Learning in Governance

An investigation of the role of learning and its impact on policy change, as exemplified in European Union climate policy integration. Although learning is often considered an important factor in effective environmental governance, it is not clear to what extent learning affects decision making and policy outcomes. In this book, Katharina Rietig examines the role of learning—understood as additional knowledge or experience that is taken into account by policymakers—in earth system governance and policy change. She does this by examining learning in European Union climate policy integration, looking in detail at the examples of the Renewable Energy Directive, its controversial biofuels component, and the greening measures in the Common Agricultural Policy. To examine how learning occurs in the policy process, how to differentiate aspects of learning, and under what conditions learning matters for policy outcomes, Rietig introduces the Learning in Governance Framework, applying it to analyze the EU examples. She finds that policy outcomes are affected through leadership of policy entrepreneurs, who use previously acquired knowledge and past experience to achieve outcomes aligned with their deeper beliefs and policy objectives. She concludes that learning does matter in governance as an intervening variable and can affect policy outcomes in combination with dedicated leadership by policy entrepreneurs who act as learning brokers. Bargaining dominates the policymaking process among actors who represent the interests of different organizations. Rietig's theoretical framework, empirical studies, and nuanced analysis offer a new perspective on the relevance of learning in earth system governance

Learning in governance: the role of policy entrepreneurs in European climate policy integration

Learning is frequently regarded as facilitating factor for policy outcomes across multiple levels of governance. Learning however competes with alternative explanations such as bargaining, actor’s interests and organisational objectives. This thesis examines from an institutional perspective the link between individual learning of policymakers and learning among governmental institutions and analyses to what extent learning matters for the policy outcome. It finds that policy entrepreneurs play a key role in transferring learning to the organisational level and in achieving policy outcomes. The empirical focus is on learning in climate policy integration, which carries increasing importance for effective environmental governance as it can help create synergies for economic development and climate mitigation. The European Union is a frontrunner in integrating climate objectives into energy, transport and agriculture policy via regulatory instruments setting overall targets and conditioning financial resources upon compliance. This thesis uses qualitative methods to examine learning in the policymaking aspects of climate policy integration at the examples of the Renewable Energy Directive, its controversial biofuels component and the greening measures in the Common Agricultural Policy. This research makes several original contributions to the agency aspects of environmental governance: the meta-theoretical framework on learning allows a more nuanced analysis of what learning aspects occur in governance such as knowledge- and experience-based learning versus changes in different types of underlying beliefs. It also allows determining the extent to which a policy outcome results from learning or alternative explanations. This contribution clarifies the under-researched link between the learning individual, changes in beliefs and the factors hindering learning from being transferred to the organisational level where policy decisions are made. Policy outcomes resulted predominantly from policy entrepreneurs using previously acquired knowledge and experience to achieve a policy outcome aligned with their pre-formed deeper beliefs and policy objectives. Overall, the thesis provides a fresh perspective on the relevance of learning in the policymaking process and of bureaucrats as policy entrepreneurs

Does learning matter for policy outcomes? The case of integrating climate finance into the EU budget

A considerable body of work has invoked learning in seeking to explain observed patterns of EU policy change. This paper scrutinizes the relevance of learning for understanding policy outcomes. We apply a consolidated framework based on factual, experiential and constructiv-ist learning across the individual and organizational levels to examine the unlikely policy out-come of dedicating 20% of the EU 2014-2020 budget to climate action. Learning did play some role in the policy outcome, in that the belief that climate policy integration (CPI) was an appropriate instrument to address climate change was the result of constructivist learning over the preceding decade. However, this learning was restricted to a handful of policy entrepre-neurs in the Cabinet/DG Clima, who largely “pushed” the policy through based on pre-existing convictions. Conversely, beyond some experiential learning, there is little evidence that learning was a significant feature of the policy process amongst actors in other European institutions

The GLOBE climate legislation study: a review of climate change legislation in 66 countries: fourth edition

The GLOBE Climate Legislation Study is the most comprehensive audit of climate legislation across 66 countries, together responsible for around 88% of global manmade greenhouse gas emissions. It is produced by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics in collaboration with GLOBE International. The 4th edition of the Study was formally launched at the 2nd GLOBE Climate Legislation Summit held at the Senate of the United States of America and at the World Bank in Washington DC on 27th-28th February 2014. The next edition of the Climate Legislation Study will be launched in early 2015, covering legislation in 100 countries. Key messages from the 4th edition: ◾Almost 500 climate laws have been passed in the 66 countries covered by the study; the direction of travel is clear; and encouragingly, it is developing countries and emerging markets, which are advancing climate change laws and regulation at the fastest pace. ◾Even though the legislative progress is impressive, the cumulative ambition of these laws is not yet sufficient to limit global average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the agreed goal of the international community. ◾In order for a successful outcome in Paris in 2015 there is now extreme urgency to strengthen commitments, and for countries that have not yet passed climate change laws and/or regulations to do so

Reinforcement of multilevel governance dynamics: creating momentum for increasing ambitions in international climate negotiations

Compared to the disappointment of the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, the results of the recent Conferences of the Parties can be regarded as positive progress. This was made possible due to lesson drawing and learning among states. Recent evidence from the UNFCCC negotiations suggests that countries began to reflect on the “Copenhagen experience.” They are setting up domestic climate legislation in the form of low carbon development plans and share their knowledge and experiences in the international climate change negotiations. Country representatives engage in workshops and roundtables to showcase their mitigation plans and low carbon development initiatives, thereby raising ambitions and creating group pressure on other countries. This article examines how the diffusion of policies across countries is motivated and facilitated by knowledge transfer and learning within multilevel-reinforcing governance dynamics between the domestic level and international negotiations. It analyzes how changes in the negotiation setting from confrontational formal negotiations to a more open forum and bottom-up pledge-and-review process, in combination with a positively framed win–win low carbon economic development narrative resulted in the diffusion of climate policies across developed and developing countries. Communicating these climate initiatives on the national level has shifted the debate. Countries emphasize less the win–lose perspective of economic costs and sacrifice. Thus, they focus less on the question of who should reduce emissions’, but identify co-benefits instead. The institutionalized knowledge sharing within the UNFCCC is also creating positive competitive dynamics among countries to increase their ambition and to take on a leadership role. This shift in the negotiations carries potential for a more ambitious aggregate negotiation outcome and opens up a window of opportunity

Presidential leadership styles and institutional capacity for climate policy integration in the European Commission

Climate policy integration (CPI) is a key strategy for implementing climate policy action, spanning policy sectors and levels of governance. As a central agenda-setting actor in the EU, we argue that understanding the institutional capacity for CPI inside the European Commission is especially important for understanding the advancement of CPI in the EU overall. We focus on the inner workings of the Commission, and we ask: what role does the leadership style of the Commission President play in advancing institutional capacity for implementing CPI? We assess the institutional capacity for CPI in the Commission during the Barroso and Juncker Presidencies, which display characteristics of bottom-up and top-down leadership styles, respectively. While we do not find that one presidential leadership style is necessarily ‘better’ than the other at enhancing institutional capacities for CPI, we highlight important differences along four key factors, namely: (1) political commitment to overarching climate objectives and to the necessity of implementing CPI; (2) recognition of functional overlaps between policy objectives and compatible beliefs for implementing CPI among policymakers; (3) an opportunity structure for innovative policy development and policy entrepreneurship; (4) and meaningful coordination and consultation mechanisms