FINAL CALL


Deadline: May 1, 2019







Call for Contributions



Public Administration Review’s Blog (Bully Pulpit) Symposium:



THE GREEN NEW DEAL: PATHWAYS TO A LOW CARBON ECONOMY





Guest Editors

Nives Dolšak

School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle



Aseem Prakash

Department of Political Science and the Center for Environmental Politics

University of Washington, Seattle





Objective and Rationale


In 2007, Thomas Friedman called for the Green New 
Deal<https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/opinion/19friedman.html?module=inline>. 
In 2010 report prepared for the United Nations Environment Program, Edward 
Barbier outlined a plan for a Global Green New 
Deal<https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/natural-resource-and-environmental-economics/global-green-new-deal-rethinking-economic-recovery?format=PB>.
 But the idea of a Green New Deal captured popular imagination when Rep. 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) formally 
presented the Green New Deal resolution to the US Congress (House Resolution 
109<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text> & 
Senate Resolution 
59<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59>) in 2019. 
Their Green New Deal (GND) proposal outlines an ambitious vision to transform 
America into a low carbon economy alongside addressing equity and justice 
issues. Several 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls have endorsed it fully 
while others have endorsed it in spirit. The GND also has its critics. Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has shrugged it off as a "green dream." Virtually, all 
Republican leaders have opposed it. They have dubbed it as socialist, 
un-American, and so on.



Very few dispute that climate change is real and requires urgent attention. The 
recent IPCC report and the US Federal Climate 
Assessment<https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-federal-climate-assessment-for-us-released>
 paint a grim picture of climate change. Yet, climate policy remains a 
polarizing issue. Moreover, under the Trump Administration, the US has 
withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. It seeks to roll back the Clean Power Plan 
and dilute the fuel economy standards. But even at the global level, climate 
policies are facing a political challenge. Carbon emissions increased in 2018 
and countries continue to invest in coal. Rural France has violently protested 
against a carbon tax.  Political leaders in Australia and Brazil seem to have 
abandoned their countries' Paris pledges.



In the absence of federal leadership on climate policy, US States have emerged 
as climate leaders. But even climate leaders face challenges. California has 
canceled the high-speed rail project linking San Francisco with Los Angles 
citing cost overruns. Washington state voted down citizen initiatives for a 
carbon tax in 2016 and again in 2018. Even Seattle, whose Mayor took the 
leadership role in founding the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, 
is witnessing rising carbon emissions.



Given these policy challenges, this blog symposium will feature short, 
1,000-word commentaries that examine both the successes and failures in the 
transition to a low carbon economy. Given the short time frame for climate 
action, which GND elements should be prioritized for implementation and why?  
Which administrative units ought to take the lead? What sorts of policy 
instruments should be employed? How will it be financed? What is the role of 
firms and nonprofits in the GND rollout? How can non-climate goals get 
incorporated in climate policies?



Given the expansive vision for GND, all policy scholars and practitioners are 
invited to explore how their work and expertise might relate to GND, and more 
broadly to the transition to a low carbon economy. The commentaries could 
address issues such as (but not limited to) the following:



  *   What sort of administrative structures are required to implement GND? To 
what extent is the experience of FDR’s New Deal relevant? Might the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security, a more recent case of administrative 
innovation in response to 9/11, offer a template on how to think (or not think) 
about the administrative challenges in the policy translation of the GND?

  *   Which specific elements of the GND can be implemented in the next 10 
years, in what sequence, and why?


  *   How might the GND at the state and city level look like if the federal 
government supports it? What if it remains uninterested in implementing it? 
What new policies might these subnational units adopt, beyond what they are 
already doing so? How will they fund them given that unlike the federal 
government, they cannot run sustained levels of budget deficits?


  *   Which elements of the GND offer the possibility of bipartisan support? 
Wind energy is often suggested as an issue area where both sides, at least at 
the state level, have a shared interest. Are there other issue areas where such 
common ground might be found?


  *   California has recently canceled its high-speed rail project between San 
Francisco and Los Angeles due to massive cost overruns. Given that the GND 
seeks to create a network of high-speed railways, what lessons can be distilled 
from California’s failure? Several countries have successfully created 
high-speed rail networks. What can America learn from them?


  *   How can the experiences of other counties in phasing out the fossil fuel 
sector and supporting the renewable energy sector inform the GND’s policy 
translation?


  *   How might the GND influence the market and the nonmarket environment for 
firms? What specific industries can be expected to lend their political support 
or oppose it?


  *   The GND talks about a just transition to a low carbon economy. What are 
examples where the concerns of workers and communities in which they reside 
have been addressed in the process of industrial transformation? What roles 
should labor unions play in GND’s policy translation and how would this be 
accomplished?



  *   What roles might nonprofits and advocacy organizations play in the policy 
translation of the GND?



Logistics


We invite submissions (maximum 1,000 words) that examine one or more of these 
issues. These commentaries can summarize existing research or report on new 
research. All commentaries must be written in an accessible style; references, 
tables, and appendices should be provided as links embedded in the text.



In order to assure a timely review, please first email the story pitch to 
<ni...@uw.edu> and <as...@uw.edu>, in the following format:



(1) What is the story/argument? What is the takeaway? (maximum 100 words)



(2) How does this illuminate the theory or practice of public administration? 
(maximum 100 words)



Based on these submissions, the guest editors will invite the selected authors 
to submit their commentaries (1,000 words maximum).




Timeline


Submissions of the pitch: May 1, 2019

Invitation to submit commentaries: May 10, 2019

Submission of the Commentary: June 1, 2019

Guest editors revert with comments: June 15, 2019

Submission of the revised Commentary, June 30, 2019

Online publication: July 1, 2019




About Public Administration Review

Public Administration Review (PAR) is the premier journal in the field of 
public administration research, theory, and practice with an Impact factor of 
4.591. Google Scholar Ranks it as #1in the “Public Policy and Administration 
category.” The 2017 ISI Journal Citation Reports also ranks PAR as the top 
journal in the field of public administration.






________________________________________________


Aseem Prakash<https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/>
Professor, Department of Political Science
Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences
Founding Director, UW Center for Environmental 
Politics<http://depts.washington.edu/envirpol/>
University of Washington, Seattle
https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/





-- 
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 gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to