IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rgovxx/v2y2017i4p360-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do experts engage in China’s local climate governance? A case study of Guangdong Province

Author

Listed:
  • Liang-Yu Chen

Abstract

Taking Guangdong Province as a case study, this paper examines the ways in which experts engage in China’s local climate governance. The paper first explains that most prominent experts in Guangdong’s climate governance are those who work in semiofficial institutions or universities. The paper then illuminates the policy work of Guangdong experts by scrutinizing their engagement with three national policy pilot programmes promulgated by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC): the low-carbon provincial pilot programme, the emissions inventory, and the emissions trading scheme. Lastly, in order to contextualize the knowledge–policy interface in the Chinese authoritarian context, the paper adopts the notion of the ‘politics of knowledge’ to explain how the political environment and local authorities’ considerations influence the conduct of experts in China’s local climate governance. While the previous literature mainly focuses on the role of experts in policy formulation, this study extends the understanding of the role of experts in climate governance by detailing the contribution of Guangdong experts to practically all of the stages of the policy process, including the capacity building, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation phases of the policy cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Liang-Yu Chen, 2017. "How do experts engage in China’s local climate governance? A case study of Guangdong Province," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 360-384, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:2:y:2017:i:4:p:360-384
    DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2017.1379646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23812346.2017.1379646
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23812346.2017.1379646?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:2:y:2017:i:4:p:360-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rgov .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.