IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v9y2009i2p74-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Lövbrand

    (Eva Lövbrand is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research at Linköping University in Sweden. Her research interests revolve around the role of science and expertise in global environmental politics and the marketization of climate governance. Her work has been published in journals such as Review of International Studies, Global Environmental Politics, Environmental Science and Policy, and Climatic Change.)

  • Teresia Rindefjäll

    (Teresia Rindefjäll holds a Ph.D. from Lund University in Sweden. Her research focuses on processes of political development, particularly in the fields of rights-based development and sustainable development, with an empirical focus on Latin America. She defended her dissertation, Democracy Beyond the Ballot Box: Citizen Participation and Social Rights in Post-Transition Chile in 2005.)

  • Joakim Nordqvist

    (Joakim Nordqvist holds a Ph.D. from Environmental and Energy Systems Studies at Lund University in Sweden. Through studies of construction and function of policy efforts to manage technology development, diffusion or deployment, his research addresses societal and actor-based responses to energy and climate related challenges. His work has been published in reports and proceedings, and in journals such as Energy Policy and Greener Management International.)

Abstract

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a prominent example of the contemporary turn towards more hybrid modes of global environmental governance. It epitomizes the trend away from hierarchical state regulation towards softer forms of steering along the public-private frontier. In this article we analyze the legitimacy of this novel governance arrangement. While we approach input legitimacy as a procedural ideal that guarantees actors affected by a CDM project voice in the project design and implementation, we relate output legitimacy to the effectiveness or problem solving capacity of the CDM institutions. In contrast to the mainstream understanding of the CDM as a policy mechanism that will secure both goals at the same time and thus reduce the legitimacy gap in global environmental governance, our study points to central trade-offs between the procedural quality and the effectiveness of the CDM project cycle. These trade-offs are illustrated by three carbon projects in Chile, China and Mexico and raise questions for the continued study of legitimacy in global environmental governance. (c) 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Lövbrand & Teresia Rindefjäll & Joakim Nordqvist, 2009. "Closing the Legitimacy Gap in Global Environmental Governance? Lessons from the Emerging CDM Market," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 9(2), pages 74-100, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:9:y:2009:i:2:p:74-100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.74
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Teresia Rindefjäll & Emma Lund & Johannes Stripple, 2011. "Wine, fruit, and emission reductions: the CDM as development strategy in Chile," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 7-22, March.
    2. Adam Bumpus & Thu-Ba Huynh & Sophie Pascoe, 2019. "Making REDD+ Transparent: Opportunities for MobileTechnology," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 85-117, November.
    3. Emily Anderson & Hisham Zerriffi, 2012. "Seeing the trees for the carbon: agroforestry for development and carbon mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 741-757, December.
    4. Stua, Michele, 2013. "Evidence of the clean development mechanism impact on the Chinese electric power system's low-carbon transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1309-1319.
    5. Jessica Duncan & Priscilla Claeys, 2018. "Politicizing food security governance through participation: opportunities and opposition," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1411-1424, December.
    6. Ian A. MacKenzie & Markus Ohndorf & Charles Palmer, 2012. "Enforcement-proof contracts with moral hazard in precaution: ensuring 'permanence' in carbon sequestration," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 350-374, April.
    7. Trotter, Ian Michael & da Cunha, Dênis Antônio & Féres, José Gustavo, 2015. "The relationships between CDM project characteristics and CER market prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 158-167.
    8. Larson, Donald F. & Dinar, Ariel & Blankespoor, Brian, 2012. "Aligning climate change mitigation and agricultural policies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6080, The World Bank.
    9. Ba, Feng & Liu, Jinlong & Zhu, Ting & Liu, Yonggong & Zhao, Jiacheng, 2020. "CDM forest carbon sequestration projects in western China: An analysis using actor-centered power theory," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Benites-Lazaro, L.L. & Mello-Théry, N.A., 2019. "Empowering communities? Local stakeholders’ participation in the Clean Development Mechanism in Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-266.
    11. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    12. Lederer, Markus, 2011. "From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1900-1907, September.
    13. Peter Dauvergne & Jennifer Clapp, 2016. "Researching Global Environmental Politics in the 21st Century," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, February.
    14. A. Marx & E. Bécault & J. Wouters, 2012. "Private Standards in Forestry. Assessing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Jeffrey McGee & Ros Taplin, 2009. "The role of the Asia Pacific Partnership in discursive contestation of the international climate regime," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 213-238, August.
    16. Ian A. MacKenzie & Markus Ohndorf & Charles Palmer, 2010. "Enforcement-proof contracts with moral hazard in precaution: ensuring �permanence� in carbon sequestration," GRI Working Papers 27, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    17. Larson, Donald F. & Dinar, Ariel & Frisbie, J. Aapris, 2011. "Agriculture and the clean development mechanism," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5621, The World Bank.

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:9:y:2009:i:2:p:74-100. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.