Functional regulatory spaces

Varone, Frédéric;Nahrath, Stéphane;Aubin, David;Gerber, Jean-David
(2013) Policy Sciences : an international journal devoted to the improvement of policy making — Vol. 46, n° 4, p. 311-333 (2013)

Files

pdfdocument.pdf
  • Restricted Access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 276.43 KB

Details

Authors
  • Varone, FrédéricDépartement de science politique et relations internationales, Université de Genève, Unimail, Genève, Switzerland
    Author
  • Nahrath, StéphaneInstitut Universitaire Kurt Bösch, Switzerland
    Author
  • Aubin, Davidorcid-logoUCLouvain
    Author
  • Gerber, Jean-DavidInstitute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
    Author
Abstract
This article develops the concept of "Functional Regulatory Space" (FRS) in order to analyze the new forms of State action addressing (super) wicked problems. A FRS simultaneously spans several policy sectors, institutional territories and levels of government. It suggests integrating previous policy theories that focused on "boundary-spanning regime," "territorial institutionalism" or multi-level governance. The FRS concept is envisaged as a Weberian "ideal-type" of State action and is applied to the empirical study of two European cases of potential FRS: the integrated management of water basins and the regulation of the European sky through functional airspace blocks. It will be concluded that the current airspace regulation does match the ideal-type of FRS any better than the water resource regulation does. The next research step consists in analyzing the genesis and institutionalization of potential FRS addressing other (super) wicked problems such as climate change and economic, security, health and immigration issues in different institutional contexts as well as at various levels of governance. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York.
Affiliations

Citations

Varone, F., Nahrath, S., Aubin, D., & Gerber, J.-D. (2013). Functional regulatory spaces. Policy Sciences : an international journal devoted to the improvement of policy making, 46(4), 311-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9174-1 (Original work published 2013)