Symbolic Meta-Policy: (Not) Tackling Climate Change in the Transport Sector

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand how the UK government's headline climate change targets are translated into action at the local level in the transport sector drawing on the findings of research in two English regions. In doing so, these headline targets are identified as a symbolic meta‐policy that results in little action on the ground and which challenges established conceptions of policy implementation. Both the ‘meta’ and ‘symbolic’ aspects of the policy offer part of the explanation for the lack of substantive action on the ground. As a meta‐policy, the headline targets across government require the elaboration of other policies at other levels such as targets for government departments and local authorities, but these are largely absent, leaving the meta‐policy without teeth. Over time, these headline targets have developed into a symbolic policy, serving political goals but having little practical effectiveness.

Low-Carbon Transport Policy in Four ASEAN Countries: Developments in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam

“…In addition, we consider as objectives the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015 [31]. These include country-wide emission reduction targets and thereby can be seen as "meta-policy" objectives [19] that are relevant to the transport sector. The settings are the quantified targets related to those objectives.…”

“…In their analysis of transport policy change in the United Kingdom, Marsden et al [18] observe changes in calibrations and the types of instruments being deployed to respond to the need to address climate change, however paradigmatic change has not taken place. Bache et al [19] argue that climate change mitigation policy can be seen as a meta-policy in relation to transport policy. They found the impact of climate change objective on transport policy "symbolic" for the UK, in other words, having a minor impact on the ground.…”

Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making

“…Many interacting factors shape policy outcomes, including actors' rhetorical positioning (Kurz et al, 2010), as well as institutional factors such as organisational capacity, administrative fragmentation and principal-agent problems (Dimitrakopoulos, 2001;Bache et al, 2014). Yet, political elements are also crucial to consider.…”

“…Another relevant feature of climate change policy is that enabling primary legislation may be general or ambiguous in nature, with specific policy details often elaborated and resolved by administrative bodies at the implementation stage (Bache et al, 2014). An important consequence of these arrangements is that the true costs of climate change legislation for target groups may only become apparent later-on.…”

“…However, less well understood is what happens after the initial legislative act, including the factors shaping the subsequent enactment of domestic climate policy. This is important in light of growing evidence suggesting that many climate mitigation policies have failed to live up to their original ambitions, as decision-makers have sought to water-down commitments in practice (Carter and Clements, 2015;Bache et al, 2014). This paper aims to investigate the role of knowledge controversy in delaying, diluting and justifying inaction on climate policy implementation.…”