Research on global climate change governance is no longer primarily concerned with the international legal regime, state practice and its outcomes, but rather scrutinizes the intricate interactions between the public and the private in governing climate change. This broad trend has also taken center stage within the pages of INEA. Two decades after its establishment, we sketch the main theoretical debates, conceptual innovations and empirical findings on global climate change governance and survey the new generation of climate governance scholarship. In more detail, we sketch how climate governance research has developed into three innovative sub-debates, building on important conceptualizations and critical inquiries of earlier debates. Our aim is not so much to provide an all-encompassing assessment of global climate change governance scholarship in 2022, but rather to illustrate in what important ways current research is different from research in the early phase of INEA, and what we have learned in the process. First, we discuss scholarship on the bottom-up nature of climate governance, developing from earlier ideas on agency beyond the state and the transnationalization of governance arenas. Second, we review contributions that have more systematically engaged with the concept of governance architectures, resulting in a stimulating new academic debate on the characteristics of complex governance systems and the consequences of governance complexity and fragmentation. Third, we note a distinct normative turn in global environmental scholarship in general and global climate governance in particular, associated with question of access, accountability, allocation, fairness, justice and legitimacy. The assessment of each of these debates is centered around questions of effective and legitimate climate governance to counter the climate emergency. Finally, as a way of concluding, we critically reflect on our own scholarly shortcomings and suggest a modest remedy.

The transnational climate change governance (TCCG) landscape, led by sub- and non-state actors including businesses, municipalities, and NGOs, holds legitimate potential for tackling persisting climate injustices, in part by virtue of its polycentric character. However, while in theory polycentric governance systems could serve to correct structural power imbalances, the geography of TCCG remains remarkably uneven. This article explores this puzzle in the context of polycentric governance theory and the allegedly paradoxical relationship between polycentricity and equity. Two interrelated empirical and analytical research questions are addressed: (1) How is TCCG organized geographically along the global North–South divide? And, based on the geography of TCCG, (2) Does its polycentric character contribute toward more equitable governance across the global North and South? Following a large-N analysis of a novel dataset containing 174 governance arrangements and 1196 stakeholders with decision-making powers, I argue that the geography of TCCG is remarkably resistant to change, gravitating unmistakably toward the global North and its existing diplomatic hotspots. I argue that the TCCG system currently in place resembles a system of concentrated polycentricity—a product of an overarching system of rules shared with the international regime that could, in turn, potentially explain the persisting North–South inequities in a still seemingly increasingly polycentric climate.