Suchergebnisse

AbstractAs jurisdictions across the globe step up their efforts to adapt to climate change, it is important to assess progress by taking stock of and comparing adaptation policy. However, scholars and practitioners are struggling to conceptualize and measure adaptation policy. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional framework to measure public adaptation policy output, namely, the Climate Adaptation Policy Index (CAPI). The index combines multiple indicators from two core interdependent dimensions, namely, an institutionalization dimension focusing on strategic plans and administrative capacities for adaptation; and a measures dimension capturing concrete adaptation measures in relevant action areas such as in green and open spaces, transport infrastructure, buildings, public education, and disaster management. Our approach is extensive but feasible and may be adjusted for use in different contexts and policy areas. We probe our approach at the local level using original survey data from a diverse sample of 211 municipalities located in the state of Hessen in central Germany. A factor analysis suggests that the two dimensions constitute a meaningful measurement of municipal adaptation policy output. A cluster analysis identifies five groups of municipalities representing different stages of adaptation policy progress in Hessen. Finally, a regression analysis examines potential determinants of local adaptation policy making such as the size and wealth of municipalities. The results highlight the potential of the CAPI for analyzing both the state and the making of municipal adaptation policy.

ZusammenfassungMachen Parteien für die Klimapolitikgestaltung einen Unterschied? Diese Frage ist nicht nur angesichts des auf nationalen Beiträgen basierenden globalen Klimaregimes relevant, sondern auch, da die Klimapolitik häufig als stärker parteipolitisiert wahrgenommen wird als die Umweltpolitik im Allgemeinen. Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage auf der kommunalen Ebene nach, die bislang in der Forschung zur umweltpolitischen Parteiendifferenzhypothese selten Beachtung findet. Am Beispiel des Bundeslandes Hessen prüfen wir erstens, ob Parteiendifferenzen eine Rolle für den Beitritt der hessischen Städte und Gemeinden zum Klimanetzwerk "Hessen aktiv: Die Klima-Kommunen" spielen. Zweitens prüfen wir, ob die Erstellung der obligatorischen Aktionspläne unter den Mitgliedern des Netzwerks mit Parteiendifferenzen in Zusammenhang steht. Die Untersuchung beruht auf einer Ereignisdatenanalyse der hessischen Städte und Gemeinden über den Zeitraum von 2009 bis 2020. Die Ergebnisse deuten an, dass von Grünen (Ober‑)Bürgermeister*innen regierte Städte und Gemeinden eher den Klima-Kommunen beitreten. Allerdings finden wir keine Hinweise darauf, dass sich die Erstellung der Aktionspläne, und damit ein konkreteres klimapolitisches Engagement, auf die Parteizugehörigkeit der (Ober-)Bürgermeister*innen zurückführen lässt. Allerdings zeigt sich, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Erstellung eines Aktionsplans mit der Stärke der Grünen in der Gemeindevertretung steigt. Diese heterogenen Ergebnisse lassen erkennen, dass die Parteiendifferenzhypothese auch zur Erklärung von Unterschieden in der kommunalen Klimapolitik beitragen könnte und dass weiterer Forschungsbedarf hierzu auf der lokalen Ebene besteht.

Machen Parteien für die Klimapolitikgestaltung einen Unterschied? Diese Frage ist nicht nur angesichts des auf nationalen Beiträgen basierenden globalen Klimaregimes relevant, sondern auch, da die Klimapolitik häufig als stärker parteipolitisiert wahrgenommen wird als die Umweltpolitik im Allgemeinen. Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage auf der kommunalen Ebene nach, die bislang in der Forschung zur umweltpolitischen Parteiendifferenzhypothese selten Beachtung findet. Am Beispiel des Bundeslandes Hessen prüfen wir erstens, ob Parteiendifferenzen eine Rolle für den Beitritt der hessischen Städte und Gemeinden zum Klimanetzwerk "Hessen aktiv: Die Klima-Kommunen" spielen. Zweitens prüfen wir, ob die Erstellung der obligatorischen Aktionspläne unter den Mitgliedern des Netzwerks mit Parteiendifferenzen in Zusammenhang steht. Die Untersuchung beruht auf einer Ereignisdatenanalyse der hessischen Städte und Gemeinden über den Zeitraum von 2009 bis 2020. Die Ergebnisse deuten an, dass von Grünen (Ober‑)Bürgermeister*innen regierte Städte und Gemeinden eher den Klima-Kommunen beitreten. Allerdings finden wir keine Hinweise darauf, dass sich die Erstellung der Aktionspläne, und damit ein konkreteres klimapolitisches Engagement, auf die Parteizugehörigkeit der (Ober-)Bürgermeister*innen zurückführen lässt. Allerdings zeigt sich, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Erstellung eines Aktionsplans mit der Stärke der Grünen in der Gemeindevertretung steigt. Diese heterogenen Ergebnisse lassen erkennen, dass die Parteiendifferenzhypothese auch zur Erklärung von Unterschieden in der kommunalen Klimapolitik beitragen könnte und dass weiterer Forschungsbedarf hierzu auf der lokalen Ebene besteht.

