Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A comparative analysis on the international discourse power evaluation of global climate governance

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The international discourse power (IDP) is necessary to attain the strategic interests and international influence in the global climate governance process. In order to analyze the IDP state of each country, this study proposes a hybrid evaluation approach to assess IDP of global climate governance by integrating analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and cloud model. Firstly, the evaluation index system of IDP of global climate governance was constructed from three aspects namely, discourse subject, discourse production, and discourse dissemination. Secondly, the cloud model is introduced to express the uncertainty and to transform the qualitative evaluation information. Additionally, the AHP is incorporated into the cloud model to calculate the weights of index. Finally, six typical countries of global climate governance are selected to illustrate the application of the proposed evaluation approach. The results indicated that the priority of IDP is EU, the USA, China, Russia, India, and Haiti. Moreover, it is found that China’s IDP has the highest priority in developing countries. However, compared to developed countries, China’s IDP has a relatively low priority. The study suggests to enhance the political influence, expand the international impact of public media, and form a community of interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aykut, S. C., Morena, E., & Foyer, J. (2020). “Incantatory” governance: Global climate politics’ performative turn and its wider significance for global politics. International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00250-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bo, Y. (2016). Convergence and divergence of china and the US in global climate governance. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 24(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.13806/j.cnki.issn1008-7095.2016.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2005). What does speech mean? The economy of language exchange. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briguglio, L. (1995). Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Development, 23(9), 1615–1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, W. C. G. (2005). Review of the book national governance and the global climate change regime. Global Environmental Politics, 5(3), 135–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby, J. W., & Urpelainen, J. (2020). Following the leaders? How to restore progress in global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 20(4), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, R. (2010). Global warming: Climate economic politics and ethics. China: Social Sciences Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Blackwell: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown, J. W. (2016). Global environmental politics. Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., & Liang, Y. (2011). Explain China to the world——on China’s international discourse power problem and strategy. Journalism & Communication, 11, 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, T. H., & Hira, A. (2020). Global political economy: Theory and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, D. (2003). Political economic analysis of international climate cooperation. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derman, B. B. (2014). Climate governance, justice, and transnational civil society. Climate Policy, 14(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.849492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J., & Bao, Q. (2014). China’s discourse dilemma and improvement path in climate diplomacy. People’s Tribune, 34, 236–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Stevenson, H. (2014). Democratizing global climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutt, G., & Gaioli, F. (2008). Negotiations and agreements on climate change at Bali. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(3), 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P. B. (2018). Dependent development: The alliance of multinational, state, and local capital in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. S., Tulple, V., & Brown, S. (1998). The climate change negotiations: The case for differentiation. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 42(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godbole, A. (2016). Paris accord and China’s climate change strategy: Drivers and outcomes. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 72(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928416684922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, M., Vrolijk, C., Brack, D., Forsyth, T., Lanchbery, J., & Missfeldt, F. (1999). The Kyoto protocol. A guide and assessment. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, N., & Persson, A. (2018). Global climate adaptation governance: Why is it not legally binding? European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 540–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117725157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halsnæs, K., & Shukla, P. (2008). Sustainable development as a framework for developing country participation in international climate change policies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9079-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, C., & Painter, J. (2016). Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK. Palgrave Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hua, Q. (2014). Ethical consensus of climate game and China’s selection. China: Social Sciences Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., & Messner, D. (2006). China and India as emerging global governance actors: Challenges for developing and developed countries. Ids Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 37(1), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00253.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaksen, K. A., & Stokke, K. (2014). Changing climate discourse and politics in India. Climate change as challenge and opportunity for diplomacy and development. Geoforum, 57, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.08.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, X. (2019). Global climate governance and the evolution of EU leadership. Contemporary World, 12, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.19422/j.cnki.ddsj.2019.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., & Du, Y. (2014). Uncertainty artificial intelligence (2nd ed.). National Defense Industry Press: Beijing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., Meng, H., & Shi, X. (1995). Membership clouds and membership cloud generators. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 32(6), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. (2019). Constructing china’s discourse power in Post - Paris Global Climate Governance: connotations, challenges and pathways. International Forum, 6, 3-14+155. https://doi.org/10.13549/j.cnki.cn11-3959/d.2019.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (2019). Knowledge supply and discourse competition in global climate governance-a case study of China’s climate research and IPCC knowledge production. Foreign Affairs Review, 36(4), 32–70. https://doi.org/10.13569/j.cnki.far.2019.04.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (2014). Conceptualizing the nexus of “interdependent hegemony” between the existing and the emerging world orders. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-014-0021-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, K. (2009). On the IDP and China’s new ideas of developing IDP. Contemporary World & Socialism, 03, 110–113. https://doi.org/10.16502/j.cnki.11-3404/d.2009.03.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Feng, M., Dai, X., & Li, D. (2004). A new algorithm of backward cloud. Journal of System Simulation, 16(11), 2417–2420. https://doi.org/10.16182/j.cnki.joss.2004.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Chen, C., Zhao, Y., & Zhao, E. (2015). China׳s carbon-emissions trading: Overview, challenges and future. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.076.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Litfin, K. T. (1995). Framing science—Precautionary discourse and the ozone treaties. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 24(2), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298950240020501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litfin, K. T. (1996). Ozone discourses: Science & politics in global environmental cooperation//Review. Alternatives Journal, 22(3), 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, S. G. (1992). The politics of international agenda-setting: Reagan and North-South relations. International Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luterbacher, U., & Sprinz, D. F. (2001). International relations and global climate change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankoff, J. (2009). Russian foreign policy: the return of great power politics. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillin, D. (2007). International media studies. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meckling, J. (2018). The developmental state in global regulation: Economic change and climate policy. European Journal of International Relations, 24(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117700966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michał, K. (2015). International leadership re-/constructed? Journal of Language and Politics, 14(1), 267–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. F., Karlsson, C., & Hjerpe, M. (2017). Assessing the European Union’s global climate change leadership: From Copenhagen to the Paris agreement. Journal of European Integration, 39(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1275608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelling, M. (2003). Toward a political ecology of urban environmental risk. Political Ecology: An integrative approach to geography and environment-development studies, 73-93.

