| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Zelli, Fariborz, et al.
(författare)
-
Analytical Framework: Assessing Coherence, Management, Legitimacy and Effectiveness in an Institutional Nexus
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Governing the Climate-Energy Nexus : Challenges to Coherence, Legitimacy and Effectiveness - Challenges to Coherence, Legitimacy and Effectiveness. - 9781108676397 ; , s. 21-42
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter establishes four evaluative themes that will be employed across this volume to analyze the institutional complexity of policy fields in the climate-energy nexus: coherence, management, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Coherence among institutions is conceptualized along four dimensions: convergence on an overarching core norm for the policy field, balanced coverage and distribution of memberships (private, public, hybrid), balanced coverage and distribution of governance functions (standards and commitments, operational activities, information and networking, financing), and mechanisms underlying cross-institutional relations (cognitive, normative, behavioural). Management will be examined according to types of managing agents, political levels (from domestic to global), and the consequences of management efforts in enhancing coherence. Legitimacy will be assessed along nine dimensions, among them expertise, transparency, accountability, or procedural and distributive fairness. Effectiveness, finally, will be examined in terms of normative and legal output produced by the institutions, their behaviour-changing outcome, and their ultimate problem-solving impact. Altogether, the four themes and their dimensions make up a novel framework for an in-depth analysis of a governance nexus. They help us examine a variety of important questions in a comparative research design, combining a high level of ambition with feasibility and novelty.
|
|
| 3. |
- Zelli, Fariborz, et al.
(författare)
-
Conclusions: Coherence, Management, Legitimacy and Effectiveness in the Climate-Energy Nexus
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Governing the Climate-Energy Nexus : Challenges to Coherence, Legitimacy and Effectiveness - Challenges to Coherence, Legitimacy and Effectiveness. - 9781108676397 ; , s. 235-261
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The concluding chapter first summarizes some of the volume’s main results along the four evaluative themes. In terms of coherence and management, the three policy fields under scrutiny – renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform and carbon pricing – are roughly marked by coordination, rather than competition or outright harmony. Regarding legitimacy, the specializations and work backgrounds of stakeholders lead to considerable variations in their perceptions of institutions. For effectiveness, institutional complexity plays both a supportive and a hindering role across all three cases. Following the summary, a series of policy recommendations are developed, including: improving awareness of each other’s activities to avoid duplication of efforts and conflicting messages; aligning interpretations of central concepts, i.e. what constitutes renewable sources of energy, fossil fuel subsidies and carbon pricing; building stronger connections to counterparts in other areas of the climate-energy nexus and beyond; and entrusting one institution with an orchestrator role. Finally, the chapter suggests a future research agenda on the governance of the climate-energy nexus, e.g. to learn more about the causes of institutional complexity, to identify conditions for successful management efforts, and to examine further sub-fields and even other domains outside the climate-energy nexus.
|
|
| 4. |
- Zelli, Fariborz, et al.
(författare)
-
Introduction: The Governance of the Climate-Energy Nexus
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Governing the Climate-Energy Nexus : Challenges to Coherence, Legitimacy and Effectiveness - Challenges to Coherence, Legitimacy and Effectiveness. - 9781108676397 ; , s. 1-18
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The introduction first explains the rationale and theoretical and empirical contributions of the edited volume. The book seeks to address a considerable gap of knowledge of the nature of the relationship between institutions governing the climate-energy nexus in a multilevel context. In particular, there is scant research on consequences on the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance arrangements and the climate-energy nexus as a whole. For an in-depth analysis of institutional complexity in the nexus, we selected three policy fields as case studies: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. We made this choice since the three cases represent urgent and major components of the climate-energy nexus, since they vary considerably in the number and mix of institutions that govern them at the international level, and since they differ in their positioning within the climate-energy nexus – with carbon pricing primarily a climate change issue, renewable energy lying at the core of energy governance, and fossil fuel subsidy reform falling in between. The chapter concludes with an outline of the ccontributions to the book, structured along the volume’s three parts on mapping (I) coherence and management (II), and legitimacy and effectiveness (III).
|
|
| 5. |
-
Legitimacy in global governance : sources, processes, and consequences
- 2018
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume: to develop an agenda for systematic and comparative research on legitimacy in global governance. In complementary fashion, the chapters address different aspects of the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. The volume makes four specific contributions. First, it argues for a sociological approach to legitimacy, centered on perceptions of legitimate global governance among affected audiences. Second, it moves beyond the traditional focus on states as the principal audience for legitimacy in global governance and considers a full spectrum of actors from governments to citizens. Third, it advocates a comparative approach to the study of legitimacy in global governance, and suggests strategies for comparison across institutions, issue areas, countries, societal groups, and time. Fourth, the volume offers the most comprehensive treatment so far of the sociological legitimacy of global governance, covering three broad analytical themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nasiritousi, Naghmeh, et al.
(författare)
-
Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes : Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism?
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European Journal of International Relations. - : Sage Publications. - 1354-0661 .- 1460-3713. ; 22:4, s. 920-943
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The participation of non-state actors in multilateral institutions is often portrayed as one way of decreasing the perceived legitimacy deficit in global governance. The literature on non-state actors has identified several ways in which these actors can enhance the legitimacy of intergovernmental organisations and global governance arrangements. Three partially competing normative arguments, or rationales, for the inclusion of non-state actors in international policymaking ￜ functionalism, neocorporatism and democratic pluralism ￜ have been identified. Whereas functionalism highlights the contribution of non-state actors to output legitimacy in terms of expertise, neocorporatism emphasises the inclusion of affected interests, and democratic pluralism claims that non-state actors increase input legitimacy through procedural values. These three normative arguments thus offer different understandings of the motives for the inclusion and representation of non-state actors in international negotiations and diplomacy. Through a single case study of United Nations climate diplomacy, we analyse the extent to which the three rationales for non-state actor inclusion are found in views held by state and non-state actors participating in the annual United Nations climate change conferences. Our results show that different actor groups place varying degrees of emphasis on the different rationales for non-state actor inclusion, even though the neocorporatist rationale remains most favoured overall. We discuss the implications of our findings for the democratic legitimacy of increasing participation of non-state actors in intergovernmental affairs and recent trends in the participation of non-state actors in the international climate change policymaking process.
|
|
| 7. |
- Bäckstrand, Karin, et al.
