Institutional constraints on conservation auction: Organizational mandate, competencies and practices

• Autores: Eeva Primmer
• Localización: Land use policy: The International Journal Covering All Aspects of Land Use, ISSN 0264-8377, ISSN-e 1873-5754, Nº. 63, 2017, págs. 621-631
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen

  • Auctions appeal to analysts and policy designers because of their potential efficiency in recruiting new areas for nature conservation. The failure to develop genuine auctions and competitive tender processes is typically blamed on the design and the attractiveness of the instrument. However, the institutional constraints that a new competitive mechanism faces when placed in a real-world ecological-institutional setting are only partly anticipated by the theoretical and analytical approaches. This paper explores the theory-based principles of cost-effectiveness against a real-world auction instrument designed for forest biodiversity conservation in Finland. The instrument, called “Natural Values Trading”, specified that the tenders should be invited and compared on an annual basis but the competitive procedure was not operationalized. Instead, sites were evaluated on a first come – first serve basis, applying ecological criteria and pricing based on opportunity costs. The institutional constraints of the auction mechanism centred on the difficulty that public authorities geared toward implementing law and treating citizens equally faced with a competitive arrangement. The pressure to generate instant impact overrode experimenting with new mechanisms and exiting an administrative comfort zone. The findings conform to the institutional theories that identify challenges with matching organizational mandate, reallocating and developing organizational competencies as well as changing informal organizational and professional practices. The design of biodiversity conservation mechanisms will not go far by focusing solely on cost-effectiveness; instead, the institutional friction should be taken seriously and organizational mandates, competencies and practices should be addressed explicitly.