Decentralization in Ukraine and bottom-up European integration

Author´s accepted manuscript.Available from 30/07/2023.acceptedVersio

Will climate mitigation ambitions lead to carbon neutrality? An analysis of the local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU

Cities across the globe recognise their role in climate mitigation and are acting to reduce carbon emissions. Knowing whether cities set ambitious climate and energy targets is critical for determining their contribution towards the global 1.5 °C target, partly because it helps to identify areas where further action is necessary. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the mitigation targets of 327 European cities, as declared in their local climate plans. The sample encompasses over 25% of the EU population and includes cities of all sizes across all Member States, plus the UK. The study analyses whether the type of plan, city size, membership of climate networks, and its regional location are associated with different levels of mitigation ambition. Results reveal that 78% of the cities have a GHG emissions reduction target. However, with an average target of 47%, European cities are not on track to reach the Paris Agreement: they need to roughly double their ambitions and efforts. Some cities are ambitious, e.g. 25% of our sample (81) aim to reach carbon neutrality, with the earliest target date being 2020.90% of these cities are members of the Climate Alliance and 75% of the Covenant of Mayors. City size is the strongest predictor for carbon neutrality, whilst climate network(s) membership, combining adaptation and mitigation into a single strategy, and local motivation also play a role. The methods, data, results and analysis of this study can serve as a reference and baseline for tracking climate mitigation ambitions across European and global cities

Big data for policymaking: fad or fasttrack?

The buzz surrounding big data has taken shape in various theoretical and practical forms when it comes to policymaking. The paper combines current research streams with long-standing discussions on government and technology in public policy and public administration, such as e-government and evidence-based policymaking. The goal is to answer the question whether big data is a fleeting trend or has long-lasting effects on policymaking. Three larger themes in the literature are identified: First, the role that institutional capacity has within government to utilize big data analytics; second, government use of big data analytics in the context of digital public services; and finally, the way that big data information enters the policy cycle, focusing on substantive and procedural policy instruments. Examples from the education, crisis management, environmental and healthcare domain highlight the opportunities and challenges for each of these themes. Exploring the various aspects of big data and policymaking shows that big data is here to stay, but that its utilization by government will take time due to institutional barriers and capacity bottlenecks.The politics and administration of institutional chang

The role of trust in joined-up government activities:Experiences from Health in All Policies in South Australia

Trust has been consistently identified as an important enabling factor for joined-up government activity to generate strong, integrated and effective social policy. Despite this, there has been comparatively little detailed analysis of the complexities and dynamics involved. This paper provides a detailed examination of how trust is built, nurtured and, in some instances, lost during joined-up policy activity. It draws on interview and survey data that reveal the dynamics of relationships formed under the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative. The research extends the parameters of organisational analyses of trust. Previous typologies are mostly descriptive, with limited explanatory power, typically focusing on individuals and institutions separately rather than integrating these foci to consider how trust operates within whole systems. By integrating Giddens’ theoretical perspectives on trust with existing typologies, the paper generates understanding about how trust operates as a resource within non-traditional joined-up government working relationships, serving to bridge the gap between the known and unknown, and acting as a productive resource to stimulate action within government systems that are perceived to feature high levels of risk. A model is provided to explain the interrelated dynamics of trust building, maintenance, monitoring and repair