Symbolic or Substantive Policy? Measuring the Extent of Local Commitment to Climate Protection

Abstract

Over 1000 US municipalities have formally committed to reduce their local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through participation in one of several climate-protection networks. This has attracted the attention of researchers interested in theories of free riding and local political decision making who question why municipalities become engaged in this global effort. However, whereas joining a climate-protection network or adopting an emissions-reduction goal are relatively low-cost acts, the implementation of such policies entails higher costs. This raises legitimate questions about the extent and type of follow-through made on municipal climate-protection commitments. With this paper I begin to fill in the data gap around municipal climate-protection initiatives and construct an index that quantifies the GHG-reduction policies implemented by local governments. Data informing the index are collected on municipalities in the US state of Indiana and are used to test theories of local political decision making. Findings point to the important role that policy entrepreneurs play in advancing local climate protection as well as to the potential inadequacy of membership in climate-protection organizations as an indicator of increased implementation of GHG-reducing activities.

Presenting a Framework to Analyze Local Climate Policy and Action in Small and Medium-Sized Cities

“…Related to both is commitment by the municipal staff to implement the municipal policy instruments, projects and actions properly. Without commitment these can perhaps be viewed more appropriately as an act of 'symbolic policy' [58]. A local government can have ambitious an ambitious policy and climate action plan, but if its staff is not motivated nor capable to implement it properly results will be disappointing.…”

The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK

“…Symbolic innovations are discussed in the literature as rather straightforward, resulting from a mismatch of different levels of policy (Rogers 2003, Makse and Volden 2011, van der Heiden and Strebel 2012. Symbolic innovations have innovative goals and might even apply new instruments, but they lack innovation and intensity at the level of settings and calibrations (McConnell 2010, Krause 2011, Bauer et al 2012.…”

“…If layered on top of a process of cumulative changes, even insignificant policy innovation might trigger radical changes in the political trajectory towards new policy instruments with new interests and coalitions (Black et al 2005, Pelling and Dill 2010, Shipan and Volden 2012. Second, governmental action or 'cheap talk' might be perceived as innovative, even if actual instruments remain traditional and symbolic (McConnell 2010, Krause 2011, Bauer et al 2012. Without evaluating policy innovations in the context of the broader policy portfolio, i.e.…”

Reciprocity as Deliberative Capacity: Lessons from a Citizen's Deliberation on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms in Australia

“…The opinions of climate change sceptics have been found to impact the course of public debate on climate mitigation strategies (Climate Institute 2010; Leviston and Walker 2010;Nerlich 2010;Oreskes and Conway 2010). The divisive debate poses challenges to effective governance of climate mitigation and adaptation (Few et al, 2007;Amundsen et al 2010;Krause 2011;Pitt 2010;Osberghaus et al 2010;Hobson and Niemeyer, 2011).…”