Publisher: Cogitatio   (Total: 4 journals)   [Sort by number of followers]

Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Journals sorted alphabetically
Media and Communication     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Politics and Governance     Open Access   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.372, CiteScore: 1)
Social Inclusion     Open Access   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.395, CiteScore: 1)
Urban Planning     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Politics and Governance
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.372
Citation Impact (citeScore): 1
Number of Followers: 9  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 2183-2463
Published by Cogitatio Homepage  [4 journals]
  • Why Ambitious and Just Climate Mitigation Needs Political Science

    • Authors: Elina Brutschin, Marina Andrijevic
      Pages: 167 - 170
      Abstract: A large-scale transformation of the energy system, which climate mitigation entails, is a global and highly politicized problem. This thematic issue brings together scholars who work with Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)—which are used for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and other key analyses of future climate trajectories—and social scientists working on climate and energy issues to highlight how the two strands of research could benefit from combining insights across different disciplines and methods. One of the key messages across almost all contributions is that the more technical perspectives could benefit from adjusting their assumptions to reflect the patterns observed in quantitative and qualitative social science. Combining different disciplines is methodologically challenging but promising to ensure that the mitigation strategies developed are considered technically and politically feasible, as well as just.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.6156
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Exploring Global Climate Policy Futures and Their Representation in
           Integrated Assessment Models

    • Authors: Thomas Hickmann, Christoph Bertram, Frank Biermann, Elina Brutschin, Elmar Kriegler, Jasmine E. Livingston, Silvia Pianta, Keywan Riahi, Bas van Ruijven, Detlef van Vuuren
      Pages: 171 - 185
      Abstract: The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, paved the way for a new hybrid global climate governance architecture with both bottom-up and top-down elements. While governments can choose individual climate goals and actions, a global stocktake and a ratcheting-up mechanism have been put in place with the overall aim to ensure that collective efforts will prevent increasing adverse impacts of climate change. Integrated assessment models show that current combined climate commitments and policies of national governments fall short of keeping global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Although major greenhouse gas emitters, such as China, the European Union, India, the United States under the Biden administration, and several other countries, have made new pledges to take more ambitious climate action, it is highly uncertain where global climate policy is heading. Scenarios in line with long-term temperature targets typically assume a simplistic and hardly realistic level of harmonization of climate policies across countries. Against this backdrop, this article develops four archetypes for the further evolution of the global climate governance architecture and matches them with existing sets of scenarios developed by integrated assessment models. By these means, the article identifies knowledge gaps in the current scenario literature and discusses possible research avenues to explore the pre-conditions for successful coordination of national policies towards achieving the long-term target stipulated in the Paris Agreement.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5328
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Emissions Lock-in, Capacity, and Public Opinion: How Insights From
           Political Science Can Inform Climate Modeling Efforts

    • Authors: Silvia Pianta, Elina Brutschin
      Pages: 186 - 199
      Abstract: The implementation of ambitious climate policies consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement is fundamentally influenced by political dynamics. Yet, thus far, climate mitigation pathways developed by integrated assessment models (IAMs) have devoted limited attention to the political drivers of climate policymaking. Bringing together insights from the political science and socio-technical transitions literature, we summarize evidence on how emissions lock-in, capacity, and public opinion can shape climate policy ambition. We employ a set of indicators to describe how these three factors vary across countries and regions, highlighting context-specific challenges and enablers of climate policy ambition. We outline existing studies that incorporate political factors in IAMs and propose a framework to employ empirical data to build climate mitigation scenarios that incorporate political dynamics. Our findings show that there is substantial heterogeneity in key political drivers of climate policy ambition within IAM regions, calling for a more disaggregated regional grouping within models. Importantly, we highlight that the political challenges and enablers of climate policy ambition considerably vary across regions, suggesting that future modeling efforts incorporating political dynamics can significantly increase the realism of IAM scenarios.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5462
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Exploring Enablers for an Ambitious Coal Phaseout

    • Authors: Elina Brutschin, Felix Schenuit, Bas van Ruijven, Keywan Riahi
      Pages: 200 - 212
      Abstract: To reach the mitigation goals of the Paris Agreement, many countries will have to phase out their coal power plants prematurely, i.e., before the end of their normal lifetimes, which will lead quite possibly to significant stranded assets. This could present a major challenge, particularly for many of the rapidly developing countries whose electricity demand is growing and which are currently expanding their coal fleets. Recent research shows that countries with aging power plants and decreasing coal consumption are more inclined to phase out coal, but little is known about where, why, and how coal power plants are being prematurely retired. In the context of the hybrid Paris Agreement, attention is increasingly shifting to domestic mitigation capacities and, alongside this—given the vested interests involved in different sectors—to state capacity to implement the transformations required to achieve deep decarbonization. In this article, we aim to study those capacities in the context of coal phaseout. We use a recent and comprehensive global dataset on coal power plants and employ a mixed-methods research design to (a) identify general emerging patterns with respect to premature coal fleet retirement, and (b) derive stylized types of political strategies to prematurely retire coal power plants. We find state capacity to be a robust predictor of general and premature coal retirement, and we identify three main strategies that countries have used to date to prematurely retire coal: (a) rein-in using top-down regulatory enforcement of environmental, climate, or other regulations that affect the operating licenses of coal plants; (b) buy-out or provision of compensation to companies and regions to appease vested interests; and (c) crowd out where accelerating market and price dynamics in the power sector crowd out coal. We propose that future research should explore more systematically the kinds of strategy that might be most promising in the regions and countries needing to rapidly phase out coal, taking into account their political structures, and also the implications that such strategies might have for global mitigation efforts.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5535
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Closing the Implementation Gap: Obstacles in Reaching Net-Zero Pledges in
           the EU and Germany

