IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/iasawp/ir97033.html

International Policy Instrument Prominence in the Climate Change Debate: A Case Study of the United States

Author

Listed:
  • K. Fisher-Vanden

Abstract

This paper explores the factors influencing the types of policy instruments seriously considered and actively promoted by US policymakers over time in the climate change debate. A variant on Kingdon's model is used to describe how these factors and actor groups affect the pool of instrument considered-not only influencing which instruments go into the pool but also which ones bubble to the top and which ones sink to the bottom in prominence. In the model presented in this paper the following three process streams coupled with influence of time and historical experience determine the prominence of individual policy instruments in the pool: (1) a "politics/economics" stream which contains contextual factors (such as national mood and macroeconomic conditions) that constrain the type of policy instruments policymakers can consider; (2) a "policy options" stream which generates and promotes particular policy instruments; and (3) an "issues" stream which contains the policy goals faced by policymakers at the time. Actor groups can affect any of these streams and can act as "policy entrepreneurs" by advocating the use or disuse of certain instruments. With regard to formal (i.e., report-like) assessments, this paper finds that although formal assessments have seemingly had little direct impact on US policy responses in the past, it is not the case that they have had no indirect impact or will not have a larger direct impact in the future. This lack of direct impact could be explained by (a) the primary use of alternative channels of information (e.g., advisors, briefings, memos) by policymakers; (b) the lack of attention given in assessments to the contextual factors constraining policy instrument choice; (c) the discrepancies between the goals assumed by assessors (e.g., a specific environmental goal) and the actual goals faced by policymakers; and (d) the assessment's intended audience.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Fisher-Vanden, 1997. "International Policy Instrument Prominence in the Climate Change Debate: A Case Study of the United States," Working Papers ir97033, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:ir97033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-97-033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-97-033.ps
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hahn, R.W. & Stavins, R.N., 1990. "Incentive-Based Environmental Regulation: A New Era From An Old Idea?," Papers 183d, Harvard - J.F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Schelling, Thomas C, 1992. "Some Economics of Global Warming," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Keohane, Nathaniel O. & Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 1997. "The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Discussion Papers 10759, Resources for the Future.
    4. Joaquim Oliveira Martins & Jean-Marc Burniaux & John P. Martin & Giuseppe Nicoletti, 1992. "The Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions: A Comparison of Carbon Tax Curves with GREEN," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 118, OECD Publishing.
    5. Edmonds, Jae & Wise, Marshall & Barns, David W, 1995. "Carbon coalitions : The cost and effectiveness of energy agreements to alter trajectories of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 309-335.
    6. Beder, Sharon, 1996. "Charging the earth: The promotion of price-based measures for pollution control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 51-63, January.
    7. Stavins, Robert N. & Whitehead, Bradley W., 1996. "The Next Generation of Market-Based Environment Policies," Discussion Papers 10640, Resources for the Future.
    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. Maddison, David, 1995. "A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 337-346.
    2. Jaeger, William K., 1995. "The welfare cost of a global carbon tax when tax revenues are recycled," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 47-67, May.
    3. Fankhauser, Samuel & Kverndokk, Snorre, 1996. "The global warming game -- Simulations of a CO2-reduction agreement," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 83-102, March.
    4. Stavins, Robert, 2000. "A Two-Way Street Between Environmental Economics and Public Policy," Working Paper Series rwp00-005, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Dietz, Simon & Gollier, Christian & Kessler, Louise, 2018. "The climate beta," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 258-274.
    6. Peter Read, 2002. "Precautionary climate policy and the somewhat flawed protocol: linking sinks to biofuel and the CDM to the convention," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 89-95, March.
    7. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 1998. "A general model for CO2 regulation: the case of Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-44, January.
    8. Onur Sapci & Aaron Wood & Jason Shogren & Jolene Green, 2016. "Can verifiable information cut through the noise about climate protection? An experimental auction test," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 87-99, January.
    9. Castells-Quintana, David & del Pilar Lopez-Uribe, Maria & McDermott, Thomas K.J., 2018. "A review of adaptation to climate change through a development economics lens," Working Papers 309605, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    10. Aronsson, Thomas & Schöb, Ronnie, 2018. "Climate change and psychological adaptation: A behavioral environmental economics approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 79-84.
    11. Millner, Antony & Dietz, Simon, 2015. "Adaptation to climate change and economic growth in developing countries," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 380-406, June.
    12. Luis Abadie & Ibon Galarraga & Dirk Rübbelke, 2013. "An analysis of the causes of the mitigation bias in international climate finance," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(7), pages 943-955, October.
    13. Nagashima, Miyuki & Dellink, Rob & van Ierland, Ekko & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2009. "Stability of international climate coalitions -- A comparison of transfer schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1476-1487, March.
    14. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rose, Adam, 2008. "Equity and Justice in Global Warming Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 135-176, October.
    15. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    16. Samuel Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn & Jisung Park, 2010. "Combining Multiple Climate Policy Instruments: How Not To Do It," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(03), pages 209-225.
    17. Letta, Marco & Montalbano, Pierluigi & Tol, Richard S.J., 2018. "Temperature shocks, short-term growth and poverty thresholds: Evidence from rural Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 13-32.
    18. Gardner Brown, 2000. "Renewable Natural Resource Management and Use Without Markets," Working Papers 0025, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    19. Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2008. "Internationale Klimapolitik nach Kyoto: Architekturen und Institutionen," UFZ Discussion Papers 10/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    20. Priscilla Massa-Sánchez & Luis Quintana-Romero & Ronny Correa-Quezada & María de la Cruz del Río-Rama, 2020. "Empirical Evidence in Ecuador between Economic Growth and Environmental Deterioration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, January.

    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:wop:iasawp:ir97033. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiasaat.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.