IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v116y2013i3p523-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics

Author

Listed:
  • Dana Fisher
  • Philip Leifeld
  • Yoko Iwaki

Abstract

How do we understand national climate change politics in the United States? Using a methodological innovation in network analysis, this paper analyzes discussions about the issue within the US Congress. Through this analysis, the ideological relationships among speakers providing Congressional testimony on the issue of climate change are mapped. For the first time, issue stances of actors are systematically aggregated in order to measure coalitions and consensus among political actors in American climate politics in a relational way. Our findings show how consensus formed around the economic implications of regulating greenhouse gases and the policy instrument that should do the regulating. The paper is separated into three sections. First, we review the ways scholars have looked at climate change policymaking in the United States, paying particular attention to those who have looked at the issue within the US Congress. Next, we present analysis of statements made during Congressional hearings on climate change over a four-year period. Our analysis demonstrates how a polarized ideological actor space in the 109 th Congress transforms into a more consensual actor landscape in the 110 th Congress, which is significantly less guided by partisan differences. This paper concludes by discussing how these findings help us understand shifting positions within American climate politics and the implications of these findings. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Dana Fisher & Philip Leifeld & Yoko Iwaki, 2013. "Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 523-545, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:116:y:2013:i:3:p:523-545
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barry Rabe, 2011. "Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 494-521, Summer.
    2. Barry Rabe, 2007. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 413-431, Summer.
    3. Henrik Selin & Stacy D. VanDeveer, 2007. "Political Science and Prediction: What's Next for U.S. Climate Change Policy?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 24(1), pages 1-27, January.
    4. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    5. Dale Krane, 2007. "The Middle Tier in American Federalism: State Government Policy Activism During the Bush Presidency," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 453-477, Summer.
    6. Atle Christer Christiansen, 2003. "Convergence or divergence? Status and prospects for US climate strategy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 343-358, December.
    7. Bang, Guri & Froyn, Camilla Bretteville & Hovi, Jon & Menz, Fredric C., 2007. "The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1282-1291, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ghinoi, S. & Piras, S. & Wesz, V.J.J., 2018. "Political debates and agricultural financing policies. Evaluating the crea-tion of Brazil s Pronaf through Discourse Network Analysis," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277274, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Thibaud Deguilhem & Juliette Schlegel & Jean-Philippe Berrou & Ousmane Djibo & Alain Piveteau, 2024. "Too many options: How to identify coalitions in a policy network?," Post-Print hal-04689665, HAL.
    3. Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz & James Stoutenborough & Scott Robinson, 2015. "Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 487-503, August.
    4. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    5. Caroline Bhattacharya, 2020. "Gatekeeping the Plenary Floor: Discourse Network Analysis as a Novel Approach to Party Control," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 229-242.
    6. Holtmaat, Ellen Alexandra & Adolph, Christopher & Prakash, Aseem, 2020. "The global diffusion of environmental clubs: how pressure from importing countries supports the chemical industry’s Responsible Care® program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    7. Dana R. Fisher & Philip Leifeld, 2019. "The polycentricity of climate policy blockage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, August.
    8. Simon Schaub & Florence Metz, 2020. "Comparing Discourse and Policy Network Approaches: Evidence from Water Policy on Micropollutants," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 184-199.
    9. Kate O’Neill & Erika Weinthal & Patrick Hunnicutt, 2017. "Seeing complexity: visualization tools in global environmental politics and governance," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 490-506, December.
    10. Ghinoi, Stefano & Wesz Junior, Valdemar João & Piras, Simone, 2018. "Political debates and agricultural policies: Discourse coalitions behind the creation of Brazil’s Pronaf," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 68-80.
    11. Allison Ford & Kari Marie Norgaard, 2020. "Whose everyday climate cultures? Environmental subjectivities and invisibility in climate change discourse," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 43-62, November.
    12. Melanie Nagel & Keiichi Satoh, 2019. "Protesting iconic megaprojects. A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1681-1700, June.

    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. Skodvin, Tora, 2010. ""Pivotal politics" in US energy and climate legislation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4214-4223, August.
    2. Tora Skodvin & Steinar Andresen, 2009. "An agenda for change in U.S. climate policies? Presidential ambitions and congressional powers," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 263-280, August.
    3. Luke Kemp, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the 'Ratification Straitjacket'," CCEP Working Papers 1513, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. Rajesh Sahu & Pramod Kumar, 2023. "The Missing Nexus: A Historical and Contemporary Position of the United States on Climate Change Action," International Studies, , vol. 60(4), pages 444-479, October.
    5. Katja Biedenkopf, 2017. "Gubernatorial entrepreneurship and United States federal-state interaction: The case of subnational regional greenhouse gas emissions trading," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(8), pages 1378-1400, December.
    6. Lutsey, Nicholas & Sperling, Daniel, 2008. "America's bottom-up climate change mitigation policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 673-685, February.
    7. Reiche, Danyel, 2013. "Climate policies in the U.S. at the stakeholder level: A case study of the National Football League," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 775-784.
    8. Craig Jones & Luke Fowler, 2022. "Administration, rhetoric, and climate policy in the Obama presidency," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 512-532, July.
    9. Dana R. Fisher & Philip Leifeld, 2019. "The polycentricity of climate policy blockage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, August.
    10. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Ivan Ash, 2014. "The role of politics and proximity in sea level rise policy salience: a study of Virginia legislators’ perceptions," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 208-217, September.
    11. Kemp, Luke, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the ‘Ratification Straitjacket’," Working Papers 249518, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    12. Ethan B Kapstein, 2006. "Architects of stability? International cooperation among financial supervisors," BIS Working Papers 199, Bank for International Settlements.
    13. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    14. Heike Schroeder, 2010. "Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 317-332, December.
    15. Koichi Hamada & Asahi Noguchi, 2005. "The Role of Preconceived Ideas in Macroeconomic Policy: Japan's Experiences in the Two Deflationary Periods," Working Papers 908, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    16. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    17. Gonzalo Escribano, 2006. "Europeanisation without Europe? The Mediterranean and the Neighbourhood Policy," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 19, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    18. Gerald Schneider & Daniel Finke & Stefanie Bailer, 2010. "Bargaining Power in the European Union: An Evaluation of Competing Game‐Theoretic Models," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 85-103, February.
    19. Jeffry Frieden & Stefanie Walter, 2019. "Analyzing inter-state negotiations in the Eurozone crisis and beyond," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 134-151, March.
    20. Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "Politics and Trade Policy," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275606, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:climat:v:116:y:2013:i:3:p:523-545. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.