Search

This report from the SNS Democracy Council provides a thorough assessment of whether the current system of global governance is fit for purpose. Do current international organizations hold the power required to develop, implement, and enforce global policies? Do these institutions wield this power with sufficient effectiveness to reduce transboundary problems? And do they possess legitimacy as governing bodies in the eyes of citizens and elites? This report explores these themes in a comparative perspective, mapping and analyzing patterns across a broad range of international organizations in areas such as development, finance, health, human rights, security, and trade. As an illustration, the report also offers an in-depth analysis of power, effectiveness, and legitimacy in respect of global climate governance.

This chapter advances a theoretical framework for studying how, why, and with what impact on audiences, global governance institutions (GGIs) are legitimated and delegitimated. The first component of the framework concerns the distinction between agents and objects. An agent enacts practices of (de)legitimation, whereas an object of (de)legitimation is what is being (de)legitimated, namely the GGI or specific policies. The second component is an agent-structure approach enabling the study of (de)legitimation processes within broader institutional and structural contexts. In this regard, the chapter identifies institutional set-up, policy field, and social structure as particularly relevant factors to account for variation in (de)legitimation across GGIs. The third component of the framework consists of practices, justifications, and audiences of (de)legitimation. Legitimation practices are what different agents engage in when they legitimate or delegitimate GGIs. Justifications are the substantive normative content these agents draw on when engaging in such practices. Audiences are the actors on the receiving end of these processes. The chapter develops overall theoretical expectations related to variation in practices, justifications, and audiences of (de)legitimation across GGIs.

The concluding chapter first summarizes some of the volume’s main results along the four evaluative themes. In terms of coherence and management, the three policy fields under scrutiny – renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing – are roughly marked by coordination, rather than competition or outright harmony. Regarding legitimacy, the specializations and work backgrounds of stakeholders lead to considerable variations in their perceptions of institutions. For effectiveness, institutional complexity plays both a supportive and a hindering role across all three cases. Following the summary, a series of policy recommendations is developed, including: improving awareness of each other’s activities to avoid duplication of efforts and conflicting messages; aligning interpretations of central concepts, i.e. what constitutes renewable sources of energy, fossil fuel subsidies and carbon pricing; building stronger connections to counterparts in other areas of the climate-energy nexus and beyond; and entrusting one institution with an orchestrator role. Finally, the chapter suggests a future research agenda on the governance of the climate-energy nexus, e.g. to learn more about the causes of institutional complexity, to identify conditions for successful management efforts, and to examine further subfields and even other domains outside the climate-energy nexus.

The concluding chapter first summarizes some of the volume’s main results along the four evaluative themes. In terms of coherence and management, the three policy fields under scrutiny – renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing – are roughly marked by coordination, rather than competition or outright harmony. Regarding legitimacy, the specializations and work backgrounds of stakeholders lead to considerable variations in their perceptions of institutions. For effectiveness, institutional complexity plays both a supportive and a hindering role across all three cases. Following the summary, a series of policy recommendations is developed, including: improving awareness of each other’s activities to avoid duplication of efforts and conflicting messages; aligning interpretations of central concepts, i.e. what constitutes renewable sources of energy, fossil fuel subsidies and carbon pricing; building stronger connections to counterparts in other areas of the climate-energy nexus and beyond; and entrusting one institution with an orchestrator role. Finally, the chapter suggests a future research agenda on the governance of the climate-energy nexus, e.g. to learn more about the causes of institutional complexity, to identify conditions for successful management efforts, and to examine further subfields and even other domains outside the climate-energy nexus.

The introduction first explains the rationale and theoretical and empirical contributions of the edited volume. The book seeks to address a considerable gap in knowledge of the nature of the relationship between institutions governing the climate-energy nexus in a multilevel context. In particular, there is scant research on consequences on the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance arrangements and the climate-energy nexus as a whole. For an in-depth analysis of institutional complexity in the nexus, we selected three policy fields as case studies: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. We made this choice since the three cases represent urgent and major components of the climate-energy nexus, since they vary considerably in the number and mix of institutions that govern them at the international level, and since they differ in their positioning within the climate-energy nexus – with carbon pricing primarily a climate change issue, renewable energy lying at the core of energy governance, and fossil fuel subsidy reform falling in between. The chapter concludes with an outline of the ccontributions to the book, structured along the volume’s three parts on mapping (I) coherence and management (II), and legitimacy and effectiveness (III).

This chapter establishes four evaluative themes that will be employed across this volume to analyze the institutional complexity of policy fields in the climate-energy nexus: coherence, management, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Coherence among institutions is conceptualized along four dimensions: convergence on an overarching core norm for the policy field, balanced coverage and distribution of memberships (private, public, hybrid), balanced coverage and distribution of governance functions (standards and commitments, operational activities, information and networking, financing), and mechanisms underlying cross-institutional relations (cognitive, normative, behavioural). Management will be examined according to types of managing agents, political levels (from domestic to global), and the consequences of management efforts in enhancing coherence. Legitimacy will be assessed along nine dimensions, among them expertise, transparency, accountability, or procedural and distributive fairness. Effectiveness, finally, will be examined in terms of normative and legal output produced by the institutions, their behaviour-changing outcome, and their ultimate problem-solving impact. Altogether, the four themes and their dimensions make up a novel framework for an in-depth analysis of a governance nexus. They help us examine a variety of important questions in a comparative research design, combining a high level of ambition with feasibility and novelty.

