不作为的决策后逻辑:知识争议对气候政策决策的影响

Amelia Sharman, Richard Perkins
{"title":"不作为的决策后逻辑:知识争议对气候政策决策的影响","authors":"Amelia Sharman, Richard Perkins","doi":"10.1177/0308518X17722786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":11906,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning A","volume":"23 1","pages":"2281 - 2299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Amelia Sharman, Richard Perkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0308518X17722786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning A\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"2281 - 2299\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning A\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17722786\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17722786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

关于知识主张的争论,包括它们作为政策决策输入的合法性,并没有在政策制定的那一刻结束。在实施阶段,继续制定和取消政策。从知识争议的工作中汲取灵感,并以决策后政治的概念为基础,我们调查了新西兰和英国气候变化政策的实施情况。我们确定了政治上显著的决策后不作为逻辑,这些逻辑被用来证明延迟或稀释两国气候政策实施的合理性。在新西兰,知识争议对决策的影响很小或没有影响,以当前国家经济利益和基于成本的逻辑为形式的政治理由占主导地位。相反,强调科学不确定性的论点在英国获得了政治吸引力,制造了一种“不信任的迷雾”,有助于从积极实施气候政策中抽走政治资本。讨论了诸如结构性经济考虑和将科学作为决策投入的不同价值等解释性因素,强调了关注知识争议的流动性的重要性,因为它们根据时间和地点的特殊性获得了突出性和合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信