Business insiders and environmental outsiders? Advocacy strategies in international climate change negotiations

Betzold, Carola

doi:10.1057/iga.2013.9

Cited by 25 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Western democracies (e.g., Switzerland, the United States, Denmark), inside strategies include activities that seek to access policymakers and influence politics directly, such as preparing submissions to the government, participating in government consultations, and sitting on government boards; outside strategies include activities that exert pressure on policymakers from the outside (e.g., mobilizing public opinion and influencing media agenda). Inside strategies are often used by business or private interest groups, and outside strategies are often used by public interest groups (Betzold, 2013; Binderkrantz, 2008; Kollman, 1998). A recent study showed that nonprofit organizations will use both inside and outside strategies to advocate for policy change (Gen & Wright, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s Policy Processes and the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Wei¹,

Weible²

2019

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review of 81 applications of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in China between 2006 and 2017 finds that the ACF's hypotheses about the existence and stability of competing advocacy coalitions in policy subsystems, the occurrence of change across its three‐tiered belief system, and the credence of its four pathways to policy change, which have been developed and mostly tested in Western democratic contexts, can be confirmed in China's authoritarian political system and transitional context. This review also finds some unexpected results, which have implications for studying China's policy processes and for future applications of the ACF. Adopting common vocabulary and theoretical foci, ACF applications have captured some of the complexity and evolving features of policy processes in China. Applications of the ACF to China have also enriched the discussions about how authoritarian governments, through interacting with other policy actors, adapt to external changes in transitional context.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s Policy Processes and the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Wei¹,

Weible²

2019

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Environmental governance scholars have also developed multiple analytical perspectives to account for the complex interrelations between the "multiple sites of climate politics" (Stripple and Bulkeley, 2011, p. 6), including multi-level environmental governance (Wälti, 2010), polycentric governance (Jordan et al, 2018), networked governance (Tosun and Schoenefeld, 2017), or fragmented climate governance (Zelli, 2011). At the same time, the tensions between inside and outside voices in international climate negotiations (Betzold, 2013;Hadden, 2015) are less pronounced. While the Paris Agreement is largely framed as an opportunity for all stakeholders to contribute to global climate action (Hale, 2016), others criticize the text as a form of dangerous incrementalism (Allan, 2019) with a strong belief in technological advancement and eco-modernist reforms.…”

Section: Non-state Actors In Climate Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fridays for Future's Disruptive Potential: An Inconvenient Youth Between Moderate and Radical Ideas

Marquardt

2020

Front. Commun.

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…ENGOs are often also less sensitive to arguments for cost effectiveness, instead prioritizing environmental integrity and criticizing the economic system for failing to internalize the full costs associated with the ecological degradation caused by economic activities (cf. Betzold, 2013).…”

Section: Actor Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Fridahl

2017

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limiting global warming to well below 2°C requires the transformation of the global energy system at a scale unprecedented since the industrial revolution. To meet this 2°C goal, 87% of integrated assessment models opt for using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Without BECCS, the models predict that the goal will be either unachievable or substantially more costly to meet. While the modeling literature is extensive, studies of how key climate policy actors perceive and prioritize BECCS are sparse. This article provides a unique intercontinental mapping of the prioritization of BECCS for the long term transition of the electricity supply sector. Based on survey responses from 711 UN climate change conference delegates, the article reports the low prioritization of BECCS relative to alternative technologies, indicating an urgent need for studies of the socio-political preconditions for large-scale BECCS deployment.

show abstract

Business insiders and environmental outsiders? Advocacy strategies in international climate change negotiations

Cited by 25 publications

References 34 publications

China’s Policy Processes and the Advocacy Coalition Framework

China’s Policy Processes and the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Fridays for Future's Disruptive Potential: An Inconvenient Youth Between Moderate and Radical Ideas

Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About