All Policies Are Glocal: International Environmental Policy Making with Strategic Subnational Governments

Abstract

National governments have intensified their attempts to create international institutions in various policy fields such as the environment, finance and trade. At the same time, many subnational policy makers have begun to duplicate international efforts by setting their own, stricter policies while others remain inactive or enact more lax regulation. This 'glocalization' of policy creates a complex and potentially costly patchwork system of regulations. To shed light on this phenomenon, this article analyzes the interaction between subnational and national governments within a game-theoretic model of international treaty negotiations. The glocalization of regulatory policy can be understood as an attempt by subnational policy makers to strategically constrain or empower national governments in international negotiations. The study finds that the shadow of international treaty formation gives rise to within-country and crosscountry policy balancing dynamics that may explain some of the subnational policy polarization that is currently observable in many countries. The article specifies the conditions under which these dynamics occur, spells out empirically testable hypotheses and identifies possible theoretical extensions.

Governing Complexity: Recent Developments in Environmental Politics and Policy

“…Any international agreements must be carried out by national governments, and especially in the case of laggard states, subnational governments will continue to serve as venues for advancing climate goals (Bomberg, ; Harrison, ; Rabe & Borick, ). Bechtel and Urpelainen () claim that local climate policies serve as a way to pressure the international community to act on climate change, while others see subnational policies as an alternative to international agreements (Geist & Howlett, ; Krause, ) or national policies (Owens & Zimmerman, ). Regardless, some subnational governments are moving forward with climate policies even in the absence of significant national or international action.…”

The Federated Entities in Environmental Treaties (FEET) Dataset: Questioning Conventional Wisdom on Green Paradiplomacy

“…Considering these observations, one might expect climate change to have encouraged federated entities to take part in more IEAs. In line with this expectation, most studies that examine federated entities in global environmental governance focus on climate negotiations (Chaloux et al, 2015;Di Gregorio et al, 2019;Bechtel and Urpelainen, 2014;Hale et al, 2021;Chan et al, 2021;Hsu et al, 2019).…”

Ten years after Copenhagen: Reimagining climate change governance in urban areas

“…This body of work also led to an increasing understanding of the dynamic interrelationship between global and local policymaking, and the possibilities of mutual adjustment, complementarily, and cross‐scale fertilization of initiatives (Andonova, Hale, & Roger, 2017 ; Bechtel & Urpelainen, 2015 ). Betsill and Bulkeley ( 2004 ) observed that learning takes place through discursive struggles and that resources supplied by networks primarily include norm generation.…”