Suchergebnisse

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one of the most advanced global climate governance arrangements and we show that it contributes to the buildup of autonomous capacities and reliable procedures in areas of rather limited statehood. These partially unintended effects can be conceptualized as an increasing rational–legal bureaucratization, which has been initiated through both external and domestic actors as we illuminate in the case of Indonesia's forestry sector in the period from 2007 until 2017. Our finding is that a bureaucratization of a new kind is increasingly strengthened in Indonesia's forest despite enduring patterns of neopatrimonialism, emerging signs of new public management approaches, and the strengthening of functional equivalents such as community-based forest management. We thus claim that Max Weber's perspective on the prospects and problems of rational–legal bureaucratization is still valuable, even when travelling to the tropics.

AbstractReducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one of the most advanced global climate governance arrangements and we show that it contributes to the buildup of autonomous capacities and reliable procedures in areas of rather limited statehood. These partially unintended effects can be conceptualized as an increasing rational–legal bureaucratization, which has been initiated through both external and domestic actors as we illuminate in the case of Indonesia's forestry sector in the period from 2007 until 2017. Our finding is that a bureaucratization of a new kind is increasingly strengthened in Indonesia's forest despite enduring patterns of neopatrimonialism, emerging signs of new public management approaches, and the strengthening of functional equivalents such as community‐based forest management. We thus claim that Max Weber's perspective on the prospects and problems of rational–legal bureaucratization is still valuable, even when travelling to the tropics.

Abstract
Following the Paris Agreement, states have submitted nationally determined contributions (NDCs) pledging how they aim to prevent dangerous climate change. These documents reveal how states translate the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) normative expectations based on their domestic circumstances. We examine continuity and change between first and second NDCs with an inductive method of quantitative text analysis—topic modeling. Overall, these pledges rely on UNFCCC's norms, indicating the stability of the liberal order. Many norms are translated similarly in first and second NDCs. When states prioritize some norms over others, this continues to align with the annex divide, reflecting differences in domestic circumstances (e.g., vulnerability). Yet, some discourse coalitions also cut across this line. Two innovative translations stand out in the second NDCs: first, the low-carbon economy discourse adds a new spin to "liberal environmentalism," apparently driven by competition among higher-income countries, and second, interlinkages with the human rights regime point to successful transnational socialization in democratic states. These findings indicate potential directions for global climate politics.

Die Forschung zu internationalen Normdynamiken steht vor der Herausforderung, die Interpretationen von vielen verschiedenen Akteuren analytisch zu erfassen, um die Komplexität, Pluralität und auch den Wandel von Perspektiven in der globalen Politik darstellen zu können. Neuere Verfahren der quantitativen, computergestützten Textanalyse ermöglichen es, die Inhalte großer Textkorpora und damit viele Fälle parallel auszuwerten. Unser Papier stellt einen innovativen Ansatz vor, um eine Methode der quantitativen Textanalyse für die Normenforschung nutzbar zu machen. Unsupervised topic modeling ist eine induktiv-explorative Methode zum Auffinden von Mustern im Diskurs. Sie scheint uns besonders nützlich für Forschung zu Normübersetzung, bei der die Offenheit, die Fluidität und der Wandel von Normen im Mittelpunkt stehen. Am Beispiel der globalen Klimapolitik illustriert dieser Beitrag, wie die im internationalen Regime institutionalisierten Normen durch Mitgliedstaaten übersetzt werden. Wir diskutieren das Potenzial unseres Ansatzes und reflektieren auch die damit einhergehenden Herausforderungen.

Several scholars have pointed to the increasing salience of cities in the global endeavour to reduce dangerous climate change to 1.5°C. However, we still lack systematic comparative analyses on how urban climate initiatives evolve in different political-administrative systems of countries in the global South and what role transnational city networks play in that context. This question is specifically important with regard to the role of cities in contributing to reaching the targets of the Paris Agreement. Against this backdrop, this article explores the vertical and horizontal integration of cities' climate actions in the multi-level climate governance landscapes in Brazil, India, Indonesia and South Africa. We contend that while transnational city networks provide significant support to cities in some cases, their tools and practices can only reach their full potential where they encounter committed local administrations and when they are not constrained by domestic political-administrative and economic factors.

SummarySeveral scholars concerned with global policy‐making have recently pointed to a reconfiguration of authority in the area of climate politics. They have shown that various new carbon governance arrangements have emerged, which operate simultaneously at different governmental levels. However, despite the numerous descriptions and mapping exercises of these governance arrangements, we have little systematic knowledge on their workings within national jurisdictions, let alone about their impact on public‐administrative systems in developing countries. Therefore, this article opens the "black box" of the nation‐state and explores how and to what extent two different arrangements, that is, Transnational City Networks and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, generate changes in the distribution of public authority in nation‐states and their administrations. Building upon conceptual assumptions that the former is likely to lead to more decentralized, and the latter to more centralized policy‐making, we provide insights from case studies in Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and India. In a nutshell, our analysis underscores that Transnational City Networks strengthen climate‐related actions taken by cities without ultimately decentralizing climate policy‐making. On the other hand, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation tends to reinforce the competencies of central governments, but apparently does not generate a recentralization of the forestry sector at large.

In recent years, several scholars of world politics have observed a relocation of authority in different issue areas of global policy-making. This development appears to be particularly evident in the field of global climate politics where a number of authors have highlighted the gradual loss of authority by national governments and the emergence of new spheres of authority dominated by actors other than the nation-state. In fact, due to the existence of a regulatory gap in this policy domain, various new governance arrangements have emerged which work simultaneously at different levels (some top-down and others bottom-up) to cope with the problem of climate change. However, despite several broader descriptions and mapping exercises, we have little systematic knowledge about their workings, let alone their impact on political-administrative systems. Given these shortcomings, in this paper we explore how (and how far) different types of globally operating governance arrangements have caused changes in the distribution of authority within national governments and their public administration. We will focus on two stylized governance arrangements: one that operates bottom-up (i.e. Transnational City Networks, TCNs) and another that operates top-down (i.e. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, REDD+). Departing from our hypotheses that the former is likely to lead to more decentralization and the latter to more centralization of environmental policy making, we will present some preliminary findings from our case studies in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa.