4.7 Article

The political economy of national climate policy: Architectures of constraint and a typology of countries

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101429

关键词

Political economy; Climate policy; Climate legislation; Institutions; Ideas; Interests

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Research and Education [01LS1610B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the wake of the Paris Agreement, countries have yet to embark on deep decarbonisation pathways. This article explores the reasons for this limited response, taking a comparative political economy lens to identify national constraints that actively hinder climate policy progress. We discuss different metrics of climate policy progress, including emissions trends, climate legislation adoption, policy adoption, policy stringency, and policy outcomes. We then review literatures that explain varying national outcomes along these dimensions. Identified constraints include (but are not limited to) exposure to fossil fuel extraction activities, supply-side coal dependency, a lack of democratic norms, exposure to corruption, a lack of public climate awareness, and low levels of social trust. Correlation and principal component analysis of these variables demonstrates strong co-dependencies, including a North-South divide in institutional quality, trust and climate awareness that limits full participation in climate legislation and the removal of fossil subsidies. Recent trends indicate stability in corruption across the whole sample, and the continued durability of autocratic and extractivist states. We identify common constraints for five distinct country groups using cluster analysis: 'oil & gas states', 'fragile states', 'coal-dependent development', 'fractured democracies' and 'wealthy OECD'. We highlight the need to scrutinise architectures of constraint - combinations of political economic factors that are mutually reinforcing and highly resistant to intervention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据