All hands on deck: polycentric governance for climate change insurance

Spreng, Connor P.; Sovacool, Benjamin K.; Spreng, David

doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1777-z

Cited by 32 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The complexity of the actor network has often been characterized using the concept of polycentric governance. In recent years, much of this research has focused on global climate politics and the Paris Agreement, which was signed in 2015 (see particularly Cole 2015;Gillard et al 2017;Jordan et al 2018;Morrison 2017;Oberthür 2016;Ostrom 2012;Spreng, Sovacool, and Spreng 2016). Polycentricity describes a situation in which multiple actors from different parts of a system interact to produce decentralized outcomes (Carlisle and Gruby 2017).…”

Section: Polycentric Governance Discourse Network and Policy Blockagementioning

confidence: 99%

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

Fisher

Leifeld

2019

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper builds on recent research on polycentric governance and the Ecology of Games to understand climate politics in the United States. Complementing previous work from 2005-2009, we map out the ideological networks of political actors engaged in the climate policy network using data from the US Congress as an arena of symbolic interactions. Our analysis identifies polycentric sites of ideological congruence and conflict in the discourse network on climate change. Political actors from different levels and including several actor types formed multiple centers that became bipolarized between the 112th and 114th Session of the US Congress. This process took place in tandem with the increased participation of subnational actors in the polycentric system. By the 114th Session of Congress-during which the 2016 election took place-subnational policy actors, along with a diversity of other actors, contributed to an extremely polarized discussion of one of the central policies in the Obama Administration's Climate Action Plan: the Clean Power Plan. This finding is remarkable as the concept of polycentricity is usually normatively associated with policy innovation, rather than stagnation. Our longitudinal analysis demonstrates, using Discourse Network Analysis, how increased multi-level participation can be associated with policy blockage of progressive climate policies rather than enabling policy innovation.

show abstract

Section: Polycentric Governance Discourse Network and Policy Blockagementioning

confidence: 99%

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

Fisher

Leifeld

2019

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In polycentric governance, high‐level actors, trans‐national commissions, governments, and multilateral organizations usually have some but limited decision‐making power. Decision‐making power in this context refers not only to the ability to legislate and allocate resources, but also to undertake structural adjustment, redesign markets, and regulate externalities . More often than not, states play a dominant role by retaining ultimate control over critical environmental resources such as water and forests.…”

Section: Locating Power and Authority In Polycentric Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals

Morrison

Adger

Brown

et al. 2017

WIREs Climate Change

148

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polycentric governance involves multiple actors at multiple scales beyond the state. The potential of polycentric governance for promoting both climate mitigation and adaptation is well established. Yet, dominant conceptualizations of polycentric governance pay scant attention to how power dynamics affect the structure and the outcomes of climate action. We review emerging evidence on power within polycentric and distributed governance across the climate, forestry, marine, coastal, urban, and water sectors, and relate them to established positions on power within research on federalism, decentralization, international relations, and networked governance. We develop a typology of design, pragmatic, and framing power that focuses on how and in whose interests power is mobilized to achieve outcomes. We propose that the conceptual model helps to explain power dynamics across different sectors and across both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Significant research challenges arising from the analysis include the measurement and monitoring of the outcomes of power asymmetries over time. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e479. doi: 10.1002/wcc.479 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

show abstract

“…Research in this area also maps out how networks of policy elites are engaging in the climate debate (Fisher, Leifeld, et al 2013;Fisher, Waggle, et al 2013;Fisher et al 2018). Similar claims are made in the social science literature on polycentric governance (Cole 2015;Dorsch and Flachsland 2017;Gillard et al 2017;Hsu et al 2017;Ostrom 2014;Spreng and Sovacool 2016), with some focus on global climate politics since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015 (Oberthür 2016;Victor et al 2017). Polycentricity refers to a form of governance with multiple centers of semiautonomous decision making.…”

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 68%

Social Science Perspectives on Drivers of and Responses to Global Climate Change

Jorgenson¹,

Fiske²,

Hubacek³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a review of recent anthropological, archaeological, geographical, and sociological research on anthropogenic drivers of climate change, with a particular focus on drivers of carbon emissions, mitigation and adaptation. The four disciplines emphasize cultural, economic, geographic, historical, political, and social-structural factors to be important drivers of and responses to climate change. Each of these disciplines has unique perspectives and makes noteworthy contributions to our shared understanding of anthropogenic drivers, but they also complement one another and contribute to integrated, multidisciplinary frameworks. The article begins with discussions of research on temporal dimensions of human drivers of carbon emissions, highlighting interactions between long-term and near-term drivers. Next, descriptions of the disciplines' contributions to the understanding of mitigation and adaptation are provided. It concludes with a summary of key lessons offered by the four disciplines as well as suggestions for future research.

show abstract

All hands on deck: polycentric governance for climate change insurance

Cited by 32 publications

References 22 publications

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals

Social Science Perspectives on Drivers of and Responses to Global Climate Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About