Advertisement

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage

  • Dana R. FisherEmail author
  • Philip Leifeld
Article

Abstract

This paper builds on recent research on polycentric governance and the Ecology of Games to understand climate politics in the USA. Complementing previous work from 2005 to 2009, we map out the ideological networks of political actors engaged in the climate policy network using data from the US Congress as an arena of symbolic interaction. Our analysis identifies polycentric sites of ideological congruence and conflict in the discourse network on climate change. Political actors from different levels and including several actor types formed multiple centers that became bipolarized between the 112th and 114th sessions of the US Congress. This process took place in tandem with the increased participation of subnational actors in the polycentric system. By the 114th session of the Congress—during which the 2016 election took place—subnational policy actors, along with a diversity of other actors, contributed to an extremely polarized discussion of one of the central policies in the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan: the Clean Power Plan. This finding is remarkable as the concept of polycentricity tends to be normatively associated with policy innovation, rather than stagnation. Our longitudinal analysis demonstrates, using Discourse Network Analysis, how increased multi-level participation can be associated with policy blockage of progressive climate policies rather than enabling policy innovation.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2481_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. Berardo R, Lubell M (2019) The ecology of games as a theory of polycentricity: recent advances and future challenges. Policy Stud J 47(1):6–26Google Scholar
  2. Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov 12:141–159Google Scholar
  3. Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp 2008(10):P10008Google Scholar
  4. Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114Google Scholar
  5. Bulkeley H (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit Geogr 24(8):875–902Google Scholar
  6. Burstein P, Hirsh CE (2007) Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the US congress. In: Sociological Forum, vol 22. Wiley online library, pp 174–199Google Scholar
  7. Burt RS (1995) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. 1st Paperback Edition edition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlisle K, Gruby RL (2017) Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Stud J n/a-n/aGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifton BM (2004) Romancing the GOP: assessing the strategies used by the Christian Coalition to influence the Republican party. Party Polit 10(5):475–498Google Scholar
  10. Cole DH (2011) From global to polycentric climate governance. Climate Law 2(3):395–413Google Scholar
  11. Cole DH (2015) Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat Clim Chang 5(2):114–118Google Scholar
  12. Congressional Research Service (2015) House Committee Hearings: The “Minority Witness Rule”Google Scholar
  13. DeGregorio C (1998) “Assets and access: linking lobbyists and lawmakers in congress.” The Interest Group Connection: Electioneering, Lobbying, and Policymaking in Washington. Chatham House Publishers, Chatham, p Viii 376Google Scholar
  14. Fischer M, Leifeld P (2015) Policy forums: why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sci 48(3):363–382Google Scholar
  15. Fisher DR (2013) Understanding the relationship between subnational and national climate change politics in the United States: toward a theory of boomerang federalism. Eviron Plann C Gov Policy 31(5):769–784Google Scholar
  16. Fisher DR, Leifeld P, Iwaki Y (2013a) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Clim Chang 116(3–4):523–545Google Scholar
  17. Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P (2013b) Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. Am Behav Sci 57(1):70–92Google Scholar
  18. García MM, Bodin Ö (2019) Participation in multiple decision making water governance forums in Brazil enhances actors’ perceived level of influence. Policy Stud J 47(1):27–51Google Scholar
  19. Gillard R, Gouldson A, Paavola J, Van Alstine J (2017) Can national policy blockages accelerate the development of polycentric governance? Evidence from climate change policy in the United Kingdom. Glob Environ Chang 45:174–182Google Scholar
  20. Gormley WT Jr (1998) Witnesses for the revolution. American Politics Quarterly 26(2):174–195  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9802600203
  21. Hamilton M, Lubell M (2018) Collaborative governance of climate change adaptation across spatial and institutional scales. Policy Stud J 46(2):222–247Google Scholar
  22. Harris BA (2016) What the supreme court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan means for the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation moving forward. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/what-the-supreme-courts-stay-of-the-clean-power-plan-means-for-the-epas-greenhouse-gas-regulation-moving-forward/. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
