IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market

Listed author(s):
  • Eva Lövbrand

    (Eva Lövbrand is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research at Linköping University in Sweden. Her research interests revolve around the role of science and expertise in global environmental politics and the marketization of climate governance. Her work has been published in journals such as Review of International Studies, Global Environmental Politics, Environmental Science and Policy, and Climatic Change.)

  • Teresia Rindefjäll

    (Teresia Rindefjäll holds a Ph.D. from Lund University in Sweden. Her research focuses on processes of political development, particularly in the fields of rights-based development and sustainable development, with an empirical focus on Latin America. She defended her dissertation, Democracy Beyond the Ballot Box: Citizen Participation and Social Rights in Post-Transition Chile in 2005.)

  • Joakim Nordqvist

    (Joakim Nordqvist holds a Ph.D. from Environmental and Energy Systems Studies at Lund University in Sweden. Through studies of construction and function of policy efforts to manage technology development, diffusion or deployment, his research addresses societal and actor-based responses to energy and climate related challenges. His work has been published in reports and proceedings, and in journals such as Energy Policy and Greener Management International.)

Registered author(s):

    The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a prominent example of the contemporary turn towards more hybrid modes of global environmental governance. It epitomizes the trend away from hierarchical state regulation towards softer forms of steering along the public-private frontier. In this article we analyze the legitimacy of this novel governance arrangement. While we approach input legitimacy as a procedural ideal that guarantees actors affected by a CDM project voice in the project design and implementation, we relate output legitimacy to the effectiveness or problem solving capacity of the CDM institutions. In contrast to the mainstream understanding of the CDM as a policy mechanism that will secure both goals at the same time and thus reduce the legitimacy gap in global environmental governance, our study points to central trade-offs between the procedural quality and the effectiveness of the CDM project cycle. These trade-offs are illustrated by three carbon projects in Chile, China and Mexico and raise questions for the continued study of legitimacy in global environmental governance. (c) 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by MIT Press in its journal Global Environmental Politics.

    Volume (Year): 9 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 2 (May)
    Pages: 74-100

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:9:y:2009:i:2:p:74-100
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:9:y:2009:i:2:p:74-100. 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: (Kristin Waites)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.