Author
Listed:
- Thomas Bernauer
(ETH Zürich, Center for Comparative and International Studies, Switzerland)
- Liang Dong
(China Foreign Affairs University, Institute of Asian Studies, China)
- Liam F. McGrath
(ETH Zürich, Center for Comparative and International Studies, Switzerland)
- Irina Shaymerdenova
(ETH Zürich, Center for Comparative and International Studies, Switzerland)
- Haibin Zhang
(Peking University, School of International Studies, China)
Abstract
The traditional political economy account of global climate change governance directs our attention to fundamental collective action problems associated with global public goods provision, resulting from positive or negative externalities as well as freeriding. The governance architecture of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol uses the traditional approaches of international diplomacy for addressing such challenges: legally binding commitments based on principles of reciprocity and (fair) cost/burden sharing via formalized carbon-budgeting. Yet, the 2015 Paris Agreement has essentially abandoned this approach, as it now operates on the basis of internationally coordinated and monitored unilateralism. On the presumption that public opinion matters for government policy, we examine how citizens view this shift in climate policy from reciprocity to unilateralism, after many years of exposure to strong reciprocity rhetoric by governments and stakeholders. To that end, we fielded a survey experiment in China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter. The results show that there is, perhaps surprisingly, strong and robust public support for unilateral, non-reciprocal climate policy. To the extent China is interested in pushing ahead with ambitious and thus costly GHG reduction policies, our results suggest that China can leverage segments of public support in order to overcome domestic obstacles to GHG mitigation policies.
Suggested Citation
Thomas Bernauer & Liang Dong & Liam F. McGrath & Irina Shaymerdenova & Haibin Zhang, 2016.
"Unilateral or Reciprocal Climate Policy? Experimental Evidence from China,"
Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 152-171.
Handle:
RePEc:cog:poango:v4:y:2016:i:3:p:152-171
DOI: 10.17645/pag.v4i3.650
Download full text from publisher
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:cog:poango:v4:y:2016:i:3:p:152-171. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.