Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
63 Seiten, Note: 1.0
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
List of Tables and Figures
2. Conceptual and Analytical Framework
2.1. Policy Learning - Definition, Concept and Types
2.2. Policy transfer as an analytical framework
2.3. Research operationalization and definition of terms
3. Overview of International Climate Change Agreements and Institutions
3.1. Evolution of international climate change agreements
3.2. The United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
3.3. The Kyoto Protocol
3.4. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports
3.5. Summary Commitments and Obligations of Developing Countries ..Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert
4. Overview of the Philippines' Climate Change Policies
4.1. Policy Context
4.2. Evolution of the Philippines' climate change policies
4.3. Mitigation policies
4.4. Adaptation Policies
4.5. Organizational Arrangements
5. Analysis - Policy Transfer and the Philippines ' Climate Change Policies
5.1. Policy Transfer Framework Analysis
5.2. Policy transfer and policy results
This master thesis owes its birth to several people: to my thesis supervisor Prof. Werner Jann for his guidance and for introducing me to the complex yet interesting world of policy analysis; to my other supervisor, Ms. Thurid Hustedt for her insights on governance of climate change in Europe; to Dr. Detlef Sprinz, for the opportunity to discuss international climate policy with world-renowned experts (including the World Development Report 2010's co-author); and to Ms. Guilia Carboni, MPM/MGPP coordinator, for organizing the climate change study tour in Bonn and Brussels which sparked my interest on this topic.
I was able to keep my sanity while writing this thesis thanks to my MPM friends especially the Asian Mafia - Lan and Bonnie, to my family in the Philippines and in Japan, and to Carsten (for the patience and support). This master thesis is dedicated to my mother who nurtured my curiosity and love for learning.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 1 Three types of learning and policy change
Table 2 Policy Transfer Framework
Table 3 International Climate Policy Milestones
Table 4 Responsibilities of developing countries under the international climate change agreements
Table 5 Long-Term Climate Risk Index-Top 10 Affected Countries (1990-2008)
Table 6 The Philippines' GHG emissions by sector, 1990, 2000, 2004
Table 7 Mitigation policies in selected Asian countries
Table 8 Comparison of Climate Change Commissions/Committees in Selected Asian Countries
Table 9 Coverage of adaptation policies and measures in latest Asian National Communications
Table 10 Comparison of functions between the IACC, PTFCC and the CCC
Figure 1 Policy Transfer Continuum
Figure 2 Schematic operationalization of research questions
Figure 3 Greenhouse gas emissions in Southeast Asia
Figure 4 Comparison of GHG emissions increase per sector
Figure 5 Philippines'Climate Change Policy Milestones
Figure 6 Distribution of various CDM projects in Asia by country (as of May 2008)
Climate change has evolved from merely a scientific concern to a complex global challenge within the past two decades (Davenport, 2008, pp. 48-57). International agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol as well as the numerous international meetings are testaments to the saliency of this issue in the global agenda. While there is a scientific consensus on the causality between human actions and the continuing warming of the environment, there is still a multitude of uncertainties concerning how best to address climate change (O'Neill, 2008; Berliner, 2003). When confronted with uncertainties or new problems, governments frequently seek solutions from international or domestic sources (Bennett, 1997, p. 213; Rose, 1991, 1993; Berry and Beybeck, 2005 in Dolowitz, 2009b). Thus, climate change policies adopted by governments at the regional, national and local levels often benefited from cross-pollination and transfer of ideas between countries and the global community.
Like many countries in search for solutions to address the impacts of climate change, the Philippines has been prolific in adopting policies and organizational initiatives supported by international donors since its ratification of the UNFCCC in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2003 (UNFCCC, 2011g). Four new organizations have been created ranging from a climate change inter-agency committee, a climate change commission to climate change offices since 1991. Moreover, a total of seven climate change related legislation and policies were passed from 1991 to 2009 most of which had mitigation and energy bias (World Bank, 2010a). In addition, the country has participated in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) which was contingent with the Kyoto Protocol ratification. These initiatives were supported by international donors such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), United States Agency for International Development (USAID) German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU) and German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) (World Bank 2010a; GIZ, 2011). The plethora of policies reflects dynamic changes in climate policymaking in the country. Knowing that the Philippines has ratified international climate change agreements and has been supported by donors on climate change policies, this paper seeks to find out: to what extent has policy transfer influenced the abovementioned climate change policies? More importantly, did policy transfer result in appropriate climate change policies in the Philippines?
