Climatic Change

, Volume 122, Issue 3, pp 447–458 | Cite as

An institutional critique of new climate scenarios

Article

Abstract

Leading climate analysts are designing a set of new policy scenarios that will be used to frame future climate policy analyses. This new exercise seeks to improve the realism of the scenarios used in climate policy analysis. In recent decades, rational choice institutionalism (RCI) has increasingly influenced several social sciences. A systematic effort to apply findings and concepts borrowed from RCI studies would offer three types of benefits to this scenario exercise. First, it would increase internal consistency within each of the projected scenarios. Second, it would enhance the realism of the entire suite of scenarios. Third, it would illuminate a range of factors, trends, and causal pathways than might otherwise be considered. These gains could be exploited best by engaging some leading RCI scholars in the scenario building process.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA (2012) Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Perrin N (2009) Climate adaptation, local institutions and rural livelihoods. In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (eds) Adapting to climate change:Thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 350–367Google Scholar
  3. Alston LJ, Mueller B (2010) Property rights, land conflict and tenancy in Brazil. Working Paper, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardhan P (2010) Awakening giants; feet of clay: Assessing the economic rise of China and India. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates RH (2010) Prosperity and violence: The political economy of development. W. W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Tavoni M (2009) Climate policy after 2012. Technology, Timing, Participation. CESifo Economic StudiesGoogle Scholar
  7. Caplan B (2007) The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. CENTRA Technology, Inc., Scritor Corporation (2009a). India, The impact of climate change to 2030: Geopolitical implications. National Intelligence Council Report, Washington: National Intelligence CouncilGoogle Scholar
  9. CENTRA Technology Inc., Scitor Corporation (2009b) China: The impact of climate change to 2030. Geopolitical implications. A commissioned research report, Washington: National Intelligence CouncilGoogle Scholar
  10. David PA (2006) Path dependence: a foundational concept for historical social science. Cliometrica. J Hist Econ Econ Hist 1(2):91–114Google Scholar
  11. David PA (2008) The historical origins of ‘open science’: an essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capital Soc 3(2):1–106Google Scholar
  12. Drezner DW (2007) All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Easterly W (2006) The white man’s burden: Why the west’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellerman D (2012) Is conflating climate with energy policy a good idea?. Econ Energy Env Pol 1(1):11–23Google Scholar
  15. Ertman T (1997) Birth of the Leviathan: Building states and regimes in medieval and early modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Findlay R, O’Rourke KH (2007) Power and plenty: Trade, war, and the world economy in the second millennium. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedberg A (2011) A contest for supremacy: China, America, and the struggle for mastery in Asia. W.W. Norton & Compant Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilpin R (2001) Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilpin R (1975) U. S. Power and the multinational corporation: The political economy of foreign direct investment. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilpin R (1981) War and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon RJ (2012) National Bureau of Economic Research. Is U.S. economic growth over? faltering inovation confronts the six headwinds. August 2012. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315 (accessed August 4, 2013)
  22. Groat CG, Grimshaw TW (2012) Fact-based regulation forenvironmental protection in shale gas development. Research report. Energy Institute, The University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  23. Gruber L (2000) Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Gupta S, Tirpak DA et al (2007) Policies, instruments and Co-operative arrangements. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Inglehart R (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Katznelson I, Weingast BR (2005) Intersections between historical and rational choice institutionalism. In: Ira K, Weingast BR (eds) Preferences and situations: Points of intersection between historical and rational choice institutionalism. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  27. Keohane RO (1984) After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Khan MH (2011) India’s evolving political settlement and the challenges of Sustaining development. Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London. November 2011. http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff31246.php (accessed August 1, 2013)
  29. Krasner SD (1991) Global communications and national power: life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics (Routledge):336–366Google Scholar
  30. Kroh M (2008) The preadult origins of post-materialism: A longitudinal sibling study. Working paper. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuran T (1995) Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuran T (2011) The long divergence: How islamic law held back the middle east. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuran T, Sunsteain CR (1999) Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review:683–768Google Scholar
  34. McNeil JR (2008) Can history help with global warming. In: Campbell KM (ed) Climate cataclysm: The foreign policy and national security implications of climate change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, pp 26–48Google Scholar
  35. Mendelsohn R (2011) The impact of climate change on land. In: Ingram GK, Hong Y-H (eds) Climate change and land policies. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, pp 62–83Google Scholar
  36. Mokyr J (2004) The gifts of athena: Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Montgomery WD (2011) Commentary. In: Ingram GK, Hong Y-H (eds) Climate change and land policies. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, pp 84–88Google Scholar
  38. Nakicenovic N, Lempert RJ, Janetos AC (2013) A framework for the development of new socio-economic scenarios for climate change research. Climatic change, Forthcoming Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson RR (2004) The market economy, and the scientific commons. Res Policy 33:455–471Google Scholar
  40. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1977) In search of useful theory of innovation. Res Policy 6(1):36–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. North DC (1990a) A transaction cost theory of politics. J Theor Polit:355–367Google Scholar
  42. North DC (1990b) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. North DC (1999) Institutions and credible commitment. SSRN. September 2, 1999. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6042 (accessed July 31, 2013)
  44. North DC (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. North DC, Wallis JJ, Weingast BR (2009) Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. North DC, John Joseph W, Webb SB, Weingast BR (2013) Lessons in the shadow of violence. In: North DC, Webb SB, Weingast BR (eds) In the shadow of violence: Politics, economics, and the problems of development. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 328–350Google Scholar
  47. North DC (1981) Structure and change in economic history. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Neill BC et al (2013) A new scenario famework for climate change research: the concept of shared socio-economic pathways. Climatic change, Forthcoming Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Neill BC et al (2012) Meeting Report of the workshop on the nature and use of new socioeconomic pathways for climate change research, Boulder, CO, November 2–4, 2011. Workshop report, Boulder: National Center for Atmospheric ResearchGoogle Scholar
  50. Olson M (1996) Distinguished lecture on economics in government: Big bills left on the sidewalk: why some nations are rich, and others poor. J Econ Perspect 10(2):3–24Google Scholar
  51. Pei M (2006) China’s Trapped transition: The limits of developmental autocracy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Pierson P (2004) Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  53. Qian Y, Weingast BR (1997) Federalism as a commitment to preserving markets. J Econ Perspect 11(4):83–92Google Scholar
  54. Rosenberg N (1994) Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, and history. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenberg N, Birdsell LE Jr (1986) How the west grew rich: The economic transformation of the industrial world. Basic Books, inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Tol RSJ (2012) The implications of a break-up of china for carbon dioxide emissions. Working Paper, University of Sussex: Economics, Management & EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  57. Tsebelis G (1995) Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, pariamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. Br J Polit Sci 25(3):289–325Google Scholar
  58. Weingast BR (2010) Why do developing countries prove so resistant to the rule of law. In: Heckman JJ, Nelson RL, Cabatagan L (eds) Global perspectives on the rule of law. Taylor, and Francis Group, Routledge, pp 29–51Google Scholar
  59. Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit 38(3):595–613Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hudson InstituteWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.NERA Economic ConsultingWashingtonDC

Personalised recommendations