Breaking the Treadmill? Climate Change Policy Networks and the Prospects for Low Carbon Futures in Australia and Finland

Abstract

The Treadmill of Production Theory (TPT) argues that in advanced capitalist societies, business organizations, trade unions, and state actors form a constellation that prioritizes economic growth over environmental concerns. We combine this perspective with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and use methods of social network analysis, survey data on key organizations in Finland and Australia, and indepth interviews to map the policy network structures that resist low carbon transitions, and identify potential for change in these structures. We find that a coalition of economic, labor, and governmental organizations resists a low carbon transition in both countries. However, we also find several possible avenues of incremental change through changes in the network structures and the beliefs held by actors in the networks. Theoretically, this suggests that the TPT is correct in its diagnosis of the current situation, but the ACF may be a more fruitful perspective for identifying potential for change.

Research mapping of policy network: A bibliometric analysis

“…(5), Klijn, E.H. (5), Lubell, M. (5), and Schneider, V. (5). Yia-Antilla authored several articles that focused on policy network in the context of Environmental Governance and Climate Change in developed countries, including Finland and Australia (Ylä-Anttila et al, 2018, 2020). Furthermore, Henry et al (2012) made significant contributions to the field, and discussed network measurement approaches and the role of ideology (Henry, 2011).…”

What are the roles of regional and local climate governance discourse and actors? Mediated climate change policy networks in Atlantic Canada

“…Much of the research on climate policy and action focuses on the national level. Common research questions focus on political polarization (Fisher et al, 2013; McCright & Dunlap, 2011; Zhou, 2016); policy network collaboration and conflict (Craft & Howlett, 2013; Di Gregorio et al, 2019; Ingold & Fischer, 2014; Jasny et al, 2015; Ylä‐Anttila et al, 2020); the role of the fossil fuel sector and other business interests in shaping or obstructing climate policy (Brulle, 2020; Carroll et al, 2018; Carter, 2020; Tindall et al, 2020); the influence of corporatist or pluralist political cultures on climate policy (Gronow & Ylä‐Anttila, 2019; Vesa et al, 2020); and the influence (or lack thereof) of the global climate regime (e.g., COP meetings, the IPCC) and international agencies in shaping national policy debate and action (Ehnert, 2019; Kukkonen et al, 2018; Ylä‐Anttila & Swarnakar, 2017). Researchers increasingly argue for the need to broaden our scope to focus on multilevel climate governance and to attend to processes of communication, influence, collaboration and conflict across international, national, and sub‐national political arenas and actors (Di Gregorio et al, 2019; Francesch‐Huidobro, 2012).…”

The Advocacy Coalition Index: A new approach for identifying advocacy coalitions

“…In the Swedish case, the analysis did not proceed into analyzing belief similarity, because the authors started with the coordination of action, which did not bring subgroups into existence in Sweden. Even in Finland there were several actors that may be considered cross‐coalition brokers, but the method used (the factions algorithm) struggled to find these actors (however, see Ylä‐Anttila et al, 2020 for a way to do this). The same data have also been analyzed using exponential random graph models to identify which factors explain the coordination of action (Gronow et al, 2020).…”