To answer these questions, this thesis relies on the concepts of policy learning (Bennett and Howlett, 1992; Rose, 1991, 1993) and policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996, 2000) which highlight the incorporation of ideas, policies, institutions and administrative arrangements from one national government to another or from the national to the local level or from the international community to a specific country (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 5; Evans and Davis, 1999; Evans 2004). This paper assumes a multi-level approach of policy transfer (Evans, 2004) looking at the influence of learning from abroad on the Philippines' mitigation and adaptation policies as well as organizational arrangements. This thesis also examines the impact of policy transfer on policy results.
Why are these questions and ideas relevant? To date, research on climate change policies has focused on the economic aspects of climate change (see Stern, 2007), on the structure of global governance and international institutions, on the analysis of countries' positions in the international climate change negotiations, on the future of an international climate change agreement (see Bodansky et. al. 2004) among others. Moreover, studies on climate change policies have focused on developed countries, neglecting climate change policies in developing countries. Various studies on the spread or diffusion of environmental policies leading to policy convergence (Busch and Jörgen, 2004; Holzinger et. al, 2008) have been conducted. However, there exists a paucity of research on the influence of transnational policy transfer on national climate change policies particularly in developing countries. In general, there exists a dearth of literature on policy transfer in developing countries (Evans, 2004; Stone, 2001; Marsh and Sharman, 2009). This research gap is particularly crucial since previous research has demonstrated developing countries' proclivity to adopt policies (i.e. public management reforms) due to the influence of the international community and pressures from international donors (Batley and Larbi, 2004; Polidano, 2001; Larbi, 2006). Developing countries are also vulnerable to adopt policies out of the need to legitimize themselves in the international community (Marsh and Sharman, 2009). More significantly, while climate change's debilitating impacts transcend national borders and affect all nations and developing countries suffer the biggest brunt (World Bank, 2010c). The World Bank (2010c) estimates that developing countries have to pay 75% to 85% of the costs of climate change impacts. Hence, an understanding of climate policy-making in developing countries particularly of the nexus between the international community and national climate change policies is vital to better design relevant, appropriate and realistic climate change policies. This thesis is a preliminary foray to address this issue.
This thesis employs qualitative research methodology through the examination of the Philippine government's climate change policies, laws, implementing rules and regulations as well as reports. Secondary data such as reports from the World Bank, other international donors and studies conducted by other researchers are also analyzed.
This thesis is structured into six chapters. Following this introduction, the second chapter provides an overview of the paper's conceptual and analytical framework. This section defines and discusses the concept of policy learning, its typologies as well as the policy transfer framework. Motivations of, mechanisms for and impact of policy transfer are also underscored. Based on this, the second chapter then ends with the operationalization of the research question and the definition of the common terms employed in the whole thesis. The third chapter provides an overview of international climate change policies based on international agreements (UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol) and highlights responsibilities of developing countries according to these agreements. The fourth chapter sketches the climate change policies adopted in the Philippines with emphasis on the context, content, goals and organizational structures created. The fifth chapter analyzes the Philippines' climate change policies vis a vis the international agreements and experiences from Asian countries. The findings are summarized in chapter six, the last and concluding part.
Over the past two decades, there has been a burgeoning of research and studies on policy transfer and policy learning, sometimes interchanged with related concepts of policy diffusion and policy convergence (see Evans, 2004, Common, 2001, Marsh and Sharman, 2009; Busch and Jörgen, 2004; Levi-Faur and Vigoda-Gadot, 2004; Tews, 2005 among others). Despite years of empirical research and conceptual refinements, researchers (Evans and Davies, 1999; Evans, 2004, James and Lodge, 2003) lament the fragmented theoretical underpinnings and discount the merit of the policy transfer and lesson-drawing approach (Dwyer and Ellison, 2009; Duncan, 2009; James and Lodge, 2003). This thesis believes the concept has value particularly in explaining the process of "borrowing" policies, programs, structures and concepts from the international community especially for processes involving developing countries. In addition, this thesis attempts to assess the impact of policy transfer on policy outcomes since this aspect remains underexplored (Marsh and Sharman 2009). Recent policy transfer literature (Radaelli, 2000; Bulmer and Padget, 2004; among others) has also introduced a neo-institutionalist perspective to the policy transfer model looking at how institutions affect policy transfer. This paper attempts to link the motivation for policy transfer, to the mechanism of transfer and ultimately to policy results (Weber, et al, 2009, p. 1219).
