Governing Climate Change Polycentrically

Jordan, Andrew; Huitema, D.; Schoenefeld, Jonas J.; Asselt, Harro van; Forster, Johanna

doi:10.1017/9781108284646.002

Cited by 106 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 595 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Not surprisingly, there are various attempts to conceptualize non-state action and operationalize their different roles (Nasiritousi, 2016;Nasiritousi et al, 2016) or influence (Betsill and Corell, 2014;Betsill, 2015). Environmental governance scholars have also developed multiple analytical perspectives to account for the complex interrelations between the "multiple sites of climate politics" (Stripple and Bulkeley, 2011, p. 6), including multi-level environmental governance (Wälti, 2010), polycentric governance (Jordan et al, 2018), networked governance (Tosun and Schoenefeld, 2017), or fragmented climate governance (Zelli, 2011). At the same time, the tensions between inside and outside voices in international climate negotiations (Betzold, 2013;Hadden, 2015) are less pronounced.…”

Section: Non-state Actors In Climate Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fridays for Future's Disruptive Potential: An Inconvenient Youth Between Moderate and Radical Ideas

Marquardt

2020

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Non-state Actors In Climate Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fridays for Future's Disruptive Potential: An Inconvenient Youth Between Moderate and Radical Ideas

Marquardt

2020

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, in an experimental governance framework, local peer jurisdictions share information and take corrective measures to better meet centrally defined goals, which themselves are provisional and updated over time based on review of experience on-the-ground (Overdevest & Zeitlin, 2014;Sabel & Zeitlin, 2012). Such review is a critical element of the experimental governance process (Jordan, Huitema, Schoenefeld, Van Asselt, & Forster, 2018). Through this process, experimental governance initiatives can diffuse both horizontally across peer jurisdictions and vertically to other levels of governance (Hildén et al, 2017).…”

Section: Theoretical Foundations For Legitimate Governance Of Srm Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors

Jinnah

Nicholson

Flegal³

2018

Ethics, Policy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two recently proposed solar radiation management (SRM) experiments in the United States have highlighted the need for governance mechanisms to guide SRM research. This paper draws on the literatures on legitimacy in global governance, responsible innovation, and experimental governance to argue that public engagement is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for any legitimate SRM governance regime. We then build on the orchestration literature to argue that, in the absence of federal leadership, U.S. states, such as California, New York, and other existing leaders in climate governance more broadly have an important role to play in the near-term development of SRM research governance. Specifically, we propose that one or more U.S. states should establish a new interdisciplinary advisory commission to oversee and review the governance of SRM research in their states. Centrally, we propose that state-level advisory commissions on SRM research could help build legitimacy in SRM research decisions through the inclusion of, at minimum: meaningful public engagement early in the research design process; an iterative and reflexive mechanism for learning and improving both participatory governance mechanisms and broader SRM governance goals over time; as well as mechanisms for adaptation and diffusion of governance mechanisms across jurisdictions and scales.

show abstract

“…In this perspective, governance is seen as experimental, dynamic, and evolutionary, with the potential of local initiatives influencing the governance system through various processes of scaling. In addition, the perspective acknowledges the scalar complexity in many areas of governance and associated overlaps in jurisdiction (Jordan et al, ; Skelcher, ). Building energy use, which is the policy area addressed in this article, is one example of a policy area with such scalar complexity, relating to issues such as greenhouse gas mitigation, resource scarcity, energy poverty, health, and infrastructure development (International Energy Agency, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This framing has, however, been criticised for being top–down oriented (see, e.g., Fairbrass, Jordan, & Flinders, ). Polycentric perspectives on governance (Jordan, Huitema, Schoenefeld, van Asselt, & Forster, ; E. Ostrom, ; V. Ostrom, Tiebout, & Warren, ; Skelcher, ) and, as part of this, governance experiments (Castán Broto & Bulkeley, ; Hoffmann, ), provide less hierarchical analytical lenses. A polycentric governance system is defined as one in which “political authority is dispersed to separately constituted bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship to each other” (Skelcher, , p. 89).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to polycentricity? Institutional layering and policy feedbacks of building energy performance requirements in Sweden

Smedby

2019

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local governments have come to play an increasingly active role in addressing current environmental challenges. In addition to improving the environmental performance of a specific city, such initiatives can potentially spur policy change at other levels of government and thereby contribute to the addressing of global environmental challenges. This type of interplay between local and higher levels of government has been insufficiently addressed by environmental governance research. This study addresses this research gap by looking at the case of regulatory energy performance requirements on buildings in Sweden. Through a case study methodology, the research turns to policy documents and interviews. The research shows how local energy performance requirements on buildings provided tensions that impeded their own longevity but contributed to raising ambitions in national regulation. The research contributes to work on polycentric governance by accounting for the existence of hierarchies through the use of concepts from historical institutionalism. In this regard, the study suggests that governance initiatives are prone to institutional layering that, through policy feedback processes, conditions their impact in terms of reaching overarching policy goals. The research is important as it adds empirical substance to the discussion on the potential and limits of local governments in addressing current environmental challenges.

show abstract

Governing Climate Change Polycentrically

Cited by 106 publications

References 595 publications

Fridays for Future's Disruptive Potential: An Inconvenient Youth Between Moderate and Radical Ideas

Fridays for Future's Disruptive Potential: An Inconvenient Youth Between Moderate and Radical Ideas

Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors

Limits to polycentricity? Institutional layering and policy feedbacks of building energy performance requirements in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About