Governments have in recent years developed various new climate governance procedures in their efforts to get to net zero emissions. These systems may help generate common knowledge and ensure continuous revisiting and evaluation of climate action. Overall, climate governance systems may improve overall climate governance and regulate underlying conflicts. There are numerous strategies for organizing domestic climate governance (Boasson & Tatham, 2023; Dubash, 2021; Guy et al., 2023), and bureaucratic institutions for climate action (Limberg et al., 2024; Meckling & Nahm, 2018; Tosun, 2018). So far, we have little knowledge of how and why these differences in governance develop. Understanding the reasons for variation in climate governance systems is important because it may lead us to understanding how these systems can be organized most efficiently within different contexts. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the following question: what are the key mechanisms that influence variation in climate governance systems?
This paper establishes a framework that explains how domestic contexts influence the development of varying types of climate governance systems. It does so by studying the development of such systems in Norway and Denmark, two countries that share many similarities but have ended up with quite different approaches to climate governance. While the Norwegian strategy involves integrating climate governance in another existing governance cycle, the Danish strategy has been to create a separate climate governance system that other sectors can contribute to. Additionally, Denmark established an independent expert council that regularly reviews and gives advice to the overall climate governance. Many of the same governance procedures are present in both countries, but the level of transparency, types of actors that are included and the predictability of these procedures vary greatly. The differences have implications for how efficiently each country work towards achieving its climate targets, as the governance systems can enhance or limit political and economic factors that influence climate action.
The case study is built on extensive qualitative data, including official documents and qualitative interviews, which is analyzed through an abductive research strategy. This approach aims to develop new theoretical perspectives and concepts by dynamically combining empirical evidence with existing theories (Swedberg, 2012). Abductive analysis involves moving back and forth between qualitative empirical evidence and existing theories to explain aspects that existing theories may not address (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).
The relevant official documents for this analysis include laws, policy statuses, plans, and reports evaluating overall climate action from the government or expert councils. All of these documents are publicly available. Interviews have been conducted with individuals in the public administration who have been involved in the development of the climate governance systems in Norway and Denmark. This includes employees and leaders from various ministries and agencies, as well as key actors from the Danish Climate Council. While documents present the official narrative, interviews help reveal the underlying processes behind them.
The theoretical framework developed in this article focuses on four main mechanisms that drive the development of climate governance: playing field shift, political translation, bureaucratic politics and administrative translation. These mechanisms point to conditions in the administrative and political apparatus that drive variation in climate governance. Changes in the playing field refer to how popular movements can lead to shifts when conditions are favorable. Political translation involves politicians learning from and adapting strategies used in other settings. Bureaucratic politics underline how power relations among various administrative sectors shape governance structures. Administrative translation refers to how current institutions and processes are applied to climate governance. The mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and the presence of different mechanisms can lead to variations in the form of the climate governance system. Overall, the theoretical framework illustrates how politics and administration influence the development of climate governance strategies. I expect that the climate governance systems in both countries have been influenced by translation from other countries, but I expect political translation to have had a bigger role in the establishment and development of the system in Denmark. In Norway, I expect that administrative translation, and bureaucratic politics has been influential, due to a lack of involvement of political ambitions.
This project faces several potential challenges. First, the climate governance procedures are complex, and their origin can be difficult to point out precisely. Additionally, the theoretical framework may be too complicated to apply in other countries or policy areas, which could limit the study's generalizability. Complexity also arises from relying on interviews as the primary source of information, as findings may depend on the interviewees' memories or agendas. Using documents can help balance this, but arriving at solid conclusions may still be challenging. Furthermore, the abductive approach presents some methodological issues, particularly in balancing empirical findings with theory in a coherent way. Overall, the key challenge with this study is to conduct a thorough analysis without making it overly complex.
Another challenge is related to the publication strategy. One goal is to use political science and public administration insights to find effective ways to improve climate action. While this means that there are many opportunities for research, it also means that speaking to the correct audience is a challenge. For this paper specifically, it could enhance the issue of complexity even further, which is a potential problem both for the research itself and the dissemination of the results.