This section starts with the definition, concepts and types of policy learning and discusses the policy transfer framework. Then, it elaborates on the motivations and mechanisms for transfer then merges the policy transfer concepts. The last section outlines the operationalization of the thesis' research questions.
The Oxford dictionary defines learning as "the acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught." Hall (1993, p. 278) echoed this idea when he asserted that learning "occurs when individuals assimilate new information, including that based on past experience, and apply it to their subsequent actions.” These definitions share similar emphasis on the role of knowledge and information in changing actions or behavior. However, a myriad of concepts and interpretations exist when it comes to policy learning.
According to Bennet and Howlett (1992, pp. 275-276), policy learning emerged as an alternative to classic conflict-oriented theories to explain policy changes. In the conflict- oriented approach, policies are influenced by external social forces and conflicts (Nordliger, 1981 in Bennet and Howlett, 1992, p. 275) whereas, in the policy learning approach, policies change due to the acquisition and utilization of new knowledge and information. Bennett and Howlett (1992, p. 288) synthesized the more dominant concepts of policy learning into three types based on the questions 'Who learns?', 'What will be learned?' and 'What is the effect of learning?' Table 1 presents the types of learning and the impact on policy change.
Table 1. Three types of learning and policy change
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source: Bennett and Howlett 1992, p. 288.
The first type involves government learning wherein state officials expand their aptitude and knowledge which leads to more effective actions or policies. This type of learning is linked to organizational learning which recognizes that interrelation between knowledge and policy. The changes in policies are due to the change in the knowledge as well as values within organizations and their people (Etheredge, 1981, pp. 77-78). The second type of learning is based on Rose's (1991, 1993) idea of lesson-drawing. Lesson-drawing refers to the process of learning from both the positive and negative experiences of others. Dissatisfaction with the status quo leads governments to search for programs somewhere else (Rose, 1991, p. 10). The search is not merely for new information or new knowledge but to draw lessons to help policymakers "deal better with their own problems" (Rose, 1991, p. 4). In this type, the learning is about policy instruments and occurs not only among state actors but within "epistemic communities" at international, national and local levels. Change is also conceptualized to take place at program-level (Rose, 1991, p. 16). Here, Rose (1991, p. 32- 33) distinguishes on mechanisms of lesson-drawing into: "copying" which is defined as the full adoption of a program from somewhere else without changes; "emulation" wherein programs are adjusted to fit circumstances of the adoptee; "hybridization" is the mixture of programs from two places; "synthesis" is similar to hybridization but from three or more sources; ; "inspiration" occurs when programme ideas from somewhere are used to create own innovation. The third type pertains to social learning which is considered as an integral part of the policy-making process (Hall, 1988). In this type, evaluations and experience of previous policies or new ideas are instrumental in changing paradigms, and in effect changing policy goals and techniques for improved government performance (Hall, 1988, p. 6).
The three types of learning elucidate the involvement of state and non-state actors within policy networks and policy communities in the learning process. In addition, this typology indicates that the content of learning is not only limited to ideas but includes instruments and processes. Sources of learning can also be both internal - from own experience, policy evaluation results - or external - from the experience of others, from epistemic policy communities, and the international community. Based on these concepts, policy learning can then be defined as the cognitive and behavioural shift as well as shift of interests among policy-makers anchored on knowledge acquired from previous experience, or from observing the experience of others and from analyzing the outcomes of these actions (Sabatier, 1993, p. 19; Stone, 2001, p. 6; Levi-Faur and Vigoda-Gadot, 2004, p. 7). On the effects of policy-learning, Stone (2001, p. 6) implies that it "may result in a more coherent transfer of ideas, policies and practices."
Built on the above-mentioned policy-learning concepts, particularly Rose's "lessondrawing," the policy transfer framework elaborates on the objects of analysis by focusing on actors involved, motivations, mechanisms of transfer, content of transfer, constraints and the impact on policy outcomes.
