Page 39 - Governing Congo Basin Forests in a Changing Climate • Olufunso Somorin

General Introduction and Research Setting
2012). Other approaches are particularly rule-based– focusing on the system of
setting, applying and enforcing of rules to shape the actions of social actors towards 1 achieving societal goals (Rosenau, 1992 & 1995; Kjaer, 2004; Mayntz, 2004; Pavoola,
2007). A few approaches are process-based - analyzing governance in terms of
how coordination is achieved among actors and their networks (Kooimann, 2003;
Hooper, 2006; Jordan and Schout, 2006; Schafer, 2006).
Within the rule-based approach of understanding governance, the neo- institutionalist theory is dominant. Mayntz (2004) argues that governance is the hallmark of an institutionalist approach dealing with regulatory structures combining public and private, hierarchical and network forms of action coordination. Several authors have approached understanding governance outcomes of different issues from the neo-institutionalist perspective: for the study of commons (McCay, 2002; Johnson, 2004; Armitage, 2007), for EU-related studies (Bulmer, 1993; Pollack, 1996), and public policy (Bogason, 2000; Barzelay and Gallego, 2006), amongst others. One advantage of using neo-insitutionalist theory is its strength to study governance systems at the national and regional levels, particularly as it concerns actors acting and interacting within larger institutional frameworks (Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995). This attribute makes it relevant for understanding the governance process of adaptation and mitigation within the Congo Basin countries.
The birth of ‘new institutionalism’ in political science emerged from the need for demonstrating the relationships between institutions and political outcomes, and also the roles that institutions play as determinants of human behaviour (Ostrom, 1990; Peters, 1999 & 2000). Broadly, the neo-institutionalist theory (NI) emphasizes the role that rule structures play in determining individual behaviour and the outcome of political processes (Hall and Taylor, 1996; Hay and Wincott, 1998; Hay, 2002; Arts and Buizer, 2009; Schmidt, 2008). Three main variants of neo-institutionalism (historical, rational choice and sociological) are traditionally studied in new institutionalism (Hall and Taylor, 1996; Marsh & Stoker, 2002). Historical institutionalism (HI) focuses on how institutions, understood as sets of regularized practices with rule-like qualities, structure action and outcomes (Schmidt, 2010). The main argument of HI is that structural choices made at the inception of institutions will have a persistent influence over its behaviour for the remainder of its existence (Steinmo et al., 1992; Hall
19