Selectivities at Work: Climate Concerns in the Midst of Corporatist Interests. The Case of Austria

Abstract

Despite legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and good pre-conditions for progressive climate action, emissions in Austria are on the rise. This article explores the reasons why climate change policy is so ineffective in Austria. We show that the social partnership has contributed significantly to the standstill in renewable energy production and the rejection of more ambitious reduction targets concerning greenhouse gas emissions, and consider the role of experts and expertise in climate change policies. The ineffectiveness of climate policy in Austria is largely due to corporatist actors who often act like an ex-ante filter or selective mechanism for what is politically acceptable or possible and what is not. Climate change is for the most part successfully kept off the political agenda and (climate sceptical) politicization does not take place. Insights from the literature on corporatism are enhanced by the concepts of strategic and epistemic selectivity to analyse not only access to the state terrain but also the domination of specific knowledge forms, problem perceptions, and narratives over others.

Science–policy interactions in Austrian, Dutch, and Swiss climate policy: a comparative account

“…Additionally, regarding its procedural setup, the body has been perceived as setting a standard in climate science-policy interactions. Some countries, including Austria, have partly transferred the IPCC model to the national level by setting up national climate expert panels (Brand & Pawlow, 2014;Halfmann & Schützenme-ister, 2009). However, national science-policy arenas are not restricted to classical assessment processes but are rather characterized by a great diversity of organizational formats (Beck, 2012).…”

Cultural Imprints on Scientific Policy Advice: Climate science–policy interactions within Austrian neo‐corporatism

“…A lasting prevalence of neo-corporatist advisory features would resonate with some scholarly works putting forward the idea that neo-corporatist characteristics, such as the dominance of the social partners, endure in traditional but also in younger policy domains (Brand and Pawlow, 2014;Traxler, 2001). Specifically, we trace patterns of neo-corporatist science-policy interactions in Austrian climate policy.…”

“…Brand and Pawlow, 2014;Karlhofer, 2007;Pregernig, 2005) and primary documents, such as federal laws and political strategy papers (e.g. We examined academic publications on Austrian climate policy, neo-corporatism and science-policy interactions (e.g.…”

“…Austria earned the reputation of an ambitious frontrunner in climate policy for its comparatively early efforts to combat climate change, e.g. Public administration and the social partners have considerable leeway in climate policy (I1, I9, I11, I21, I23; Brand and Pawlow, 2014;Wurzel et al, 2003). Meanwhile, however, it has repeatedly not fulfilled international emission reduction obligations (Umweltbundesamt, 2013).…”

“…Meanwhile, however, it has repeatedly not fulfilled international emission reduction obligations (Umweltbundesamt, 2013). In particular, the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Labor, the Federation of Trade Unions and the Federation of Austrian Industries proactively and successfully engage in climate policy-making (I1, I3, I4, I5; Brand and Pawlow, 2014). Public administration and the social partners have considerable leeway in climate policy (I1, I9, I11, I21, I23; Brand and Pawlow, 2014;Wurzel et al, 2003).…”