Policy transfer is the "process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system " (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 5). While it has been inspired by concepts of policy learning, policy transfer does not equate to a type of "learning" as defined in section 2.1 -- contrary to assertion of some researchers (see Wolman and Page, 2002 in Dolowitz, 2009b, p. 4). As will be discussed in the subsequent pages, learning is subsumed as one mechanism of policy transfer (Marsh and Sharman, 2009; Dolowitz, 2009b).
From a concept which originated in the studies to explain adoption and diffusion of policies in the United States (US) (Walker, 1969 and Gray, 1973 in Radaelli, 2000), policy transfer has gained prominence in policy analysis due to the pervasiveness of transfer happening around the world. Dolowitz and Marsh (2000 p. 6-7; see also Dolowitz, 2004) attribute the growth of policy transfer or the borrowing of policies and ideas from one country to another to globalization, the emergence of new communication technologies as well as the promotion of ideas and policies by international organizations such as the World Bank, European Union and the International Monetary Fund among others. As the world is getting more and more connected, ideas, policies and programs are transmitted from one country to another sometimes voluntarily or sometimes coercively due to pressures from international donors or the international community.
Policy Transfer Framework
Policy transfer has expanded its original explanatory value of policy diffusion within a country to include the concept of policy learning particularly Rose's (1991, 1993) lessondrawing, ideas on policy diffusion and policy convergence (Bennett, 1991), as well as policy transfer's influence on policy outcomes (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000). Essentially, the policy transfer framework revolves around questions of motivating factors, the key actors in the process, what is transferred, the sources of transfer, the extent of transfer and the factors that facilitate or restrict the process (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000, p. 8). Table 2 summarizes the policy transfer framework according to these questions:
Table 2. Policy Transfer Framework
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source: Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000, p. 9.
State actors (elected officials, civil servants) political parties, pressure groups, policy entrepreneurs, and experts, non-government organizations, think-tanks as well as international and supra-national organizations can be involved in policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000, p. 10; Stone, 2001). State actors are obviously taking the decisions on the policy transfer, however, the role of non-state actors such as NGOs, think-tanks and consultants cannot be underestimated. Non-state actors such as think-tanks and other knowledge actors often act as the catalysts for policy transfer bringing with them new ideas for the state actors to copy or emulate (Stone, 2001 p. 37). International organizations as well as supra-regional bodies and other international donor agencies can influence directly or indirectly the state actors through conditions on aid as well as the spread of ideas and policies through meetings and reports (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2006 p. 11; Stone, 2001). Stone (2001, p. 16) includes the World Bank, the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU), and other similar organizations in this category.
Policy goals, policy content, policy instruments, policy programs, institutions, ideologies, ideas and attitudes and even negative lessons can be learned and transferred not only from the international level but also from the national, regional and local level (Evans and Davies, 1999, p. 368; Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 12). In addition, a distinction can be made between "soft transfers" which involve ideas, concepts and attitudes and "hard transfers" which include programmes and implementation (Evans and Davies, 1999 p. 382). From a simply meso-level approach, Evans and Davies (1999; Evans, 2004) expanded the level of analysis to include a multi-level approach to policy transfer. This means that policy transfer process can be analyzed not only pertaining to the actors and processes involved at the meso or country-level but also macro level looking at international institutions and the global policy community (Evans and Davies, 1999; Evans, 2004).
Motivations for Policy Transfer
The actors' motivation for transferring policies is crucial in determining where to look, the kind of transfer mechanism to engage in and what to transfer (Dolowitz, 2004, p. 31). Several factors drive governments to transfer policies. These can range from seeking legitimacy for an action or policy both domestically or internationally, to doing it as part of a job and to finding solutions to deficiencies and real or perceived problems (Dolowitz, 2004, p. 31). Of course, there can be multiple reasons or drivers for policy transfer. As already indicated, it is useful to view policy transfer as a continuum which runs from lesson-drawing representing perfect rationality to the coercive transfer or the direct imposition by an international donor with its conditions (see Figure 1 below).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 1. Policy Transfer Continuum; Source: Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 13.
Lesson-drawing here refers to what was discussed in 2.1 wherein the search for new ideas stems from dissatisfaction with the current situation (Rose, 1991). This concept assumes actors' perfect rationality, however, in reality, actors do not possess all the information to evaluate or analyze a situation (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000, p. 14). Moreover, information is filtered through actors' views and perceptions. Consequently, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000 p. 14) identified a sub-set in the continuum - lesson-drawing with "bounded rationality." On the other end of the continuum lies coercive transfer which happens when international donors and international organizations impose policies and programs to recipient countries as part of conditionality. Aside from this, there is also obligated transfer which transpires as a result of treaty obligations. Lastly, in the middle of the continuum is voluntary transfer but unlike lesson-drawing, this is motivated by desire for legitimacy or international acceptance.
