IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v26y2026i3p67-89.html

More Than an Empty Bucket? The Competing Rationalities in the Operationalization of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Fischer
  • Angela Oels

Abstract

In 2023, the UN climate conference celebrated the successful operationalization of new funding arrangements (FAs), including the new Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) from climate change. However, given how little money has been received by the fund, the FRLD has been compared to an “empty bucket.” We use a governmentality analysis based on Mitchell Dean to explore the rationalities that have competed in shaping finance for loss and damage toward specific ends, and how the fund is designed as a result. In total, four competing rationalities have been at play: optimizing, additional voluntary support, scaling finance to needs, and historical responsibility. We show that governing takes place through an empty fund aiming to empower recipients toward self-help and resilience. As questions of historical responsibility and liability have been silenced, the FRLD has been emptied of its radical potential for climate justice.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Fischer & Angela Oels, 2026. "More Than an Empty Bucket? The Competing Rationalities in the Operationalization of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 26(3), pages 67-89, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:26:y:2026:i:3:p:67-89
    DOI: 10.1162/GLEP.a.785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP.a.785
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/GLEP.a.785?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:26:y:2026:i:3:p:67-89. 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: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.