(författare)
-
The Road to Paris : Contending Climate Governance Discourses in the Post-Copenhagen Era
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. - : Routledge. - 1523-908X .- 1522-7200. ; 21:5, s. 519-532
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this paper, we advance discourse analysis to interpret how the state and direction of climate governance is imagined or interpreted by the multitude of actors present at UN climate conferences. We approach the annual Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as active political sites that project ideas, assumptions and standards for the conduct of global politics. This paper examines to what extent the discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civic environmentalism identified by Backstrand and Lovbrand [(2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change. Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 51-71; Backstrand, K., & Lovbrand, E. (2007). Climate governance beyond 2012. Competing discourses of green governmentality, ecological modernization and civic environmentalism. In M. Pettenger (Ed.), The social construction of climate change. Ashgate] a decade ago still inform how climate governance is imagined and enacted in the post-Copenhagen era. After reviewing scholarship on climate governance and International Relations, we introduce our discursive framework and systematically compare three contending discourses of climate governance articulated at COP 17 in Durban (2011), COP 19 in Warsaw (2013) and COP 20 in Lima (2014). We end by discussing whether the discursive struggles played out at UN climate conferences represent a shift in the ways in which climate governance was imagined and enacted on the road to Paris, and to what extent our findings may help to extend scholarship in this field.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bäckstrand, Karin
(författare)
-
What Can Nature Withstand? : Science, Politics and Discourses in Transboundary Air Pollution Diplomacy
- 2000
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Long-range transboundary air pollution generates pressing environmental problems such as the acidification of lakes and soils, forest decline and loss of biodiversity as well as threats to human health across Europe. The overall aim of this study is to explore the role of scientific expertise in environmental diplomacy by analyzing recent international agreements in the transboundary air pollution (LRTAP) regime. The concept of critical loads, i.e. scientific assessment of ecosystem sensitivity, and the practice of integrated assessment modeling provide a decision framework in the diplomatic effort to counter air pollution. First, a discursive framework for understanding the science–policy interface in environmental policy–making is built by drawing on the post–positivist research agenda in constructivism, discourse analysis, international environmental politics and science studies. The theoretical contributions of the study are the development of a 1) a constructivist account of the science–policy interplay stressing the mutual construction of the scientific and policy agenda as a hybrid endeavor; 2) a discursive framework for analyzing the interplay between discourses, practices and actors as scientific knowledge is framed into policy instruments. Secondly, in applying the framework above this study covers new empirical ground in providing an in–depth analysis of the role of science in the evolution of critical–load–based regional air pollution agreements. The discursive and institutional shift toward an effect–oriented discourse relying on the critical loads approach in the LRTAP regime is traced. The study analyzes the employment of regulatory science in the negotiation of the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol, which incorporates a multipollutant–multieffect approach, has been appraised as the most complex science–policy endeavor hitherto undertaken. The various discourses surrounding the concept of critical loads as it was tailored into a multidisciplinary and multinational research agenda are explored. The competing discourses – effect–oriented, technology–oriened and cost–oriented – in the pre–negotiations and ‘political negotiations are examined. The study investigates role of modelers and scientific experts as knowledge brokers and knowledge translators and scientific practices such as modeling in synthesizing and framing scientific discourses into a comprehensible policy instrument. Thirdly, this study critically reflects upon the rise of regulatory science in transboundary air pollution diplomacy in the light of three green perspectives, namely ecofeminism, reflexive modernization and postmodern cultural critique, which all in different ways examine the link between modernity, science and the environmental crisis. From this perspectives, the effect–oriented discourse is embedded in a larger discourse on ecological modernization paving the way for the scientization of environmental politics.
|
|
| 9. |
- Pickering, Jonathan, et al.
(författare)
-
Democratising sustainability transformations : Assessing the transformative potential of democratic practices in environmental governance
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Earth System Governance. - : Elsevier BV. - 2589-8116. ; 11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many democracies find it difficult to act swiftly on problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss. This is reflected in long-standing debates in research and policy about whether democratic practices are capable of fostering timely, large-scale transformations towards sustainability. Drawing on an integrative review of scholarly literature from 2011 to early 2021 on sustainability transformations and the democracy-environment nexus, this article synthesises existing research on prospects and pitfalls for democratising sustainability transformations. We advance a new typology for understanding various combinations of democratic/authoritarian practices and of transformations towards/away from sustainability. We then explore the role of democratic practices in accelerating or obstructing five key dimensions of sustainability transformations: institutional, social, economic, technological, and epistemic. Across all dimensions we find substantial evidence that democratic practices can foster transformations towards sustainability, and we conclude by outlining a set of associated policy recommendations.
|
|
| 10. |
-
Research handbook on climate governance
- 2015
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- The 2009 United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen is often represented as a watershed in global climate politics, when the diplomatic efforts to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol failed and was replaced by a fragmented and decentralized climate governance order. In the post-Copenhagen landscape the top-down universal approach to climate governance has gradually given way to a more complex, hybrid and dispersed political landscape involving multiple actors, arenas and sites. The Handbook contains contributions from more than 50 internationally leading scholars and explores the latest trends and theoretical developments of the climate governance scholarship.
|
|
