{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017391304347826087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005797101449275362, 'mean_word_length': 5.483568075117371, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Potential and Limits of Progressive Neopluralism: A Comparative Study of Forest Politics in Coastal British Columbia and South East New South Wales during the 1990s

During the 1990s the management of forests in British Columbia (Canada) and New South Wales (Australia) underwent many changes. For most of the decade the governments in both of these political jurisdictions were more socially and environmentally aware than their immediate predecessors. They were, however, far short of what many environmental and social activists desired. The New Democratic Party in British Columbia, led to government by Mike Harcourt, and the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales led by Bob Carr, may both be described as ‘centre-left/light-green’ in their political persuasions. This paper develops the regulation approach to explore the achievements, the potential and the limitations of these governments in the area of forest politics. It is argued that these governments implicitly adopted a progressive neopluralist approach to forest politics and attempted to manage environmental conflict by securing the agreement of many diverse interest groups. The experience of these two governments raises questions about the potential and limitations not just of the particular governments, but of a progressive neopluralist political strategy to achieve sustainable forest management.