Knowledge-Driven Governance: The Role of Experts and Scholars in Combating Desertification and Other Dilemmas of Collective Action

289 Pages·2019·4.89 MB·English

by  Lihua Yang

Lihua Yang
Knowledge-
Driven
Governance
The Role of Experts and Scholars in
Combating Desertification and Other
Dilemmas of Collective Action
Knowledge-Driven Governance
Lihua Yang
Knowledge-Driven
Governance
The Role of Experts and Scholars
fi
in Combating Deserti cation and Other
Dilemmas of Collective Action
123
LihuaYang
Schoolof Government
PekingUniversity
Beijing,China
ISBN978-981-13-2909-8 ISBN978-981-13-2910-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2910-4
JointlypublishedwithPekingUniversityPress,Beijing,China
TheprinteditionisnotforsaleinChinaMainland.CustomersfromChinaMainlandpleaseorderthe
printbookfrom:PekingUniversityPress.
ISBNoftheChinaMainlandedition:978-7-301-25871-2
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018957648
©PekingUniversityPressandSpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublishers,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublishers,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:152BeachRoad,#21-01/04GatewayEast,Singapore189721,
Singapore
To my wife, Yan Huang,
for her love and help
and my daughters, Ruiqing Yang
and Ruiyuan Yang
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Prof. G. Zhiyong Lan. He is a very brilliant, patient, and
generous advisor, who has helped me far beyond the scope of this research. He
taughtmehowtoconductgoodresearch,logicallystructuremyarguments,balance
scholarlycreativityandprofessionalism,andworktogetherwithothers.Iamdeeply
indebted to him.
I would also like to thank Prof. Jianguo (Jingle) Wu for his scholarly input and
support, which improved the quality of this research greatly. His contagious
enthusiasm for science, scientific debate, and teaching inspired me. Also, I must
thank him for letting me share his laboratory with his intelligent doctoral students,
and the wonderful experience of playing basketball with him and his colleagues.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Prof. Ronald Perry and Prof. R. F. “Rick”
Shangraw, Jr. for serving as my committee. They generously gave their time to
review the draft of this research and provided constructive criticism and very
helpfulsuggestionsandcomments.Also,Imustthankthemfortheirtrustinmeand
giving me so much freedom to develop my own ideas and thoughts.
Iwouldalsoliketothank Profs.JohnHall,BarbaraMcCabe,ChrisHerbst,and
Edgar Ramirez. As their research associate, I really learned more than I expected.
Also, I would like to thank Profs. Thomas Catlaw, Elizabeth Corley, Janet
Denhardt, Robert Denhardt, David Guston, and Mary Romero. Through reading
their books and taking their wonderful classes, I learned a lot.
Professors Elinor and Vincent Ostrom, as my mentors at the Workshop in
Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University (Bloomington), taught
me institutional analysis, introduced me to studies of collective action and
common-poolresources,andhelpedmedeveloptheoriginalideasforthisresearch.
Lin also reviewed one part of this research and gave me some very helpful
suggestions and comments. The talks with Vincent shall be my lifetime asset.
IwouldalsoliketothankProf.RoyJ.GardnerintheDepartmentofEconomics
and Prof. Eric Rasmusen in the Kelley School of Business, as affiliated faculty
of the Workshop, who taught me game theory. Further thanks to Profs. David
Good,RogerB.Parks,EdwardoL.Rhodes,andEvanJ.RingquistintheSchoolof
vii
viii Acknowledgements
Public and Environmental Affairs and Dr. Amos Sawyer in the Workshop, for
teaching me various research methods and methodologies and for being kind and
friendly to me while I was at IU.
Special thanks should go to Congguo Tang and Jie Zhang for their tremendous
help in data collection and data input of the field study results for this research.
Finally, I must thank Xiaoxun Gao, Qian Hu, Bing Li, Wei Liu, Pei Pei, Liang
Sun, Mary Reece, Robbie Robichau, Jung-wook Seo, Dan Wang, Jing Wang,
ChengboYi,YinYin,FeiYuan,WeiZhong,Dr.ChristopherClark,Dr.Alexander
Buyantuyev, and Dr. Yun Ouyang for their criticism, comments, editorial support,
and friendship.
Contents
1 Scholar-Based Governance as an Alternative Solution
to the Collective Action Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Assumptions, Definitions, and the Fundamental Hypothesis . . . . . 3
1.2 Differences Between the Study of Experts and the Study
of Scholars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Contributions and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 The Organization of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Four Major Roles of Scholars’ Participation: A Game
Theoretical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1 A Herder Game and the Assumptions of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 The Scholar as an Information Provider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 The Scholar as an Agent of the Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4 The Scholar as an Entrepreneur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4.1 A Bargaining-Voluntary Game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.2 A Coercion-Reward Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5 The Scholar as a Pure Game Player. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3 A Product-Institutional Analysis (PIA) Framework
to the Study of Scholar-Based Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1 A Basic Game Theoretical Model of Decision Making . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2 A Product-Institutional Analysis (PIA) Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.1 A Basic Product-Institutional Analysis (PIA)
Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.2 Internal and External Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.3 Defining a Particular Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
ix
x Contents
3.3 Remodeling the PIA Framework: Black Boxing and Opening
the Black box. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.4 Studying Scholar-Based Governance in Field Settings . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4.1 Desertification and Its Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4.2 A Typology of Scholars in Combating Desertification . . . . 58
3.4.3 A Two-Step Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4 Significance and Mechanisms of Scholars’ Participation. . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1 Significance of Scholars’ Participation and Its Relationship
with Land Amelioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.1 Significance of Scholars’ Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.2 Degree of Land Amelioration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1.3 Comparison with the Results from the Interview Data . . . . 72
4.2 Mechanisms and Thirteen Related Factors of Scholars’
Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.1 Characteristics of Scholars’ Individual Behaviors
and Its Seven Related Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.2 Mechanisms of Organizing Scholars’ Participation. . . . . . . 82
4.2.3 Comparing the Seven Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5 Seven Design Principles of Successful Scholar-Based
Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.1 Seven Design Principles and Their Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Describing the Seven Principles in Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.2.1 Principle 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.2.2 Principle 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2.3 Principle 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.4 Principle 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2.5 Principle 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.2.6 Principle 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.2.7 Principle 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.3 Conclusion and Policy Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6 Institutional Performance, Institutional Change,
and Building a Knowledge-Driven Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.1 Institutional Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.2 Institutional Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.2.1 Three Levels of Institutional Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.2.2 Knowledge-Driven Institutional Change and the Paradox
of Scholars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Contents xi
6.3 Building a Knowledge-Driven Society: A Third Model. . . . . . . . . 123
6.3.1 Lindblom’s Two Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.3.2 A Knowledge-Driven Society as a Third Model . . . . . . . . 125
6.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Appendix A: The Four Settings of the Harding Game with the
Scholar’s Information. .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 135
Appendix B: The Four Settings of the Central-Authority Game
with Incomplete Information but with the Scholar’s
Information.... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 137
Appendix C: The Recruitment Script and the Questionnaire
of the Interview. ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 139
Appendix D: The Recruitment Script, the Outline of the Training
Content, and the Questionnaire of the Survey . ..... .... 143
Appendix E: The Approval Document by the Institutional
Review Board .. ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 159
Appendix F: Case Studies by Changing Coverage. .... .... ..... .... 161
Appendix G: Case Studies by Changing Spatial Extent. .... ..... .... 169
Appendix H: Case Studies by Changing Cultural Contexts.. ..... .... 177
Appendix I: Case Studies by Changing Fields with Changing
Temporal Extent ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 221
References for Appendices... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 267