|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
178578
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Whereas scholars have typically modeled climate change as a global collective action challenge, we offer a dynamic theory of climate politics based on the present and future revaluation of assets. Climate politics can be understood as a contest between owners of assets that accelerate climate change, such as fossil fuel plants, and owners of assets vulnerable to climate change, such as coastal property. To date, obstruction by “climate-forcing” asset holders has been a large barrier to effective climate policy. But as climate change and decarbonization policies proceed, holders of both climate-forcing and “climate-vulnerable” assets stand to lose some or even all of their assets' value over time, and with them, the basis of their political power. This dynamic contest between opposing interests is likely to intensify in many sites of political contestation, from the subnational to transnational levels. As it does so, climate politics will become increasingly existential, potentially reshaping political alignments within and across countries. Such shifts may further undermine the Liberal International Order (LIO); as countries develop pro-climate policies at different speeds and magnitudes, they will have incentives to diverge from existing arrangements over trade and economic integration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
155487
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many scholars and policymakers see transnational governance as a substitute for lackluster national and international policies, particularly in the context of intergovernmental gridlock or limited state capacity. The bulk of the literature explains sub- and non-state actors’ participation in transnational initiatives as a product of, on the one hand, micro-level incentives and, on the other, diffusion processes that create and spread normative and market-based pressures. We argue that such theoretical perspectives overlook the dynamic relationship between national policies and transnational governance. First, we argue that ambitious national policies positively affect sub- and non-state actors’ participation in transnational governance. Second, we posit that domestic institutions condition the effects of micro-level incentives and transnational pressures on participation in transnational governance. We test these claims in the climate regime, using an original dataset that, for the first time, measures cross-national participation in transnational climate initiatives across jurisdictions. The results support our expectations. They therefore suggest that we should understand national policies and transnational governance as complements, rather than competitors, to one another. Finally, by showing how and when national policies affect participation in transnational initiatives, we identify important scope conditions for their significance in addressing climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
153814
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite the increasing urgency of many environmental problems, environmental politics remains at the margins of the discipline. Using data from the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) project, this article identifies a puzzle: the majority of international relations (IR) scholars find climate change among the top three most important policy issues today, yet fewer than 4% identify the environment as their primary area of research. Moreover, environmental research is rarely published in top IR journals, although there has been a recent surge in work focused on climate change. The authors argue that greater attention to environmental issues—including those beyond climate change—in IR can bring significant benefits to the discipline, and they discuss three lines of research to correct this imbalance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|