In recent years, a growing number of scholars have urged greater intellectual effort regarding the outcomes, or impacts, being produced, or not produced by collaborative governance arrangements. Some progress has been made with "process" and "social" outcomes, outcomes affecting systemic collaborative capacity, the identification of second-and third-order consequences, and in refining approaches to incorporating and measuring real world environmental improvements. But what about other creative, important, and potentially useful governance outcomes that may well be unique to collaborative governance arrangements? Are we measuring all of the important things? We put this hypothesis to the test by examining four successful cases of collaborative governance in four Western states. The research, by discovering and developing three new types of governance outcomes-enhancing agency resources, developing and transferring technology, and going beyond compliance-suggests that our current frameworks for thinking about and measuring outcomes produced by collaborative governance arrangements are necessarily incomplete.

The governance challenges embedded in climate change are daunting. Conventional logic holds that national and international action is necessary. While the United States is a major source of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions – second only to China – national action on climate change has been lacking. However, hundreds of subnational US governments and thousands of industrial facilities are actively engaged in addressing climate change. Given the potential mismatch between the global nature of the problem and the policy reach of subnational governments, we evaluate the extent to which polycentric variation in subnational climate action is associated with changes in GHG emissions. We develop a unique data set that incudes facility‐level GHG emissions from major industrial sectors in the United States over 8 years and subnational climate governance action across all 50 states. This large‐N data set allows us to systematically test hypothesis from polycentric governance. This type of comparative analysis can help to better understand the conditions under which polycentric governance is associated with improved climate change outcomes, that is, declining GHG emissions. Our results suggest that even when controlling for past emissions, some elements of polycentric governance are associated with decreases in GHG emissions. Future research would benefit from augmenting the large N comparative analysis presented here with mixed methods research to more fully understand the dynamic processes shaping both climate policy and GHG emissions.

No abstract