This chapter establishes four evaluative themes that will be employed across this volume to analyze the institutional complexity of policy fields in the climate-energy nexus: coherence, management, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Coherence among institutions is conceptualized along four dimensions: convergence on an overarching core norm for the policy field, balanced coverage and distribution of memberships (private, public, hybrid), balanced coverage and distribution of governance functions (standards and commitments, operational activities, information and networking, financing), and mechanisms underlying cross-institutional relations (cognitive, normative, behavioural). Management will be examined according to types of managing agents, political levels (from domestic to global), and the consequences of management efforts in enhancing coherence. Legitimacy will be assessed along nine dimensions, among them expertise, transparency, accountability, or procedural and distributive fairness. Effectiveness, finally, will be examined in terms of normative and legal output produced by the institutions, their behaviour-changing outcome, and their ultimate problem-solving impact. Altogether, the four themes and their dimensions make up a novel framework for an in-depth analysis of a governance nexus. They help us examine a variety of important questions in a comparative research design, combining a high level of ambition with feasibility and novelty.

This study compares the CH4 fluxes from two arctic wetland sites of different annual temperatures during 2004 to 2006. The PEATLAND-VU model was used to simulate the emissions. The CH4 module of PEATLAND-VU is based on the Walter-Heimann model. The first site is located in northeast Siberia, Indigirka lowlands, Kytalyk reserve (70° N, 147° E) in a continuous permafrost region with mean annual temperatures of −14.3°C. The other site is Stordalen mire in the eastern part of Lake Torneträsk (68° N, 19° E) ten kilometres east of Abisko, northern Sweden. It is located in a discontinuous permafrost region. Stordalen has a sub arctic climate with a mean annual temperature of −0.7°C. Model input consisted of observed temperature, precipitation and snow cover data. In all cases, modelled CH4 emissions show a direct correlation between variations in water table and soil temperature variations. The differences in CH4 emissions between the two sites are caused by different climate, hydrology, soil physical properties, vegetation type and NPP. For Kytalyk the simulated CH4 fluxes show similar trends during the growing season, having average values for 2004 to 2006 between 1.29–2.09 mg CH4 m−2 hr−1. At Stordalen the simulated fluxes show a slightly lower average value for the same years (3.52 mg CH4 m−2 hr−1) than the observed 4.7 mg CH4 m−2 hr−1. The effect of the longer growing season at Stordalen is simulated correctly. Our study shows that modelling of arctic CH4 fluxes is improved by adding a relatively simple hydrological model that simulates the water table position from generic weather data. Our results support the generalization in literature that CH4 fluxes in northern wetland are regulated more tightly by water table than temperature. Furthermore, parameter uncertainty at site level in wetland CH4 process models is an important factor in large scale modelling of CH4 fluxes.

This study compares the CH4 fluxes from two arctic wetland sites of different annual temperatures during 2004 to 2006. The PEATLAND-VU model was used to simulate the emissions. The CH4 module of PEATLAND-VU is based on the Walter-Heimann model. The first site is located in northeast Siberia, Indigirka lowlands, Kytalyk reserve (70° N, 147° E) in a continuous permafrost region with mean annual temperatures of −14.3°C. The other site is Stordalen mire in the eastern part of Lake Torneträsk (68° N, 19° E) ten kilometres east of Abisko, northern Sweden. It is located in a discontinuous permafrost region. Stordalen has a sub arctic climate with a mean annual temperature of −0.7°C. Model input consisted of observed temperature, precipitation and snow cover data. In all cases, modelled CH4 emissions show a direct correlation between variations in water table and soil temperature variations. The differences in CH4 emissions between the two sites are caused by different climate, hydrology, soil physical properties, vegetation type and NPP. For Kytalyk the simulated CH4 fluxes show similar trends during the growing season, having average values for 2004 to 2006 between 1.29–2.09 mg CH4 m−2 hr−1. At Stordalen the simulated fluxes show a slightly lower average value for the same years (3.52 mg CH4 m−2 hr−1) than the observed 4.7 mg CH4 m−2 hr−1. The effect of the longer growing season at Stordalen is simulated correctly. Our study shows that modelling of arctic CH4 fluxes is improved by adding a relatively simple hydrological model that simulates the water table position from generic weather data. Our results support the generalization in literature that CH4 fluxes in northern wetland are regulated more tightly by water table than temperature. Furthermore, parameter uncertainty at site level in wetland CH4 process models is an important factor in large scale modelling of CH4 fluxes.

Combating climate change and transitioning to fossil-free energy are two central and interdependent challenges facing humanity today. Governing the nexus of these challenges is complex, and includes multiple intergovernmental and transnational institutions. This book analyses the governance interactions between such institutions, and explores their consequences for legitimacy and effectiveness. Using a novel analytical framework, the contributors examine three policy fields: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. These fields are compared in terms of their institutional memberships, governance functions and overarching norms. Bringing together prominent researchers from political science and international relations, the book offers an essential resource for future research and provides policy recommendations for effective and legitimate governance of the climate-energy nexus. Rooted in the most recent research, it is an invaluable reference for researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders in climate change and energy politics. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

This main argument of the chapter is that the explanation of the slow pace of business action requires a socio-cultural theory that transcends the narrow premises of dominant corporate social responsibility (CRS) and business management approaches. I assert that only a critical political economy approach which captures the complex interplay between cultural ideas, power, politics, and economic interests can provide basis for explaining the prospects and limits of corporate climate governance. My argument, which draws from similar existing works (Levy and Egan 2003, Levy and Newell 2005, Okereke et al. 2009) is focused on carbon-intensive multinational companies (MNCs) whose activities are generally considered crucial in shaping societal response to climate change (McKibben 2012).