Editing Epistemic community (section)

==Role in environmental governance==
The global environmental agenda is increasing in [[complexity]] and [[interconnectivity|interconnectedness]].<ref name="haas 1992"/> Often environmental policymakers do not understand the technical aspects of the issues they are regulating.<ref name="haas 1990">{{cite journal|last=Haas|first=Peter M.|author-link=Peter M. Haas|title=Obtaining international environmental protection through epistemic consensus|journal=Millennium Journal of International Studies|volume=19|issue=3|pages=347–363|publisher =[[SAGE Publications|SAGE]] |doi=10.1177/03058298900190030401|date= December 1990|s2cid=143111616}}</ref> This affects their ability to define state interests and develop suitable solutions within cross-boundary [[environmental regulation]].<ref name="litfin 2000">{{Cite journal | last = Litfin | first = Karen T. | title = Environment, wealth, and authority: global climate change and emerging modes of legitimation | journal = International Studies Review | volume = 2 | issue = 2 | pages = 119–148 | publisher = [[Wiley-Blackwell|Wiley]] | doi = 10.1111/1521-9488.00207 | jstor = 3186430 | date = Summer 2000 }}</ref>

As a result, conditions of [[uncertainty]] are produced which stimulate a demand for new information.<ref name="zito2001a">{{Cite journal | last = Zito | first = Anthony R. | title = Epistemic communities, collective entrepreneurship and European integration | journal = [[Journal of European Public Policy]] | volume = 8 | issue = 4 | pages = 585–603 | publisher = [[Taylor and Francis]] | doi = 10.1080/13501760110064401 | date = January 2001 | s2cid = 144600345 }}</ref> Environmental [[crises]] play a significant role in exacerbating conditions of uncertainty for decision-makers.<ref name="haas 1992"/> Political elites seek expert knowledge and advice to reduce this technical uncertainty, on issues including:
* the scale of environmental problems,
* cause-and-effect interrelations of ecological processes, and
* how ([[science]]-based) policy options will play out.<ref name="meijerink 2005">{{Cite journal | last = Meijerink | first = Sander | title = Understanding policy stability and change. the interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–2003 | journal = [[Journal of European Public Policy]] | volume = 12 | issue = 6 | pages = 1060–1077 | publisher = [[Taylor and Francis]] | doi = 10.1080/13501760500270745 | date = December 2005 | s2cid = 155063439 | hdl = 2066/45389 | hdl-access = free }}</ref>

Therefore, epistemic communities can frame environmental problems as they see fit, and environmental decision-makers begin to make policy-shaping decisions based on these specific depictions.<ref name="zito 2001b">{{Cite journal | last = Zito | first = Anthony R. | title = Epistemic communities, European Union governance and the public voice | journal = Science and Public Policy | volume = 28 | issue = 6 | pages = 465–476 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press|Oxford Journals]] | doi = 10.3152/147154301781781183 | date = December 2001 }}</ref>

The initial identification and bounding of environmental issues by epistemic community members is very influential.<ref name="toke 1999">{{Cite journal | last = Toke | first = Dave | title = Epistemic communities and environmental groups | journal = Politics | volume = 19 | issue = 2 | pages = 97–102 | publisher = [[Wiley-Blackwell|Wiley]] | doi = 10.1111/1467-9256.00091 | date = May 1999 | s2cid = 144605928 }}</ref> They can limit what would be preferable in terms of national interests, frame what issues are available for collective debate, and delimit the policy alternatives deemed possible.<ref name="haas 1990"/> The political effects are not easily reversible.<ref name="adler and haas 1992">{{cite journal|last1= Adler| first1=Emanuel|last2=Haas|first2=Peter M.|authorlink2=Peter M. Haas|title=Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program|journal=International Organization |volume=46|issue=1|pages=367–390|publisher =[[Cambridge University Press|Cambridge Journals]] |doi=10.1017/S0020818300001533|jstor=2706960|date= Winter 1992| s2cid=154353057}}</ref> The epistemic community vision is institutionalised as a collective set of understandings reflected in any subsequent policy choices.<ref name="adler and haas 1992"/>

This is a key point of power. Policy actors are persuaded to conform to the community’s consensual, knowledge-driven ideas without the epistemic community requiring a more material form of power.<ref name="haas 1992"/> Members of successful communities can become strong actors at the national and international level as decision-makers attach responsibility to their advice.<ref name="haas 1992"/>

As a result, epistemic communities have a direct input on how international cooperation may develop in the long term.<ref name="haas 1990"/> Transboundary environmental problems require a unified response rather than patchwork policy efforts, but this is problematic due to enduring differences of state interest and concerns over reciprocity.<ref name="haas 1992"/> The transnational nature of epistemic communities means numerous states may absorb new patterns of logic and behaviour, leading to the adoption of concordant state policies.<ref name="haas 1990"/> Therefore, the likelihood of convergent state behaviour and associated international coordination is increased.

International cooperation is further facilitated if powerful states are involved, as a quasi-structure is created containing the reasons, expectations and arguments for coordination.<ref name="adler and haas 1992"/> Also, if epistemic community members have developed authoritative bureaucratic reputations in various countries, they are likely to participate in the creation and running of national and international institutions that directly pursue international policy coordination, for example, a [[regulatory agency]], [[think tank]] or governmental research body.<ref name="haas 1992"/> Actively building such authoritative bureaucratic reputations has also been argued as an active strategy for regulatory agencies, think tanks, and research bodies, to gain more legitimacy among (epistemic) community members for their professional activities, such as policy coordination.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Willems |first1=Jurgen |last2=Waldner |first2=Carolin |last3=Winter |first3=Vera |last4=Wiedemann |first4=Flavia |date=2025-02-13 |title=Bureaucratic Reputation Theory: Micro-Level Theoretical Extensions |url=https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf004/8011470 |journal=Perspectives on Public Management and Governance |language=en |doi=10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf004 |issn=2398-4910|doi-access=free }}</ref> This strategic role of authoritative bureaucratic reputations is a core premise of [[Bureaucratic Reputation Theory]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Carpenter |first=Daniel |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780691214078/html |title=The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928 |date=2002-12-31 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-21407-8 |doi=10.1515/9780691214078}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Maor |first=Moshe |date=2016-06-23 |title=Missing Areas in the Bureaucratic Reputation Framework |url=https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/570 |journal=Politics and Governance |language=en |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=80–90 |doi=10.17645/pag.v4i2.570 |doi-access=free |issn=2183-2463}}</ref> 

As a result, epistemic community members in a number of different countries can become connected through intergovernmental channels, as well as existing community channels, producing a [[transnational governance]] network, and facilitating the promotion of international policy coordination. An example of a scientific epistemic community in action is the 1975 collectively negotiated Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), a marine [[pollution control]] regime for the [[Mediterranean Sea]] developed by the [[United Nations Environment Programme]].<ref name="haas 1989">{{cite journal|last=Haas |first=Peter M.|author-link=Peter M. Haas|title=Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control|journal=[[International Organization]]|volume=43|issue=3|pages=377–403|publisher =[[Cambridge University Press|Cambridge Journals]] |doi=10.1017/S0020818300032975|jstor=2706652|date= Summer 1989 |s2cid=55131189 }}</ref>