IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/masfgc/v19y2014i3p261-288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Author

Listed:
  • S. Scrieciu

    ()

  • Valerie Belton

    ()

  • Zaid Chalabi

    ()

  • Reinhard Mechler

    ()

  • Daniel Puig

    ()

Abstract

There are growing calls for identifying climate mitigation and adaptation policy packages that would also support human development objectives at the national and regional levels. The literature on climate policy analysis and impact assessment continues to be driven by standard economics with its body of competitive general equilibrium optimization models and cost-benefit analysis techniques of aggregation and monetization. However, its recommendations for climate action are often based on highly restrictive underlying assumptions, which have been increasingly criticized for being too prescriptive, not adequately capturing salient observed socioeconomic realities, and not acknowledging pluralism in values. The main aim of this paper is to put forward a new methodological approach that seeks to address these deficiencies. A generic but comprehensive framework eliciting mitigation-adaptation-development interactions, accounting for institutional barriers, and drawing on a combination of an emerging body of new climate economics and multi-criteria decision analysis is suggested. We purport that, by using this framework, multi-dimensional impacts and multi-stakeholder interests could be better represented when planning climate policy actions. We also argue that analytical tools drawing on economic thinking which embraces interdisciplinary analysis and deep uncertainty and avoids the fallacy of unique optimal solutions, may deliver more effective strategies for pushing economies onto the transformational pathways required. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • S. Scrieciu & Valerie Belton & Zaid Chalabi & Reinhard Mechler & Daniel Puig, 2014. "Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 261-288, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:19:y:2014:i:3:p:261-288
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-013-9538-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11027-013-9538-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pearce, David, 1998. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 84-100, Winter.
    2. Soderholm, Patrik & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2003. "Pricing environmental externalities in the power sector: ethical limits and implications for social choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 333-350, October.
    3. Maciej Bukowski & Pawel Kowal, 2010. "Large scale, multi-sector DSGE model as a climate policy assessment tool - Macroeconomic Mitigation Options (MEMO) model for Poland," IBS Working Papers 3/2010, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    4. Schenker, Oliver, 2011. "How uncertainty reduces greenhouse gas emissions," MPRA Paper 29591, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Geoffrey Heal, 2009. "Climate Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 4-21, Winter.
    6. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    7. Simon Dietz & Nicholas Stern, 2008. "Why Economic Analysis Supports Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review's Critics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 94-113, Winter.
    8. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    9. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost†Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Bosquet, Benoit, 2000. "Environmental tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 19-32, July.
    11. David Dequech, 2007. "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 279-302.
    12. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 931-952, June.
    13. Andrea Conte & Ariane Labat & Janos Varga & Ziga Zarnic, 2010. "What is the growth potential of green innovation? An assessment of EU climate policy options," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 413, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    14. S. Scrieciu & A. Rezai & R. Mechler, 2013. "On the economic foundations of green growth discourses: the case of climate change mitigation and macroeconomic dynamics in economic modeling," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(3), pages 251-268, May.
    15. Booth, Douglas E., 1994. "Ethics and the limits of environmental economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 241-252, April.
    16. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2009. "The topology of fear," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(12), pages 807-816, December.
    17. Skott, Peter & Davis, Leila, 2013. "Distributional biases in the analysis of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 188-197.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ariane de Bremond & Nathan Engle, 2014. "Adaptation policies to increase terrestrial ecosystem resilience: potential utility of a multicriteria approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 331-354, March.
    2. Zaid Chalabi & Sari Kovats, 2014. "Tools for developing adaptation policy to protect human health," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 309-330, March.

    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:spr:masfgc:v:19:y:2014:i:3:p:261-288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.