IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i6p797-822.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coalitional Architecture of Climate Change Litigation Networks in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Federico Holm
  • Ramiro Berardo

Abstract

Understanding how coalitions battle to advance or slow down regulatory efforts to address climate change is critical to assess the likelihood that regulatory approaches can succeed in curbing the emission of greenhouse gases. This requires a thorough examination of how coalitions form and are structured. We focus our analysis on the Obama administration's “Climate Action Plan,” aimed to tackle greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of oil and gas facilities, transportation, and electricity generation. We focus on coalitional behavior when actors litigate either in favor or against each of these rules and reconstruct the comprehensive network of stakeholder relations across court cases by recreating the network of cosigners of documents submitted during the litigation process. We identify two main coalitions of pro‐ and anti‐regulation actors and assess their coalitional strategies. We use descriptive statistics, baseline models, and community detection algorithms to explore participation patterns related to level of participation, cross‐regulation activity, clustering, and homophily based subcoalitions. 为评估监管措施成功控制温室气体排放的可能性,至关重要的是理解联盟如何争取推动或延缓用于应对气候变化的监管工作。这需要对联盟及其架构的形成进行彻底分析。我们的分析聚焦于奥巴马政府的“气候行动计划”,该计划旨在应对由运输、石油天然气设施作业以及发电所产生的温室气体排放。我们聚焦当行动者以诉讼的方式赞成或反对该计划中的每一条规则时联盟的行为,并通过重新创造诉讼期间所提交文件的联署人网络,进而重新建构了各法院案例之间全面的利益攸关方关系网络。我们识别了两大支持和反对监管的行动者联盟,并评估了各自的联盟策略。我们使用描述性统计、基准模型、社区发现算法,探究了与参与程度、跨监管活动、聚集性、基于子联盟(subcoalition)的同质性相关的参与模式。 Comprender cómo luchan las coaliciones para avanzar o ralentizar los esfuerzos regulatorios para abordar el cambio climático es fundamental para evaluar la probabilidad de que los enfoques regulatorios puedan tener éxito en frenar la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero. Esto requiere un examen exhaustivo de cómo se forman y estructuran las coaliciones. Centramos nuestro análisis en el "Plan de acción climática" de la administración Obama, cuyo objetivo es abordar las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del transporte, la operación de instalaciones de petróleo y gas y la generación de electricidad. Nos enfocamos en el comportamiento de coalición cuando los actores litigan a favor o en contra de cada una de estas reglas y reconstruimos la red integral de relaciones con las partes interesadas a través de los casos judiciales recreando la red de firmantes de documentos presentados durante el proceso de litigio. Identificamos dos coaliciones principales de actores pro y anti‐regulación y evaluamos sus estrategias de coalición. Usamos estadísticas descriptivas, modelos de línea de base y algoritmos de detección de comunidades para explorar patrones de participación relacionados con el nivel de participación, la actividad de regulación cruzada, la agrupación y las subcoaliciones basadas en la homofilia.

