Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Climate Governance

Zelli, Fariborz

doi:10.1017/9781108284646.020

Cited by 49 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 598 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among scholars of international relations (IR), the proliferation of new modes of governance has intensified debates about the prospects and limits of accountability beyond the state (Grant & Keohane 2005;Bäckstrand 2006;Dingwerth 2007;Black 2008;Hale 2008;Biermann & Gupta 2011;Kramarz & Park 2016;Bäckstrand et al 2018). One important concern is that global governance institutions are too distant and detached from citizens.…”

Section: Accountability and Transparency In Transnational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This shift from state‐centered to polycentric governance has intensified debates about a lack of accountability in global politics (Grant & Keohane ; Bäckstrand ; Buchanan & Keohane ; Black ; Biermann & Gupta ; Kramarz & Park ; Bäckstrand et al ). Of particular concern is the rapidly expanding realm of transnational private governance, with its many actors and diffuse authority structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transparency in transnational governance: The determinants of information disclosure of voluntary sustainability programs

Schleifer

Fiorini

Auld

2019

Regulation & Governance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of "new" transnational governance has intensified debates about a lack of accountability in global politics. Reviewing the mechanisms through which transparency can foster accountability beyond the state, this article explores the determinants of information disclosure in the field of transnational sustainability governance. Examining the institutional design of 113 voluntary sustainability programs, we find a positive correlation between the involvement of public actors and information disclosure. In contrast, the role of civil society is more ambiguous. There is no statistical support for arguments linking nongovernmental organization participation to increased transparency. At the same time, our analysis reveals a robust correlation between civil society-led metagovernance and information disclosure. Moreover, we find that crowding has a negative effect on transparency, whereas normative peer pressures have no influence. At a broader level, the analysis reveals a lack of "deep transparency" among transnational sustainability governors. This limits the scope for transparency-induced accountability in this policy domain.

show abstract

Section: Accountability and Transparency In Transnational Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency in transnational governance: The determinants of information disclosure of voluntary sustainability programs

Schleifer

Fiorini

Auld

2019

Regulation & Governance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of their number and novelty, it has remained difficult-if not impossible-to keep track of new programs, intermediaries, and transnational investment relationships. The scholarship on intermediary actors in climate governance (see, for instance, Bäckstrand, Zelli, & Schleifer, 2018;Chaudhury, 2020;Gordon & Johnson, 2017) suggests the necessity of experts and institutions for the following: (1) To identify 'bankable' climate projects and connect funding sources to local municipalities; (2) to provide knowledge and expertise to municipalities with minimal experience in the types of climate adaptation projects promoted by influential organizations; (3) to assign credit ratings to municipalities and augment the capacity of cities to secure higher credit ratings so as to gain access to pools of funding; and (4) to administer, assess, and create accountability mechanisms for streams of finance.…”

Section: Orchestrating Crisis: Old and New Actors In Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As scholars have suggested, the proliferation of such organizations represents the emergence of a novel, ambiguous, and complex landscape of urban climate governance (Chan, Falkner, Goldberg, & Van Asselt, 2018;Chaudhury, 2020;Gordon & Johnson, 2017). Numerous scholars have created frameworks that attempt to distinguish among different modes of 'climate governance orchestration' and their democratic legitimacy, efficacy, and underlying politics and power structures (see for instance, Abbott, 2017;Bäckstrand et al, 2018;Gordon & Johnson, 2017;Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2020;Kuyper, Linnér, & Schroeder, 2018). Yet each of these studies struggles to portray a clear and comprehensive picture of the architecture of this orchestration, and furthermore, many of these works express concerns about equity, justice, and democratic legitimacy in climate governance.…”

Section: Orchestrating Crisis: Old and New Actors In Urban Climate Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis Capitalism and Climate Finance: The Framing, Monetizing, and Orchestration of Resilience-Amidst-Crisis

Long

2021

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout the development sector there has been a pronounced call for new funding mechanisms to address the climate crisis, and much of this is focused on attracting private sources of capital to fund ‘bankable’ projects in climate-vulnerable cities throughout the world. Enacted amidst a 21st century landscape of interlocking financial, epidemiological, and ecological crises, this call features an urgent narrative of ‘resilience-amidst-crisis’ that promotes large-scale, profitable investments as a form of green growth through debt-financing. The political orchestration and administration of new funding mechanisms (particularly green bonds and sustainable bonds) requires a new form of climate governance focused on the channeling of enormous sums of private capital through an assemblage of intermediaries toward profitable climate projects. This article interrogates this trend in climate finance, revealing that the framing, monetization, and orchestration of climate projects is dependent on a narrative of crisis capitalism deeply rooted in a colonial mindset of exploitation and profit. A key aim of this article is to deconstruct the contemporary dominance of crisis-oriented development and suggest the goal of decolonizing and democratizing the climate finance system.

show abstract

“…Despite a growing interest in applying notions of accountability and legitimacy to polycentric environmental governance (Ostrom 2010;Morrison et al 2017;Bäckstrand, Zelli, & Schleifer, 2018), relationships between democratic practices at different levels of environmental governance remain understudied. Existing evidence although limited and fragmentarysuggests that polycentric governance systems consisting of multiple agents, levels of governance and actors, are more likely to yield more effective environmental outcomes than monocentric or centralised governance (Newig & Fritsch, 2009).…”

Section: The Democracy-environmental Nexus Across Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

Pickering

Bäckstrand

Schlosberg

2020

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts of ecological and environmental democracy seek to reconcile two normative ideals: ensuring environmental sustainability while safeguarding democracy. These ideals are frequently conceived as being in conflict, as democracy is perceived as too slow and cumbersome to deliver the urgent large-scale collective action needed to tackle environmental problems. Theories addressing the democracyenvironment nexus can be situated on a spectrum from theories of ecological democracy that are more critical of existing liberal democratic institutions to theories of environmental democracy that call for reforming rather than radically transforming or dismantling those institutions. This article reviews theoretical and empirical scholarship on the democracy-environment nexus. We find continued theoretical and empirical diversity in the field, as well as vibrant debates on democratising global environmental politics, local material practices, and nonhuman representation. We argue for stronger dialogue between environmental political theory and empirical, policy-oriented research on democracy and sustainability, as well as further exploration of complementarities between ecological and environmental democracy. We identify four main areas of challenge and opportunity for theory and practice: public participation and populism; technocracy and expertise; governance across scales; and ecological rights and limits.

show abstract

Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Climate Governance

Cited by 49 publications

References 598 publications

Transparency in transnational governance: The determinants of information disclosure of voluntary sustainability programs

Transparency in transnational governance: The determinants of information disclosure of voluntary sustainability programs

Crisis Capitalism and Climate Finance: The Framing, Monetizing, and Orchestration of Resilience-Amidst-Crisis

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About