IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/wirecc/v4y2013i4p283-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change

Author

Listed:
  • Rob Hoppe
  • Anna Wesselink
  • Rose Cairns

Abstract

In this article, we explore how climate change science is connected to climate change governance. When formally institutionalized, as in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these sites may be referred to as boundary organizations. These institutions engage not only in the quality assessment of scientific research, but also in the design of innovative policy instruments, or evaluation of policy impacts—activities that we refer to as boundary work. Boundary work is inherently ‘tricky business’. Science and politics are normally demarcated spheres with different sacred stories. Scientists aspire to ‘speak truth to power’, while policymakers want ‘politics on top and science on tap’. Boundary work endeavors to coordinate these apparently incompatible aspirations. In this article, we describe, analyze, and assess whether, to what extent, and how the major international and some national boundary organizations in climate change governance have been able to avoid over‐politicization and over‐scientization. We demonstrate that the nature and success of boundary organizations and the ways they work depend on: (1) the degree to which the climate change problem is defined as ‘wicked’ or unstructured, or as (relatively) ‘tame’ and structured; (2) the stage of the policy process; and (3) characteristics of the policy network and the socio‐political context: the degree to which relevant players insist on strict separation and a linear relation from science to politics, or, alternatively, are tolerant of a blurring of the boundaries and hence a two‐way, coproductive relation between science and politics. Anna Wesselink's contribution to this article was financially supported by the European Union (European Commission, European Reintegration Grant PERG08‐GA‐2010‐276934). WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:283–300. doi: 10.1002/wcc.225 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:4:y:2013:i:4:p:283-300
    DOI: 10.1002/wcc.225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.225
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wcc.225?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Holzscheiter, Anna, 2017. "Coping with Institutional Fragmentation? Competition and Convergence between Boundary Organizations in the Global Response to Polio," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 34(6), pages 767-789.
    2. Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Kenji Otsuka, 2022. "Co‐optation in co‐production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 771-797, November.
    4. Nikki Funke & Dave Huitema & Arthur Petersen, 2024. "Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 393-405.
    5. Susana Sobral & Fronika Wit & Rita Carrilho & Dora Cabete & António Barbosa & Filipa Vala, 2024. "Navigating complexity: looking at the potential contribution of a boundary organisation in Portugal to evidence-informed policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Ritodhi Chakraborty & Pasang Yangjee Sherpa, 2021. "From climate adaptation to climate justice: Critical reflections on the IPCC and Himalayan climate knowledges," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Clune, Conor & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2020. "Organizing dissonance through institutional work: The embedding of social and environmental accountability in an investment field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Tiffany H. Morrison & W. Neil Adger & Katrina Brown & Maria Carmen Lemos & Dave Huitema & Terry P. Hughes, 2017. "Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    9. Bruce Hewitson & Katinka Waagsaether & Jan Wohland & Kate Kloppers & Teizeen Kara, 2017. "Climate information websites: an evolving landscape," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    10. 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.
    11. Harmke Immink & Robbie Louw & Amy Garlick & Samuel Vosper & Alan Brent, 2022. "Country specific low carbon commitments versus equitable and practical company specific decarbonisation targets," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 10005-10025, August.
    12. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).

    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:wly:wirecc:v:4:y:2013:i:4:p:283-300. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1757-7799 .

    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.