Policy transfer cannot be classified as only purely voluntary or coercive as empirical evidence has shown that most policy transfers have both voluntary and coercive elements and are actually situated in the middle of the policy transfer continuum (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000 p. 14). This means that while the transfer is a voluntary decision by the government, there can still be an element of emulation or coercion if the transfer was done to gain international acceptance. The nature of the transfer can also evolve over time and during implementation of the policy. It might start at first as a voluntary transfer as a lessondrawing from another country's best practice and might transform into a coercive transfer when imposed by the national government to the local level (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000 p. 14).
Policy Transfer Mechanisms
Governments can engage in policy transfer in varying degrees and forms. Transfer can be "copying" or the "direct or complete transfer" or it can also be "emulation" which means that only ideas behind policies and programs are transferred (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 13). Transfer also takes the form of combinations (mixture of several different policies) and inspiration (policy in another direction inspires policy change in another policy area). Here, clearly, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) derived inspiration from Rose's lesson-drawing discussed in 2.1. The degree of transfer depends on the actors involved in the process and in the context that the transfer occurs. Politicians will probably utilize "copying" or "emulation"
while the bureaucracies rely on "mixtures." Emulation can also be visible in the agendasetting stage while the mixture or copying is more relevant in the formulation and implementation stage of the policy cycle (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 13).
In their work to reconcile the inter-related concepts of policy transfer and policy diffusion, Marsh and Sharman (2009) expanded the mechanisms of policy transfer into the following categories:
- Learning - where states rationally decide to copy structures and practices from abroad not only to address problems but also for more effective and efficient outcomes (see also Rose 1991). As already pointed in section 2.1, learning can occur between countries or in international and national policy networks as well as in epistemic communities. The effect of learning can be complete or partial transfer.
- Competition - where international competition provides the impetus for the adoption of economic and social policies. In this mechanism of transfer, governments adopt policies to keep up with neighboring countries in order to maintain competitiveness.
- Coercion - where policies are replicated under pressure from international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under conditions attached to aid or a loan. Developing countries can be prey to this mechanism of transfer.
- Mimicry - also referred interchangeably with "emulation" or "socialization" or "symbolic imitation" (Weyland, 2004; Gilardi, 2003). This happens when nations imitate a policy for the desire to be accepted in the international community or to acquire legitimacy both within and outside the country. The main concern is not the search for efficiency or effectiveness or to solve a problem but the quest for credibility, status, or simple conformity with international trends (Meseguer, 2005, p. 73). Adoption of policies and institutions are based on ideas or models from countries and international institutions seen as "advanced" or progressive. In the policy diffusion literature, "emulation" or mimicry can lead to policy convergence (Levi-Faur, 2005, Gilardi, 2005, Way 2005, Elkins and Simmons, 2005 in Meseguer, 2005, p. 77). This idea is also similar to DiMaggio's and Powell's (1991) "mimetic isomorphism."
Most policy transfers as evidenced by literature are actually associated with "mimicry" or what others term "herding" (Levi-Faur, 2005), "bandwagoning", and "symbolic" movement (Dolowitz, 2004, pp. 26-27). Uncertainty, which can drive policy transfer, is more likely to lead to "mimicry" or "emulation" rather than complex learning (Dolowitz, 2006, p. 17). "Mimicry" can be advantageous in that it is a fast and easy way to acquire solutions to complex problems (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991, p. 153). However, in terms of outcomes, "mimicry" can also lead to uninformed or inappropriate transfer (Marsh and Sharman, 2009; Dolowitz, 2006). Lastly, according to Marsh and Sharman (2009, p. 280), developing countries are more vulnerable to competition, coercive and mimicry mechanisms, that is, they are more prone to adopt policies due to international pressures or trends as well as the perceived need to legitimize themselves in the international community (Marsh and Sharman, 2009, p. 280).
