Suchergebnisse

Discussions of failure in public policy have been hampered by a lack of consensus on a definition of the term 'failure'. It can be shown that arguments relating to policy failure tend to conflate forms of failure that are actually discrete, such as failure to meet objectives, claims of negative distributional outcomes and negative electoral outcomes attributed to specific policy decisions. This article attempts to unify and clarify the discourse on policy failure by presenting a multi-dimensional approach that can identify separate aspects of failure within a single policy or program. This multi-dimensional approach to policy failure is then be applied to climate change policy in Australia, in order to demonstrate how some aspects of a policy can be interpreted as failed while others can simultaneously be interpreted as successful, even by the same observer. As this example illustrates, global pronouncements of a public policy as a 'success' or 'failure' should be avoided in favour of more precise evaluations of what kind of failure occurred, and who was affected and in what ways.

Does it make sense to talk about corporate (moral) responsibility for climate change mitigation? Through utilizing systems thinking, I will argue that mitigation should be incorporated into corporate policies for present and future activities within the existing political framework. However, not much retrospective responsibility exists for past emissions. Exception to this are corporations who have engaged in climate change lobbying activities, voluntarily expanding their sphere of influence in the system. They could be responsible for the damage caused by misinformation campaigns and subject to compensation claims. ; Peer reviewed

AbstractThis paper develops a framework for analysing intergovernmental relationships around greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies along a cooperation-conflict spectrum that affects the probability of their enactment. Cooperative policies, such as federal fiscal transfers to sub-national governments, facilitate enactment. Coordination policies, including enabling and funding mechanisms, promote interdependence between jurisdictions. Competitive policies, such as federal performance standards and price mechanisms, increase political conflict over authority. We categorise 23 policies developed by over 1,500 state stakeholders into the cooperation/coordination/conflict taxonomy. If scaled to the national level, these policies could reduce GHG emissions by over 3 billion tonnes by 2020 and generate nearly 2.2 million jobs (1.19 per cent above baseline projections). Nearly two-thirds of the job gains are from coordinated and cooperative policy options that are unlikely to occur under the status quo policy process. We recommend a national climate action planning process to reduce GHG emissions while increasing aggregate economic efficiency.