Climate change policy networks: Why and how to compare them across countries

Ylä‐Anttila, Tuomas; Gronow, Antti; Stoddart, Mark C. J.; Broadbent, Jeffrey; Schneider, Volker; Tindall, David B.

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.020

Cited by 59 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Are differences a consequence of data-gathering techniques or an indication that different theoretical mechanisms guide the development of policy debates or policy formulation? To date, only a few comparative network studies exist (exceptions include Metz, 2017;Ylä-Anttila et al, 2018) to which we could compare our results in order to address this question. Ingold et al (2020) follow a slightly different goal in their comparison of data on policy preferences that were gathered using surveys and coded consultations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants

Schaub

Metz

2020

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand how actors make collective policy decisions, scholars use policy and discourse network approaches to analyze interdependencies among actors. While policy networks often build on survey data, discourse networks typically use media data to capture the beliefs or policy preferences shared by actors. One of the reasons for the variety of data sources is that discourse data can be more accessible to researchers than survey data (or vice versa). In order to make an informed decision on valid data sources, researchers need to understand how differences in data sources may affect results. As this remains largely unexplored, we analyze the differences and similarities between policy and discourse networks. We systematically compare policy networks with discourse networks in respect of the types of actors participating in them, the policy proposals actors advocate and their coalition structures. For the policy field of micropollutants in surface waters in Germany, we observe only small differences between the results obtained using the policy and discourse network approaches. We find that the discourse network approach particularly emphasizes certain actor types, i.e., expanders who seek to change the policy status quo. The policy network approach particularly reflects electoral interests, since preferences for policies targeting voters are less visible. Finally, different observation periods reveal some smaller differences in the coalition structures within the discourse network. Beyond these small differences, both approaches come to largely congruent results with regards to actor types, policy preferences and coalition structures. In our case, the use of discourse and policy network approaches lead to similar conclusions regarding the study of policy processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants

Schaub

Metz

2020

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We excluded statements made by journalists and individuals as we focused on organizations. Organizations are the principle actors in policymaking and, as such, are what policy network research most often focuses on (Ylä-Anttila et al, 2018a). We made a purposive exception to this rule in the case of individual Inuit news sources.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Actors and justifications in media debates on Arctic climate change in Finland and Canada: A network approach

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine the centrality of policy actors and moral justifications in media debates on Arctic climate change in Finland and Canada from 2011–2015. We take a network approach on the media debates by analysing relations between the actors and justifications, using discourse network analysis on a dataset of 745 statements from four newspapers. We find that in both countries, governments and universities are the most central actors, whereas business actors are the least central. Justifications that value environmental sustainability and scientific knowledge are most central and used across actor types. However, ecological justifications are sometimes in conflict with market justifications. Government actors emphasize new economic possibilities in the Arctic whereas environmental organizations demand greater protection of the vulnerable Arctic. Ecological justifications and justifications that value international cooperation are more central in the Finnish debate, whereas justifications valuing sustainability and science, as well as those valuing national sovereignty, are more central in the Canadian debate. We conclude that in addition to the centrality of specific policy actors in media debates, the use of different types of moral justifications also reflects political power in the media sphere.

show abstract

“…Dunn (2005) also reports that BP and Shell in the EU were more open to action on the issue than were their US counterparts. Falkner (2008) refers to the same difference between oil firms in the EU and the US, and Ylä-Anttila et al (2018) identify the role of the fossil-fuel industry as a factor explaining differences in climate policy. This industry in Canada has certainly sought to block effective climate policy, mounting an intense, ISSN 2562-8429 although unsuccessful, lobby to stop the Chretien government from ratifying Kyoto in 2002 (Macdonald 2007) and then successfully lobbying for the deregulatory actions of the Harper government in 2012 (Macdonald 2020).…”

Section: Current Explanations For the Different Emission Trajectories In The Eu And Canadamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rising Subnational Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Challenge to Meeting Federal Climate Policy

MacDonald

Bidordinova

Khachatryan

2021

CJERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy makers in federated countries and the EU seeking to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions face a challenge when emissions are rising in some subnational jurisdictions. The magnitude of that challenge is influenced by the portion of total emissions represented by those jurisdictions, the rate of change in that portion, and the political power of those jurisdictions. This phenomenon is examined by a comparison of the role of rising-emission jurisdictions in the EU and Canada. We define a “rising-emission jurisdiction” as one in which emissions were higher in 2018 than in 1990, regardless of how its emissions may have risen or fallen between those dates. Those findings show that the role of rising-emission jurisdictions must be added to the factors identified in the literature explaining why between 1990 and 2018 EU emissions have declined by 25% while Canadian emissions have increased by 21%. To better understand this phenomenon and to help policy makers cope with it, more research is needed on its influence in other federated countries.

show abstract

Climate change policy networks: Why and how to compare them across countries

Cited by 59 publications

References 30 publications

Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants

Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants

Actors and justifications in media debates on Arctic climate change in Finland and Canada: A network approach

Rising Subnational Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Challenge to Meeting Federal Climate Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About