  23. Harvard Law Review (2016) The Clean Power Plan. Harv Law Rev 129(4):1152–1159Google Scholar
  24. Heitshusen V (2017) Senate committee hearings: arranging witnesses. Congressional Review Service Report for CongressGoogle Scholar
  25. Jain AK, Dubes RC (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  26. Jasny L, Waggle J, Fisher DR (2015) An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat Clim Chang 5(8):782–786Google Scholar
  27. Jones BS (1991) State responses to global climate change. Policy Stud J 19(2):73–82Google Scholar
  28. Jordan AJ, Huitema D, Hildén M, van Asselt H, Rayner TJ, Schoenefeld JJ, Tosun J, Forster J, Boasson EL (2015) Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat Clim Chang 5(11):977–982Google Scholar
  29. Jordan A, Huitema D, van Asselt H, Forster J (2018) Governing climate change: polycentricity in action? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Krane D (2007) The middle tier in American federalism: state government policy activism during the bush presidency. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37(3):453–477  https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjm006
  32. Laumann EO, Knoke D (1987) The organizational state: social choice in national policy domains. Univ of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Leifeld P (2016) Policy debates as dynamic networks: German pension politics and privatization discourse. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Leifeld P (2017) Discourse network analysis: policy debates as dynamic networks. In: Victor JN, Montgomery AH, Lubbell MN (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford University Press, pp 301–325Google Scholar
  35. Leifeld P (2019) rDNA. Discourse network analysis in R. R Package Version 2.1.18Google Scholar
  36. Leifeld P, Haunss S (2012) Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. Eur J Polit Res 51(3):382–409Google Scholar
  37. Leifeld, P, J Gruber, and FR Bossner. 2018. Discourse Network Analyzer manual. Retrieved from https://github.com/leifeld/dna/releases/download/v2.0-beta.24/dna-manual.pdf
  38. Liu X, Lindquist E, Vedlitz A (2011) Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969-2005: an empirical test of agenda-setting theory. Polit Res Q 64(2):405–419Google Scholar
  39. Lubell M, Henry AD, McCoy M (2010) Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. Am J Polit Sci 54(2):287–300Google Scholar
  40. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Soc Probl 50(3):348–373Google Scholar
  41. McGee ZA, Jones BD (2019) Reconceptualizing the policy subsystem: integration with complexity theory and social network analysis. Policy Stud J 47(S1):S138–S158Google Scholar
  42. Morrison TH (2017) Evolving polycentric governance of the great barrier reef. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(15):E3013–E3021Google Scholar
  43. Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(23):8577–8582Google Scholar
  44. Obama B (2015) Remarks by the president in announcing the clean power plan. The white house of president Barack Obama. Retrieved https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/03/remarks-president-announcing-clean-power-plan. Accessed 24 June 2019
  45. Oberthür S (2016) Reflections on global climate politics post Paris: Power, interests and polycentricity. The International Spectator 51(4):80–94  https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2016.1242256
  46. Ostrom E (2012) Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory 49(2):353–369Google Scholar
  47. Ostrom E (2014) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Ann Econ Financ 15(1):71–108Google Scholar
  48. Park HS, Liu X, Vedlitz A (2010) Framing climate policy debates. Science, Network, and US Congress, pp 1976–2007Google Scholar
  49. Rabe B (2007) Environmental policy and the bush era: the collision between the administrative presidency and state experimentation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37(3):413–431  https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjm007
  50. Rabe B (2013) Racing to the top, the bottom, or the middle of the pack? The evolving state government role in environmental protection. In: Vig N, Craft M (eds) Environmental policy: New directions for the 21st Century. CQ Press, Washington, DC, pp 30–53Google Scholar
  51. Rabe B, Borick C (2013) Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania’s early move into fracking policy development. Rev Policy Res 30(3):321–340Google Scholar
  52. Sabatier PA, Weible CM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, vol 2, pp 189–220Google Scholar
  53. Scott TA, Greer RA (2019) Polycentricity and the hollow state: exploring shared personnel as a source of connectivity in fragmented urban systems. Policy Stud J 47(1):52–76Google Scholar
  54. Spreng CP, Sovacool BK, Spreng D (2016) All hands on deck: polycentric governance for climate change insurance. Clim Chang 139(2):129–140Google Scholar
  55. The New York Times (2017) What is the clean power plan, and how can trump repeal it? The New York Times, October 10Google Scholar
  56. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of Essex, Department of GovernmentColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations