Abstract
The Anthropocene imposes new challenges for governments, demanding capabilities for dealing with complexity and uncertainty. In this paper we examine how effective governing of social-biophysical dynamics is constrained by current processes and systems of government. Framing choices and structural determinants combine to create governance deficits in multiple domains, particularly in relation to the governing of complex larger-scale social–biophysical systems. Attempts to build capability for governing ‘wicked problems’ are relevant to sustainability science and Anthropocene governance, but these have mostly failed to become institutionalised. Two cases studies are reported to elucidate how the systemic dynamics of governing operate and fail in relation to espoused purpose. In the UK attempts to enact ‘joined-up’ government’ during the years of New Labour government reveal systemic flaws and consistent praxis failures. From Australia we report on water governance reforms with implications for a wide range of complex policy issues. We conclude that innovations are needed to build capacity for governing the unfolding surprises and inherent uncertainties of the Anthropocene. These include institutionalising, or structural incorporation, of cyber-systemic thinking/practices that can also enhance empowerment and creativity that underpins sustainability science.Graphical abstract
Highlights
Given the scale, significance and magnitude of the policy challenges arising in the Anthropocene it seems necessary to take radical governance “design turns”
The paper is structured in the following way: After this introduction, the second section deals with defining the emerging Anthropocene governance deficit and outlining theories of cyber-systemic governing
To the extent that our cases depict features that constitute a malaise of modern governance there is a clear need for antidotes, as always, diagnosis is required before prescription
Summary
Significance and magnitude of the policy challenges arising in the Anthropocene it seems necessary to take radical governance “design turns”. Key system elements include (i) numerous State and Commonwealth statutes and ministries that influence the Basin (ii) the intergovernmental and transboundary coordination functions of the former MDBC and (iii) the biophysical system i.e., the rivers, water systems and water dependent ecosystems and (iv) and the industries and communities within the Basin all of which have their own structures and processes of political representation These elements were immersed in dominant discourses that help to frame and constrain policy options. In 2007 the national government intervened at a time when it was losing popularity with voters and desperately needed to be seen to be decisive on pressing national policy initiatives This dramatic swing in less than two decades was from a dominant discourse focused on sustainability through empowerment, cooperation and partnerships to one focused on fixing a narrowly defined problem—reallocating water shares between extractive and environmental use (Marshall and Alexandra 2016); in terms of ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ framing the shift was more towards the latter. This is what the APSC (2007a) advocated in the year before the MDBA was established
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
