ed. LaffertyW M (Earthscan, London) pp 206–224
51.
O'RiordanT, 1996, “Democracy and the sustainability transition”, in Democracy and the Environment Problems and Prospects Eds LaffertyW MMeadowcroftJ (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 140–156
52.
O'RiordanTVoiseyH, 1998The Transition to Sustainability: The Politics of Agenda 21 in Europe (Earthscan, London)
53.
PattersonATheobaldK S, 1996, “Local Agenda 21, compulsory competitive tendering and local environmental practices”Local Environment17–19
54.
PellizzoniL, 2001, “The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason”British Journal of Sociology5259–86
PongsiriN, 2002, “Regulation and public–private partnerships”International Journal of Public Sector Management15487–495
57.
RosenauP, 1999, “Introduction: The strengths and weaknesses of public–private policy partnership”American Behavioral Scientist4310–34
58.
SancassianiW, 2005, “Local Agenda 21 in Italy: An effective governance tool for facilitating local communities' participation and promoting capacity building for sustainability”Local Environment10189–200
59.
SawhneyMParikhD, 2001, “Where value lives in a networked world”Harvard Business Review (January) 79–86
60.
TeeceD J, 1982, “Toward and economic theory of the multiproduct firm”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization339–63
61.
WaddockS A, 1988, “Building successful social partnerships”Sloan Management Review2917–23
62.
WealeA, 1992The New Politics of PollutionIssues in Environmental Policies (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
63.
YinR K, 1994Case Study Research: Design and Methods2nd edition (Sage, London)