Although systematic policy evaluation has been conducted for decades and has been growing strongly within the European Union (EU) institutions and in the member states, it remains largely underexplored in political science literatures. Extant work in political science and public policy typically focuses on elements such as agenda setting, policy shaping, decision making, or implementation rather than evaluation. Although individual pieces of research on evaluation in the EU have started to emerge, most often regarding policy "effectiveness" (one criterion among many in evaluation), a more structured approach is currently missing. This special issue aims to address this gap in political science by focusing on four key focal points: evaluation institutions (including rules and cultures), evaluation actors and interests (including competencies, power, roles and tasks), evaluation design (including research methods and theories, and their impact on policy design and legislation), and finally, evaluation purpose and use (including the relationships between discourse and scientific evidence, political attitudes and strategic use). The special issue considers how each of these elements contributes to an evolving governance system in the EU, where evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in decision making.

Although systematic policy evaluation has been conducted for decades and has been growing strongly within the European Union (EU) institutions and in the member states, it remains largely underexplored in political science literatures. Extant work in political science and public policy typically focuses on elements such as agenda setting, policy shaping, decision making, or implementation rather than evaluation. Although individual pieces of research on evaluation in the EU have started to emerge, most often regarding policy "effectiveness" (one criterion among many in evaluation), a more structured approach is currently missing. This special issue aims to address this gap in political science by focusing on four key focal points: evaluation institutions (including rules and cultures), evaluation actors and interests (including competencies, power, roles and tasks), evaluation design (including research methods and theories, and their impact on policy design and legislation), and finally, evaluation purpose and use (including the relationships between discourse and scientific evidence, political attitudes and strategic use). The special issue considers how each of these elements contributes to an evolving governance system in the EU, where evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in decision making.

In 2019, the European Commission launched the European Green Deal (EGD, see EC [2019]) as a strategic framework for policy development to achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement and the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (see Dupont et al. 2020). The EGD offers an opportunity to reflect on the complexity of achieving long-term sustainability through enhanced public action in a number of relevant EU policy areas. Amidst a plethora of policy challenges (such as the refugee crisis or Brexit and Covid-19), this Special Issue uses the new context created by the EGD to engage in the debate on key topics related to this transition towards sustainability. The EGD may become the extension of ecological modernisation (Jänicke 2008), where environmental protection became a perceived chance rather than a cost. By delivering the EGD, the EU may put its action and money behind this idea.

One of the most central and novel features of the new climate governance architecture emerging from the 2015 Paris Agreement is the transparency framework committing countries to provide, inter alia, regular progress reports on national pledges to address climate change. Many countries will rely on public policies to turn their pledges into action. This article focuses on the EU's experience with monitoring national climate policies in order to understand the challenges that are likely to arise as the Paris Agreement is implemented around the world. To do so, the research employs – for the first time – comparative empirical data submitted by states to the EU's monitoring system. Our findings reveal how the EU's predominantly technical interpretation of four international reporting quality criteria – an approach borrowed from reporting on GHG fluxes – has constrained knowledge production and stymied debate on the performance of individual climate policies. Key obstacles to more in-depth reporting include not only political concerns over reporting burdens and costs, but also struggles over who determines the nature of climate policy monitoring, the perceived usefulness of reporting information, and the political control that policy knowledge inevitably generates. Given the post-Paris drive to achieve greater transparency, the EU's experience offers a sobering reminder of the political and technical challenges associated with climate policy monitoring, challenges that are likely to bedevil the Paris Agreement for decades to come.

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a published work that appeared in final form in The International Spectator. To access the final edited and published work see http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2021.1966188 ; The European Union has developed an international reputation as an advocate of sustainability and as a leader in environmental policy and in tackling climate change. The European Green Deal is the latest amongst numerous policy initiatives indicating an aspiration to lead. The contributions to this special issue show, however, that the path to sustainability in the EU (and beyond) is far from clear cut, with uneven progress in a number of policy areas. Some Member States are lagging behind, and there are barriers both within and outside the EU. Moving forward, a successful transition still requires substantial policy effort.