Impact of Policy Transfer on Policy Outcomes
How does policy transfer influence policy outcomes? Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) cautions that policy transfer can lead to success or failure depending on the complexity of the policy and the availability of information to lessen the complexity, previous policies, structural and institutional feasibility with emphasis on ideological, cultural, technological, economic and bureaucratic compatibility. More specifically, policy transfer can lead to policy failure when:
- The borrowing country is uninformed about the way policy operates in its home country;
- The transfer is incomplete because it omits components crucial to its effectiveness in its home country;
- The transfer is inappropriate because "insufficient attention is paid to the differences between the economic, social, political and ideological contexts in the transferring and borrowing country" (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000 p. 17).
In the analysis of the British Child Support Agency (CSA) which was borrowed from the United States, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000 p. 18) demonstrated that problems such as the dissatisfaction within the CSA and the misunderstanding by the British parliament were due to the information gap and lack of understanding on how the US system worked. They argued further that these issues present evidence on their concept of uninformed, incomplete and inappropriate transfer leading to policy failure. Pawson and Hulse (2010) also presented another case that shows the association between the inappropriateness of policy transfer with policy transfer. In their work on the scrutiny of the Choice-Based Lettings (CBL) which has been transferred from the Netherlands to Australia and Britain, they argued that the differences in the political and institutional context between the Netherlands, Britain and Australia have posed complications in the implementation of the policy.
Synthesizing and expanding the various studies on policy transfer (Rose, 1991; Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996; Dolowitz and Medearis, 2009), Benson (2009) suggests additional constraints to policy transfer classified into the following:
- Demand side constraints - looks into the demand and the possible resistance to the policy or program;
- Programmatic constraints - refers to the uniqueness and complexity of the program;
- Contextual constraints - analyzes dependencies based on previous policies, structures (whether restrictive or enabling) politicization of policy-making, availability of resources for the transfer/implementation and consensus or divergence of ideologies.
- Application constraints - looks into the need for new structures, scales of change (whether large or small) and the need for program adjustments.
Admittedly, there is a gap in the policy transfer literature on the analysis of policy transfer's effects or impacts on policy outcomes (Marsh and Sharman, 2009). This gap is also due to the difficulty to define the parameters of policy success and policy failure without undergoing rigorous policy evaluation studies (Marsh and Sharman, 2009, p. 281-285). Moreover, the terms "success" and "failure" are problematic since they can be politicized. Thus, one should also be aware of the question "success for whom?" (Dolowitz, 2009). Despite these difficulties, Marsh and Sharman (2009, p. 280-281) acknowledge the merit in using the policy transfer framework to analyze the policy transfer process and its relation to policy outcomes particularly in developing countries where policy transfer cases remain uncharted.
Based on the concepts discussed in the previous pages, this thesis aims to analyze the process of policy transfer of climate change policies in the Philippines particularly seeking to explain the following questions:
- To what extent has policy transfer influenced the climate change policies in the Philippines?
- Did policy transfer result in appropriate climate change policies in the Philippines?
Policy transfer has already been defined in section 2.2. Climate change policies here pertain to mitigation and adaptation policies as well as institutional arrangements. To answer the first question, this thesis employs the policy transfer framework discussed in 2.2. The focus is on the process of policy transfer -- analyzing motivation, mechanisms of transfer, the actors involved, what is transferred and the extent of transfer. The second question addresses the nexus between policy transfer and policy outcomes by looking at the appropriateness of the climate change policies to the Philippine context. Analysis of institutional arrangements is limited to initial results and the analysis of their objectives and mandates versus outputs. With these two questions, this thesis essentially looks into both the macro and meso levels of climate policy making. International climate agreements, institutions as well as global trends in climate policies represent the macro level while national climate policy context and institutions comprise the meso-level. Figure 2 below is a schematic operationalization of this thesis'research questions:
Before proceeding to the next chapters, it is necessary to define the common terms used throughout this thesis for clarity:
- Climate change - pertains to "climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests)...by changes that persists for an extended period, usually decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity." (IPCC, 2011).
- Adaptation - refers to the "adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and reactive, autonomous and planned, public and private." (World Bank, 2010c, p. 37)
- Mitigation - refers to human intervention to reduce the emissions or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (World Bank, 2010c, p. 37).
Masterarbeit, 35 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 127 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 46 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 77 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 64 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 88 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 41 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 35 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 127 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 46 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 77 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 64 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 88 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 41 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!