Introduction: The Politics of Environmental Accountability

Kramarz, Teresa; Park, Susan

doi:10.1111/ropr.12223

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Demands for accountability are often rooted in a liberal democratic tradition that recognizes and ideally extends the rights of individuals, groups and––in the case of global governance––nation‐states to a wide range of protections and entitlements (Biermann et al, ; Grant & Keohane, ; Kramarz & Park, ; Stevenson & Dryzek, ). As Robertson (, pp.…”

Section: Framing the Analysis: Accountability And Responsibility In Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accountability also presupposes that those in power take responsibility for their actions and decisions, particularly when these actions and decisions have negative or harmful effects (Baer, ; Held, ; Kramarz & Park, ; Stevenson & Dryzek, ; Tol & Verheyen, ; Weisbach, ). Procedurally, it entails a formal understanding of what constitutes appropriate behavior, including clear lines of responsibility, reinforced by sanctions, standards, and organizational processes that may be invoked when such norms are violated.…”

Section: Framing the Analysis: Accountability And Responsibility In Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper contributes to the growing field of theoretical and empirical work on the accountability of global environmental governance (e.g., Biermann, ; Biermann et al, ; Keohane & Victor, ; Kramarz & Park, , ; Stevenson & Dryzek, ) by exploring the basis upon which the Loss and Damage Mechanism may be used in holding polluting countries to account for the provisions outlined in the Framework Convention. It starts from the premise that accountability can be usefully understood as a combination of procedural and normative expectations that are used to frame what is deemed appropriate and legitimate in political life (Stevenson & Dryzek, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In exploring the Loss and Damage Mechanism, this paper makes a case for shifting the analytical focus from the sanctions and incentives that are provided by accountability mechanisms to the political means by which accountability mechanisms are used in shaping norms, expectations, and agency in global environmental politics. As Kramarz and Park ( point out in their Introduction to this special issue, considerable attention has been paid to the ends or the “outputs” of accountability mechanisms. Whether accountability “works” and whether it can be replicated in other institutional settings has occupied considerable attention in the global environmental governance field (Biermann, ; Biermann et al, ; Dearing et al, ; Keohane & Victor, ; Schroeder, ; Stevenson & Dryzek, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether accountability “works” and whether it can be replicated in other institutional settings has occupied considerable attention in the global environmental governance field (Biermann, ; Biermann et al, ; Dearing et al, ; Keohane & Victor, ; Schroeder, ; Stevenson & Dryzek, ). Comparatively less has been written about the political roles and functions of accountability, “how accountability is deployed as a means to specific ends, and what purposes accountability serves” (Kramarz & Park, , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Holding Polluting Countries to Account for Climate Change: Is “Loss and Damage” Up to the Task?

Johnson

2016

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formally established by the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2013, the Loss and Damage Mechanism represents what is for many an important effort on the part of developing countries (including China and the G77) to hold polluting countries to account for past and potential harms incurred as a result of climate change. This paper explores the viability of using the Mechanism as a means of holding polluting countries to account for the provisions outlined in the Framework Convention. In reviewing the history and recent policy within the UNFCCC, the paper makes the case that demands for greater accountability through the Loss and Damage Mechanism have been frustrated by a lack of consensus about the rights of poor countries to pursue carbon-intensive development pathways, the obligations of current and future generations to the actions and decisions of their forebears, and the obligations of national governments to their own citizens and the UNFCCC. Instead of assigning responsibility for past and future losses and damages, the Mechanism has gravitated toward a more technocratic/bureaucratic exercise aimed at collecting data, enhancing knowledge, and making policy recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Framing the Analysis: Accountability And Responsibility In Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Framing the Analysis: Accountability And Responsibility In Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Holding Polluting Countries to Account for Climate Change: Is “Loss and Damage” Up to the Task?

Johnson

2016

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accountability in the Anthropocene: Activating responsible agents of reform or futile finger‐pointing?

Macdonald

2023

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confronted by intersecting ecological and social crises associated with the rise of the Anthropocene, architects of global environmental governance have often attempted to harness accountability claims to single out the individual or organisational actors contributing most significantly to these crises and pressure them to uphold responsibilities to society and the planet. Yet critics have cautioned against excessive reliance on individualised accountabilities as means of tackling planetary crises, given the constrained ability of such approaches to lead the large‐scale transformations required to redirect anthropogenic drivers of global environmental change. This article adapts agent‐centered approaches to accountability to address such critiques. It is first argued that agent‐centered accountability is an important element in broader efforts to support systemic change, helping to identify responsible powerholders, redefine normative standards of responsibility and empower advocates of strengthened global environmental governance to demand compliance with expanded responsibilities. However to take seriously the distinctive demands of large‐scale institutional change, such approaches need to be: (a) differentiated in ways that account for the contrasting roles of different individual and organisational actors within de‐centred accountability systems; (b) materially extended in ways that enable agents to be held more effectively to account for their contributions to collective social and political processes; and (c) discursively challenged in ways that resist discursive efforts to present individualised accountabilities as substitutes for more radical and large‐scale institutional interventions. The article's argument is elaborated and illustrated through exploration of problems and practices of accountability associated with the contested governance of global production systems.

show abstract

Historicising Accountability: Berlin’s Energy Transitions

Moss

2019

Enabling Sustainable Energy Transitions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter explores accountability and energy transitions through the lens of historical analysis. It reinterprets empirical research on the history of Berlin's energy systems to illustrate how accountability and legitimacy are political constructs of a particular time and place. Three periods of reconfiguration to urban electricity and gas networks, chosen from across Berlin's turbulent past century, illustrate this diversity. The chapter outlines each selected case and its pertinence to energy accountability. It then describes what crisis of accountability was prevalent in each instance and its treatment in the literature. The practices of legitimation enrolled to justify energy strategies are subsequently highlighted, as are forms of resistance and attempts to delegitimise the dominant discourse. The conclusion summarises the implications of historicising accountability for energy transitions research.

show abstract

Introduction: The Politics of Environmental Accountability

Cited by 18 publications

References 13 publications

Holding Polluting Countries to Account for Climate Change: Is “Loss and Damage” Up to the Task?

Holding Polluting Countries to Account for Climate Change: Is “Loss and Damage” Up to the Task?

Accountability in the Anthropocene: Activating responsible agents of reform or futile finger‐pointing?

Historicising Accountability: Berlin’s Energy Transitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About