IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v49y2017i10p2281-2299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Amelia Sharman
  • Richard Perkins

Abstract

Contestation over knowledge claims, including their legitimacy as an input to policy decision-making, does not end at the moment of policy creation. Policies continue to be made and unmade during the implementation phase. Drawing from work on knowledge controversies, and building on the concept of post-decisional politics, we investigate the implementation of climate change policy in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We identify politically salient post-decisional logics of inaction which have been used to justify delaying or diluting climate policy implementation in both countries. In New Zealand, knowledge controversy has had little or no influence over decision-making, with political rationales in the form of the current national economic interest and cost-based logics prevailing. Conversely, arguments emphasising scientific uncertainty have achieved political traction in the United Kingdom, creating a “fog of distrust†instrumental in draining political capital from the active implementation of climate policy. Explanatory factors such as structural economic considerations and different values placed on science as an input to policy-making are discussed, highlighting the importance of being attentive to the fluidity of knowledge controversies as they achieve salience and legitimacy according to the specificities of time and place.

Suggested Citation

  • Amelia Sharman & Richard Perkins, 2017. "Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2281-2299, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:49:y:2017:i:10:p:2281-2299
    DOI: 10.1177/0308518X17722786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X17722786
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0308518X17722786?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neil Carter, 2014. "The politics of climate change in the UK," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 423-433, May.
    2. Andrew J. Jordan & Dave Huitema & Mikael Hildén & Harro van Asselt & Tim J. Rayner & Jonas J. Schoenefeld & Jale Tosun & Johanna Forster & Elin L. Boasson, 2015. "Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 977-982, November.
    3. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690, September.
    4. Nan Jiang & Basil Sharp & Mingyue Sheng, 2009. "New Zealand's emissions trading scheme," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 69-79.
    5. Candice C. Howarth & Amelia G. Sharman, 2015. "Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 239-254, March.
    6. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327, September.
    7. Willem Van Rensburg, 2015. "Climate Change Scepticism," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, May.
    8. Rob Hoppe & Anna Wesselink & Rose Cairns, 2013. "Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 283-300, July.
    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. Marcel J. Dorsch & Christian Flachsland, 2017. "A Polycentric Approach to Global Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 45-64, May.
    2. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    3. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    4. Friederike Hartz, 2024. "“We are not droids”– IPCC participants’ senses of responsibility and affective experiences across the production, assessment, communication and enactment of climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(6), pages 1-21, June.
    5. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.
    6. Nancy Menning, 2018. "Narrating climate change as a rite of passage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-353, March.
    7. Mercedes Bleda & Elisabeth Krull & Jonatan Pinkse & Eleni Christodoulou, 2023. "Organizational heuristics and firms' sensemaking for climate change adaptation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 6124-6137, December.
    8. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    10. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    11. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.
    12. Shaw, Christopher & Nerlich, Brigitte, 2015. "Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 34-40.
    13. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Nena Vukelić & Nena Rončević & Sven Toljan, 2022. "Student Teachers’ Willingness to Act in the Climate Change Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    16. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    17. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Kevin Raaphorst & Gerben Koers & Gerald Jan Ellen & Amy Oen & Bjørn Kalsnes & Lisa van Well & Jana Koerth & Rutger van der Brugge, 2020. "Mind the Gap: Towards a Typology of Climate Service Usability Gaps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Joshua Ettinger & Peter Walton & James Painter & Thomas DiBlasi, 2021. "Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-19, January.
    20. de Chazal, Jacqueline, 2010. "A systems approach to liveability and sustainability: Defining terms and mapping relationships to link desires with ecological opportunities and constraints," Research Reports 95056, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.

    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:sae:envira:v:49:y:2017:i:10:p:2281-2299. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.