    • Authors: Grischa Perino, Johannes Jarke-Neuert, Felix Schenuit, Martin Wickel, Cathrin Zengerling
      Pages: 213 - 225
      Abstract: The European Union and Germany have recently committed themselves to greenhouse-gas neutrality by 2050 and 2045, respectively. This substantially reduces their gaps in ambition to the Paris climate goals. However, the current climate policy mix is not sufficient to reach these targets: There is a major implementation gap. Based on economic, legal, and political science perspectives, this article identifies key obstacles in legislating stringent climate policy instruments and making them effective. Using a simple framework, we map the stage of the process in which the obstacles are at work. Moreover, we discuss the potential effectiveness of a select list of prominent drivers of climate-related regulation in overcoming said obstacles and conclude by pointing towards conditions for closing the implementation gap. In doing so, we focus on the current legislative processes of the “Fit-for-55” package by the European Commission and the 2021 Federal Climate Change Act in Germany. Our analysis builds on the extant literature, and we suggest avenues for further research.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5326
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Climate Policy Ambition: Exploring A Policy Density Perspective

    • Authors: Simon Schaub, Jale Tosun, Andrew Jordan, Joan Enguer
      Pages: 226 - 238
      Abstract: National policy ambition plays a central role in climate change governance under the Paris Agreement and is now a focus of rapidly emerging literature. In this contribution, we argue that policy ambition can be captured by the level of national policy activity, which in accordance with the existing literature should be referred to as “policy density.” In this study, we measure climate policy density by drawing on three publicly available databases. All three measurements show an upward trend in the adoption of climate policy. However, our empirical comparison also reveals differences between the measurements with regard to the degree of policy expansion and sectoral coverage, which are due to differences in the type of policies in the databases. For the first time, we compare the patterns of policy density within each database (2000–2019) and reveal that while they are different, they are nonetheless potentially complementary. Since the choice of the database and the resulting measurement of policy density ultimately depend on the questions posed by researchers, we conclude by discussing whether some questions are better answered by some measurements than others.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5347
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Gender Heterogeneity and Politics in Decision-Making About Green Public
           Procurement in the Czech Republic

    • Authors: Michal Plaček, Cristina del Campo, Vladislav Valentinov, Gabriela Vaceková, Markéta Šumpíková, František Ochrana
      Pages: 239 - 250
      Abstract: Green public procurement (GPP) is a widely recognized public policy tool that has attracted considerable scholarly research. However, much of this research has paid little attention to the nature of discretionary decision-making on the part of bureaucrats and local politicians; nor has it recognized that a crucial determinant of the implementation of GPP is the extent to which women hold administrative and political positions. While GPP tends to be discussed as a tool for promoting gender equality, we draw on feminist insights to argue that doing so may be a tool for enhancing the uptake and implementation of GPP. Utilizing the data from a large-N survey among local politicians and upper-echelon bureaucrats in the Czech Republic, we develop a path analysis model exploring the influence of gender on their decision-making. The results give credence to our overall argument that women are more likely to promote GPP. This argument not only breaks new ground by revealing the gendered nature of GPP but also generates straightforward policy implications.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5408
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
  • Framing Climate Policy Ambition in the European Parliament

    • Authors: Lucy Kinski, Ariadna Ripoll Servent
      Pages: 251 - 263
      Abstract: The European Union’s climate policy is considered quite ambitious. This has led to a growing interest among political scientists investigating the European Parliament’s ability to negotiate such ambitious climate legislation. These studies generally focus on the voting behaviour of members of the European Parliament, which allows us to know more about their positions when it comes to accepting or rejecting legislative acts. However, we know surprisingly little about how they debate and justify their positions in Parliament. In these debates, members of the European Parliament not only identify the problem (i.e., climate change and its adverse effects) but also discuss potential solutions (i.e., their willingness or ambition to fight and adapt to climate change). In addition, plenary debates are ideal for making representative claims based on citizens’ interests on climate action. Therefore, this article aims to understand how climate policy ambitions are debated in the European Parliament and whose interests are represented. We propose a new manual coding scheme for climate policy ambitions in parliamentary debate and employ it in climate policy debates in the ninth European Parliament (2019–present). In doing so, this article makes a methodological contribution to operationalising climate policy ambition from a parliamentary representation and legitimation perspective. We find debating patterns that connect quite detailed ambitions with clear representative claims and justifications. There is more agreement on what to do than how to get there, with divides emerging based on party, ideological, and member-state characteristics.
      PubDate: 2022-09-21
      DOI: 10.17645/pag.v10i3.5479
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 3 (2022)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-