Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks
Dr. Tuomas Yl채-Anttila Helsinki Research Group for Political Sociology, Dept. of Social Research, University of Helsinki http://compon.org
Points of departure
The planet is heating up, and it’s dangerous Climate science is as certain about this as it will get Modern societies relatively rationalized and sciencedependent
UNFCCC sets science-based global norms on what is to be done
One would think that all societies are acting accordingly
Varying national policy responses
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
201 1 -10 -0 9 -08 -07 -0 6 -05 -04 -0 3 -02 -0 1 -0 0 -99 -9 8 -97 -96 -9 5 -94 -93 -9 2 -91 1 99 0
Sweden
Varying national policy responses
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
201 1 -10 -0 9 -08 -07 -0 6 -05 -04 -0 3 -02 -0 1 -0 0 -99 -9 8 -97 -96 -9 5 -94 -93 -9 2 -91 1 99 0
Sweden Finland
Varying national policy responses
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
201 1 -10 -0 9 -08 -07 -0 6 -05 -04 -0 3 -02 -0 1 -0 0 -99 -9 8 -97 -96 -9 5 -94 -93 -9 2 -91 1 99 0
Canada Sweden Finland
Varying national policy responses
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
201 1 -10 -0 9 -08 -07 -0 6 -05 -04 -0 3 -02 -0 1 -0 0 -99 -9 8 -97 -96 -9 5 -94 -93 -9 2 -91 1 99 0
Canada Sweden Finland
Natural science problem becomes a social science problem: Why do some societies pollute more? What are the ways to reduce emissions, in each case?
GHG reduction happens at many levels Global National Organizational (firm, city…) Individual
GHG reduction happens at many levels Global
National – why? Organizational (firm, city…) Individual
GHG reduction happens at many levels Global
National
nation-states have most power to control emissions through legislation
nation-states
are the ones who negotiate
globally Organizational (firm, city…) Individual
It’s politics, in networks Relatively similar countries have very different outcomes It’s about how the entire economy and society is organized And this is a result of political decisions But one election does not change everything Policymaking happens in policy networks Government agencies, businesses, labor, NGOs, IGOs, INGOs
1. Inter-organizational networks
Climate science, global institutions and norms
National policies and outcomes
2. Discourse networks in the media
Climate science, global institutions and norms
National policies and outcomes
4
Case variation in Emissions 3.5
KYOTO PROTOCOL COMMITTMENT PERIOD 3 FINISHED
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
KYOTO PROTOCOL RATIFIED KYOTO PROTOCOL
UNFCCC
Two data sources ď Ž Inter-organizational collaboration networks: survey of 100 most influential organization in the climate change policy domain in 12 countries
ď Ž Discourse networks: 9000 articles in 3 major newspapers in 19 countries
Compon publications webpage screenshot
…random country, of the 12…
……………
……………
……………
Finland
Country brand working group 2014 “Clean” “Pristine” “Organic” “Every Finn has a special relationship to nature”
Highest emissions of Nordic countries
14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
201 1 -10 -0 9 -08 -07 -0 6 -05 -04 -0 3 -02 -0 1 -0 0 -99 -9 8 -97 -96 -9 5 -94 -93 -9 2 -91 1 99 0
Sweden Norway Iceland Denmark Finland
Germanwatch CC performance index
The Advocacy Coalition Framework
1.
Collaboration relationships between organizations
2.
Shared policy core beliefs
Two alternative explanations for why corporatism does not mix with environmentalism 1.
The cooptation of ENGOs hypothesis (Dryzek)
2.
Collaboration: ENGOs well integrated into the network Beliefs: ENGOs very moderate, coopted
The treadmill of production hypothesis (Schnaiberg) Collaboration:
Business and labor organizations with each other and the state Beliefs: all three share anti-mitigation beliefs
Methods ď Ž Collaboration: UCInet factions algorithm for identifying coalitions (structural equivalence, louvain, similar results)
ď Ž Beliefs: Factor analysis -> summary scale on anti/pro GHG mitigation
Three coalitions 1.
Government and research (density .59)
2.
Treadmill coalition (.51)
3.
ENGO coalition (.54)
ď Ž.Overall network density .27
Who leads the coalitions?
Govenrment
Centr.
Treadmill
Centr.
ENGOs
Centr.
1.
Ministry of Environment
,75
Ministry of Economy and Employment
,77
WWF
,58
2.
Fortum
,60
Confederation of Industries
,75
Green Party
,57
3.
Ministry of Finance
,60
,68
League for Nature Conservation
,49
4.
Ministry of Agriculture
,55
Confederation of Energy Industries National Coalition Party
,64
Greenpeace
,44
5.
Sitra
,53
Metsäteollisuus ry
,55
Akava
,24
6.
Ministry of Transport and Communications
,52
Center Party
,54
Luonto-liitto
,21
7.
SYKE
,51
Teknologiateollisuus ry.
,47
KEPA
,20
8.
Valtioneuvoston kanslia
,48
Social Democrats
,46
Left Alliance
,18
9.
VTT
,47
UPM-Kymmene
,44
Friends of the Earth
,16
10.
Neste Oil
,46
Teollisuuden voima (TVO)
,43
Pirkanmaan ELY
,13
11.
Ilmatieteen laitos
,45
Union of Agricultural Producers
,39
Varsinais-Suomen ELY
,09
12.
Stora Enso
,44
Energiavirasto
,38
Suomen YK-liitto
,08
13.
Ilmastopaneeli
,42
Metsä Group
,36
Kirkon ulkomaanapu
,06
14.
Aalto yliopisto
,41
Trade Union
,36
Dodo
,05
Coalition properties (means,0-1)
Government
Treadmill
ENGO
Beliefs (1=antimitig)
.25
.35
.10
Influence
.35
.37
.19
Access to policymaking
.85
.50
.60
Financial resources
.83
.67
.51
Treadmill better connected to gov’t Government Size of node = avg. degree centrality Thickness of lines = densities between blocks
0,19 ENGO s
0,27
0,18 Treadmill
Conclusion on Finland The treadmill coalition is the most influential, most resourceful, second largest, well linked to the state (internally and externally) and least ecological in its core beliefs
The ENGO coalition is the least influential, least resourceful, smallest, least linked to the others and not particularly moderate in its core beliefs
These results support the treadmill hypothesis but not the cooptation hypothesis
Finland vs. Sweden
Sweden: the same 3 coalitions
Treadmill, Gov’t & Research, ENGOs, but
Overall clustering coefficient much lower
Collaborating coalition lines much less clear
Belief differences between coalitions nonsignificant
Pro-mitigation actors more influential
Network structure predicts the outcome
In Finland, competing coalitions disagree over ecology vs economy, the economy coalition is stronger and better linked to the state
In Sweden, Nordic Consensus, no coalitions questioning strong CC policy
Why did the networks become like this?
Historical path dependencies of
Economic structures (export industry in FI, outsourcing emissions in SWE)
Political institutions (Min of Economy, Center Party in FI)
Culture, discourse, identity (Nordic consensus in SWE, Stockholm Environment Conference 1972 etc.)
Explaining the network structure Historical path dependencies
Climate science, global institutions and norms
1. Problem
Economy Political Institutions
National policies and outcomes
Culture & discourse
2. Context
3. Network
4. Solution
Promises, promises… US (discourse networks): Advocacy Coalitions,
Beliefs and Politics of Climate Change in the United States, talk on Friday
India (quali interviews): Crowding In: How Indian
Civil Society Organizations Began Mobilizing on Climate Change. British Journal of Sociology, 2016
tuomas.yla-anttila@iki.fi politicalsociology.org compon.org