A public thanks to you, Ron, for such a comprehensive summary of the responses!!
Cheers, Michael Maniates Professor of Social Sciences (Env. Studies) Yale-NUS Singapore On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Ronald Mitchell <[email protected]>wrote: > All – once again the GEPED list impresses me with the speed and quality of > response. So, as promised, here is my question and the responses. Ron*** > * > Question: **** > > “I am trying to advise a student working on why a country might be > reluctant in assuming international climate obligations even while it's > subnational units (provinces/states, cities) are taking action on climate > change. For example, the US going slow within the FCCC but California, the > RGGI, etc. domestically. Any suggested of literature that would point in > the direction of good theorizing on the factors that might explain such > variation would be appreciated.”**** > > ** ** > Responses:**** > > Sander Happaerts [email protected]: With regard to the part of > the research question that is about the subnational units, our edited > volume on sustainable development and subnational > governments<http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=536034>might be > interesting for some case studies. In the introduction, we also > build a theoretical framework to explain similarities and differences among > policies. My own PhD further elaborated that framework (the explanatory > factors and their interrelations), if you’re student is interested.**** > > ** ** > > Kathryn Hochstetler [email protected]: Eduardo Viola and I have a > piece where we try to explain why many of the big emitters have this > profile - more domestic action than international commitment, focusing on > the theoretical question of why they don't treat it like a global commons > problem. It's focused on the emerging powers and especially Brazil, but > s/he might find it useful. I'd send it, but I'm in South Africa with very > expensive internet service, so here's the cite: **** > > **· **Kathryn Hochstetler and Eduardo Viola. Brazil and the > Politics of Climate Change: Beyond the Global Commons. *Environmental > Politics* 21(5): 753-771. **** > > ** ** > > Raul Pacheco-Vega [email protected]: By and large, my adoptive > country (Canada) is the perfect example. Many cities in Canada are adopting > climate-change actions, but the overall country, as we know, has done very > little and even if I recall correctly, even backed off of their > commitments. With regards to the domestic and sub-national politics of > climate change in Canada, I seem to remember one of Kathy Harrison's PhD > students (Beth Schwartz, UBC) is doing some stuff on that topic, > specifically if I recall correctly focusing on Vancouver and Toronto. I can > forward your request to Kathy and/or Beth. Chris Gore at Ryerson University > has also done stuff on Canadian cities and climate change and I'm sure he > could also be of help. I'm happy to make connections by email. **** > > ** ** > > Lorraine MacIntosh [email protected]: I'm another PhD > candidate where this forms a part of my study. Like Canada, Australia and > New Zealand are both good examples of limited international action for > various reasons. The reference I've copied here is pretty scathing about > NZ's international efforts. The reasons are laid out quite clearly being > both economic and political. **** > > **· **Kelly, G, Climate Change Policy: Actions and Barriers in > New Zealand, International Journal of Climate Change Impacts and Responses, > 2(1), 2010, 277-290. Copyright the author, Common Ground - > www.Climate-Journal.com. **** > > ** ** > > Manjana Milkoreit [email protected]: This is an interesting reframing of > the previous debate - why do sub-national actors start engaging while > countries have been reluctant to do so, esp. given that the climate-related > benefits of small-scale mitigation are minimal and the costs probably high. > I think this easier to approach from this angle: based on the perceived > interests of developed states they have resisted action so far (i.e., costs > are high, benefits are low). It took sub-state actors about a decade to > realize that the national government would not actin the short-term and > they started dealing with the problem because they respond to different > political pressures locally, or because their perceptions of the national > interest is different. However, another explanation can be offered for the > emerging countries. For them domestic action makes sense regardless of a > global agreement. Hochstetler and Viola (attached) have published a very > good piece on that issue.**** > > ** ** > > Dana R Fisher [email protected]: You may find this attached paper that I > wrote on the relationship between the federal and subnational climate > policies in the US useful. It proposes the notion of boomerang federalism > and discusses the relationship in detail. It is forthcoming in environment > and planning c and should be out by the end of the year in print. **** > > **· **Dana R Fisher. Forthcoming. Understanding the Relationship > Between Sub-National and National Climate Change Politics in the United > States: Toward a Theory of Boomerang Federalism. *Environment & Planning > C, Government and Policy* **** > > ** ** > > Cass, Loren [email protected]: I did not directly address the > relationship between subnational climate politics and the national climate > politics, but I did explore the role of foreign policy signalling or > "symbolic politics" both generally and in the cases of Canada and Australia > in shaping their climate policies in the articles below. I'm not sure that > this is what you are seeking, but here are the citations: **** > > **· **Loren R. Cass, "A Climate of Obstinacy: Symbolic Politics > in Australian and Canadian Policy," Cambridge Review of International > Affairs 21.4 (December 2008), 465-482. **** > > **· **Loren R. Cass, "The Symbolism of Environmental Foreign > Policy: Foreign Policy Commitments as Signaling Tools" in Paul Harris, ed. > Environmental Change and Foreign Policy (Routledge, 2009), 41-56.**** > > ** ** > > Detlef Sprinz [email protected]: **** > > **· **URPELAINEN, J. 2009. Explaining the Schwarzenegger > Phenomenon: Local Frontrunners in Climate Policy. Global Environmental > Politics, 9, 82-105. AND subsequent work. > > **** > > Steffen Bauer [email protected] and Fariborz Zelli > [email protected]: the fragmentation literature should provide a > useful conceptual approach in this regard and, for that matter, I think > Fariborz Zelli's 2011 review piece in the Wiley Interdisciplinary series > will be a good vantage point for your student. One of the arguments refers > to a particular type of instrumental multilateralism: powerful countries > that do not see their interests aptly represented by an incumbent > institution tend to establish or support alternative institutions. This > could explain why the US (under Bush jr) was so busy establishing the APP > and other partnerships while not exactly supporting UNFCCC negotiations. In > a few weeks, **** > > **· **our special GEP issue on fragmentation will come out, which > also includes a piece on this issue (by Sylvia Karlsson and Jeffrey McGee). > **** > > **· **Harro has also co-edited a special issue with Sylvia on the > APP in 'International Environmental Agreements'. **** > > **· **Fariborz Zelli. 2011. The fragmentation of the global > climate governance architecture. WIREs Climate Change. Vol. 2 (March). ** > ** > > **· **Fariborz Zelli and Harro Van Asselt. 2013. Theorizing > Institutional Complexity: Sketching the Potential of International > Relations Theories. Paper presented at 2013 ISA Conference. **** > > ** ** > > VanDeveer, Stacy [email protected]: Have the student check out my > work in the CHANGING CLIMATES IN NORTH AMERICAN POLITICS edited volume, and > my chapter (also with Henrik Selin) on comparative environmental federalism > in my edited volume, COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS. In general, I > think comparative federalism will help the student look at institutional > influences at the domestic level in various countries… and how these > structure which types of actors and interests are more/less powerful at > different levels of government.**** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "gep-ed" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