Suggested Citation

  • Federico Holm & Ramiro Berardo, 2020. "Coalitional Architecture of Climate Change Litigation Networks in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 797-822, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:6:p:797-822
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12402
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12402?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whitford, Andrew B., 2003. "The Structures of Interest Coalitions: Evidence from Environmental Litigation," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 45-64, April.
    2. Mark Schneider & John Scholz & Mark Lubell & Denisa Mindruta & Matthew Edwardsen, 2003. "Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 143-158, January.
    3. Ramiro Berardo & John T. Scholz, 2010. "Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 632-649, July.
    4. Beyers, Jan & Braun, Caelesta, 2014. "Ties that count: explaining interest group access to policymakers," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 93-121, April.
    5. Ramiro Berardo & Federico Holm, 2018. "The participation of core stakeholders in the design of, and challenges to, the US Clean Power Plan," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(9), pages 1152-1164, October.
    6. Elinor Ostrom, 2016. "Nested Externalities and Polycentric Institutions: Must We Wait for Global Solutions to Climate Change Before Taking Actions at Other Scales?," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 259-276, Springer.
    7. Garry Robins & Malcolm Alexander, 2004. "Small Worlds Among Interlocking Directors: Network Structure and Distance in Bipartite Graphs," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 69-94, May.
    8. Whitford Andrew B., 2003. "The Structures of Interest Coalitions: Evidence from Environmental Litigation," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Elisabeth R. Gerber & Adam Douglas Henry & Mark Lubell, 2013. "Political Homophily and Collaboration in Regional Planning Networks," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 598-610, July.
    10. Tom Snijders, 1991. "Enumeration and simulation methods for 0–1 matrices with given marginals," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 397-417, September.
    11. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. & Christenson, Dino P., 2015. "Comparing membership interest group networks across space and time, size, issue and industry," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 78-97, March.
    12. Daniel H. Cole, 2015. "Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 114-118, February.
    13. Daniel Carpenter & Kevin Esterling & David Lazer, 2003. "The Strength of Strong Ties," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(4), pages 411-440, November.
    14. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Sabatier, Paul A., 1994. "Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 175-203, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    2. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    3. Dana R. Fisher & Philip Leifeld, 2019. "The polycentricity of climate policy blockage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, August.
    4. Baron, David P., 2011. "Credence attributes, voluntary organizations, and social pressure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1331-1338.
    5. Tiffany H. Morrison & W. Neil Adger & Katrina Brown & Maria Carmen Lemos & Dave Huitema & Terry P. Hughes, 2017. "Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    6. Matthew L. Hamilton & Mark Lubell, 2019. "Climate change adaptation, social capital, and the performance of polycentric governance institutions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 307-326, March.
    7. Jordan K. Lofthouse & Roberta Q. Herzberg, 2023. "The Continuing Case for a Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    8. Ilia Murtazashvili & Veeshan Rayamajhee & Keith Taylor, 2023. "The Tragedy of the Nurdles: Governing Global Externalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Marcel J. Dorsch & Christian Flachsland, 2017. "A Polycentric Approach to Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 45-64, May.
    10. Klaus Eisenack, 2023. "Why local governments set climate targets: Effects of city size and political costs," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0029, Berlin School of Economics.
    11. Manfred Milinski & Jochem Marotzke, 2022. "Economic experiments support Ostrom’s polycentric approach to mitigating climate change," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Gallemore, Caleb & Di Gregorio, Monica & Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Prasti H., Rut Dini, 2015. "Transaction costs, power, and multi-level forest governance in Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 168-179.
    13. Bauwens, Thomas & Eyre, Nick, 2017. "Exploring the links between community-based governance and sustainable energy use: Quantitative evidence from Flanders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 163-172.
    14. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    15. Mark S. Handcock & Adrian E. Raftery & Jeremy M. Tantrum, 2007. "Model‐based clustering for social networks," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(2), pages 301-354, March.
    16. Friedman, Rachel S. & Guerrero, Angela M. & McAllister, Ryan R.J. & Rhodes, Jonathan R. & Santika, Truly & Budiharta, Sugeng & Indrawan, Tito & Hutabarat, Joseph A. & Kusworo, Ahmad & Yogaswara, Herry, 2020. "Beyond the community in participatory forest management: A governance network perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Phillip M. Hannam & Vítor V. Vasconcelos & Simon A. Levin & Jorge M. Pacheco, 2017. "Incomplete cooperation and co-benefits: deepening climate cooperation with a proliferation of small agreements," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 65-79, September.
    18. Carattini, Stefano & Fankhauser, Sam & Gao, Jianjian & Gennaioli, Caterina & Panzarasa, Pietro, 2023. "What does network analysis teach us about international environmental cooperation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    19. Erlantz Allur & Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria & Olivier Boiral & Francesco Testa, 2018. "Quality and Environmental Management Linkage: A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari, 2020. "Hot transformations: Governing rapid and deep household heating transitions in China, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    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:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:6:p:797-822. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.