  • Peng, B., Zheng, C., Wei, G., & Elahi, E. (2020). The cultivation mechanism of green technology innovation in manufacturing industry: From the perspective of ecological niche. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, S. (2007). Discourse power address: The politics of public communication. Farnham: Ashgate Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren, G., & Xu, Y. (2006). Climate negotiation positions of major developed countries from future climate scenarios. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 02, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rong, F. (2010). Understanding developing country stances on post-2012 climate change negotiations: Comparative analysis of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4582–4591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I. H. (1995). Explaining national climate-change policies. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 5(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(95)00047-R.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, N. E. (2010). Environmental change and foreign policy: Theory and practice. Review of Policy Research, 27(5), 662–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, S., & Luo, Y. (2017). The generation logic of international discourse power. Marxism & Reality, 5, 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprinz, D., & Vaahtoranta, T. (1994). The interest-based explanation of international environmental-policy. International Organization, 48(1), 77–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300000825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. (2012). The discursive democratisation of global climate governance. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.651898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thussu, D. K. (2006). Media on the move: Global flow and contra-flow. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Unger, C., Mar, K. A., & Gurtler, K. (2020). A club’s contribution to global climate governance: the case of the climate and clean air coalition. Palgrave Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0474-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q. S.(2015).Research on enhance China’s forestry discourse power under the international climate negotiations. Dissertation, Northeast Forestry University. https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CDFDLAST2017&filename=1016303854.nh.

  • Wang, Q., & Cao, Y. (2013). The way to China’s forestry discourse power under the international climate negotiations. World Agriculture, 03, 123–127. https://doi.org/10.13856/j.cn11-1097/s.2013.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W. (2010). A probe into the dispute of international climate discourse power. International Studies, 4, 19–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W. (2011). On the construction of China’s international power of climate discourse. Journal of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1, 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. (2010). The IDP and the shaping of China’s international image. Journal of University of International Relations, 06, 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Z. (2011). International agenda setting: a theoretical framework. World Economics and Politics, 10, 38–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (2015). How do science and technology affect international affairs? Minerva, 53(4), 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, H. (2013). Analysis of some “myths” in international communication research—also on the improvement mechanism of Chinese media’s international communication ability. Journalism Review, 9, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., & Tian, X. (2019). The logic of constructing international discursive power of small states in the era of global governance: The case of pacific island states. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 2, 95–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D. (2011). The construction mechanism of Chinese discourse power with hard power and soft power. Journal of Fujian Provincial Committee Party School of CPC, 7, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Zhuang, H. (2017). China’s international discourse power: History, challenges and promotion strategies. Nankai Journal Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition, 6, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z. (2012). The peaceful rise of China’s IDP strategy. Contemporary World, 7, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. (2012). Theories of alliance formation: A review and considerations for Chinese Policy. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 3, 39–63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Youth Foundation Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant Number. 19YJCZH19), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number. 71850410541), and Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (Grant Number. 2017r101).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Southeast University, Nanjing, 211189, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Baiyu Wu

  2. School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210044, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Benhong Peng

  3. School of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, 210037, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Wei Wei

  4. School of Business, Nanjing University Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210044, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Elahi Ehsan

Authors
  1. Baiyu Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benhong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elahi Ehsan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Baiyu Wu or Elahi Ehsan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, B., Peng, B., Wei, W. et al. A comparative analysis on the international discourse power evaluation of global climate governance. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 12505–12526 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01180-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01180-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation