Distinguishing policy surveillance from policy tracking: transnational municipal networks in climate and energy governanceThe challenges related to climate change and energy issues have induced a growing number of actors to participate in governance arrangements of information-sharing and mutual policy-learning. In recent years the increasing availability of data on policy outputs and outcomes has enabled researchers to observe variation in these governance arrangements of transnational municipal climate networks (TMCNs).To capture this variation, we rely on two ideal types of policy information systems: policy tracking (PT) and policy surveillance (PS). Focusing on two TMCNs active in energy governance, our qualitative analysis attests the existence of these two modes of monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. The Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy exemplifies how PS schemes can standardize scoring methodology and facilitate policy compliance and enforcement. In contrast, Energy Cities fits the typology of a PT system that aims to showcase local initiatives and mutual learning.

A growing number of cities in different world regions are forming transnational networks in order to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In this study, we are interested in the nexus between climate change and urban water management. How do transnational city networks for climate action perceive urban water management? What kind of activities do they adopt for improving urban water management? How effective are these in practice? This study maps 17 transnational city networks that primarily work on climate governance, assesses whether they formally embrace urban water management as a field of activity, and analyzes the extent to which they influence local climate action regarding water-related issues. Our descriptive analysis reveals that the great majority of transnational city networks has embraced goals related to urban water management, mostly framed from the perspective of adaptation to climate change. However, our in-depth analysis of two frontrunner cities in Germany shows that membership in ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) has only limited influence on the initiation and implementation of water-related policy measures.

This study offers insights into the institutional arrangements established to coordinate policies aiming at the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Drawing on the literature on policy design, we highlight institutional arrangements as elements of policy design spaces and contend that they fall into four categories that either stress the political or problem orientation of this activity: optimal, technical, political, and sub-optimal. We use original data on 44 major economies and greenhouse gas-emitting countries to test this expectation. These data capture various properties of national coordination arrangements, including the types of coordination instruments in place, the degree of hierarchy, the lead government agency responsible for coordination, and the scope of cross-sectoral policy coordination. The dataset also captures the degree to which non-state actors are involved in coordination and whether coordination processes are supported by scientific knowledge. Using cluster analysis, we show that the institutional arrangements for the horizontal coordination of climate policy do indeed fall into the four above-mentioned categories. The cluster analysis further reveals that a fifth, hybrid category exists. Interestingly, the political orientation dominates in the institutional arrangements for the horizontal coordination of climate change mitigation, whereas the problem orientation is more important in the arrangements for the horizontal coordination of climate change adaptation.

No abstract