Several billionaires have recently emerged as leaders of climate governance. So far, little research has examined how they legitimize their involvement in climate networks. We argue that billionaire governance entrepreneurs have high levels of resources but low procedural legitimacy. They pursue output legitimacy to support their political action, highlighting their effectiveness in managing climate issues. Their main strategies, depoliticization, outgrouping, and technical solutionism, may give them short-term legitimacy but risk undermining their long-term goals of addressing climate change. We analyze the discursive legitimation strategies of a successful billionaire entrepreneur in transnational climate governance, Michael Bloomberg. Our empirical analysis is based on the study of more than 800 statements, speeches, and news releases related to Bloomberg’s climate action from 2010 to 2021. It contributes to the study of entrepreneurship, leadership, philanthropy, and transnational actors in climate governance.

Voir la publication originale

Climate-related Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs) have gained prominence. Scholars have discussed their effects, including their capacity to generate novelties. Yet, some confusion remains in this area. Focusing on the governance instruments generated by TMNs, this article asks: why do some TMNs generate more novelties than others? The research conducted for this article involved a social network analysis supported by qualitative data, using data compiled by the author on TMN memberships, partnerships and governance tools. Findings suggest that the most central TMNs, which also have diverse contacts, can draw on huge volumes of diverse information to generate novel governance instruments and evolve. Other variables, e.g. organisational age, are also involved. This article contributes to the literature by offering an explanation for the capacity of some actors to generate novelties in global climate governance. It also provides a better understanding of the ways in which TMNs seek to steer their numerous city members towards climate action.

Voir la publication originale en format pdf

Few studies have examined transnational actors involved in global adaptation governance, despite their growing influence. This paper focuses on 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), a transnational municipal network (TMN) that has created governance instruments with potential for contributing to global adaptation governance. Despite their different nature from international actors (states and intergovernmental organizations), the distinct practices of TMNs and how they might influence global adaptation governance are uncertain. Vague claims suggest that TMNs are innovative, but what this innovation consists of remains unclear. Therefore, the research question here is: how do TMNs innovate in global adaptation governance? This paper strives to answer this question, by building an analytical framework to identify types and features of governance instruments, based on the literature on policy instruments, global environmental governance and global climate governance. It presents a case study of 100RC, based on an in-depth documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that TMNs can be innovative, if they, like 100RC, create original governance instruments instead of using the existing tools of international or other transnational actors. While some of 100RC’s tools favour a more recent, soft and indirect approach, its considerable use of hard practices with significant obligation is particularly interesting considering the general characterization of TMNs as voluntary and soft. The governance practices of 100RC are thus not in stark contrast with those of international actors. Their diversity could provide inspiration for future action to improve the effectiveness of global climate adaptation governance, and the analytical framework developed here could be applied in further studies.

Voir la publication originale

In this essay, I advocate for the use of an integrated approach to study networks as both structures and actors. The study of networks has gained a lot of interest in global environmental governance studies and related fields. Witnessing transnational processes that might influence world politics, scholars have looked at a variety of phenomena, among which epistemic communities, transnational advocacy networks or public-private partnerships (Bouteligier 2013, Andonova et al. 2009, Keck and Sikkink 1998, Haas 1992, 1990). Recently, they have also applied the network lens to global environmental governance. However, there is still room for investigation. Indeed, scholars of global environmental governance have often thought of networks as structures (e.g. Bansard et al. 2016, Giest and Howlett 2013) or as actors (Hakelberg 2014, Andonova et al. 2009). Few studies have analysed them as both. How can an integrated perspective of networks as structures and actors improve our understanding of the influence of networks in earth system governance?

To answer this question, the example of Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs) engaged in climate action proves interesting. As structures, TMNs influence the behaviour of their city members, guiding them toward climate action and resilience. Some cities find themselves in better positions than others in the network and become more powerful. As actors, TMNs develop strategies to gain weight in the system of global climate governance. I elaborate on the case of 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), a TMN founded in 2013 by The Rockefeller Foundation to work on urban resilience. In five years, 100RC has managed to become a prominent actor of the system. Inside its network of cities, it has oriented the behaviour of its members towards the design and implementation of resilience projects and the use of specific governance tools. Outside of it, it has partnered with major TMNs and non-TMN actors and become part of global initiatives dealing with climate action. To understand its rise, we must consider both the capacity of 100RC to connect to specific external actors and its internal structure of cities.

This essay thus joins the social sciences agent-structure debate by focusing on the integrated perspective of networks. Furthermore, it seeks to bring new insights on TMNs, a rather recent phenomenon whose influence we are still trying to measure. Finally, as it focuses on one entity of global climate governance, it hopes to offer an innovative contribution to questions dealing with agency and architectures of earth system governance.

Despite the global call for action, international actors have seemed unable to provide effective solutions to the ‘wicked problem’ of climate change. Overall, the global climate
governance system initiated at the end of the 1980s has hardly evolved and is often described as locked. Recently, however, distinct actors have started to offer new answers to the governing of climate. Among them, Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs) claim that ‘while nations talk, cities act’ and promote the role of local actors at the global level. Although their direct effect on mitigation has been questioned, I argue that TMNs may have an indirect effect on the system through the creation of governance tools of new generation. This paper thus tackles the general question of how a system may change.
In that sense, I use a theoretical framework based on complexity approaches and network theory that gives an understanding of the emergence and diffusion of innovation. I
then conduct a case study of 100 Resilient Cities, a recent TMN that has rapidly become a central actor within the network of TMNs. Finally, I present some prospects of the emergence of these actors that lack legal authority and financial resources in global climate governance.

A variety of studies on global governance, whether they are built on theories of multilevel governance, regime complexes or organisational ecology, increasingly refer to the phrase “institutional complexity”. Doing so, they usually recognise the increasing number of institutions in global governance, their diversity and their interdependence. Overall, they seek to make sense of a system which is harder and harder to explain and predict. However, most of the time, the term complexity is used as a buzzword that lacks fundamental principles lying behind the concept as applied in several theoretical approaches. Complex issues are just seen as complicated ones. In these cases, talking about institutional complexity does not add to the study of global governance. However, it could and thus should. How can “institutional complexity” contribute to our
understanding and eventually to our practice of global governance?
This think-piece argues that we need to go beyond the phrase and go back to theory to make the most of “institutional complexity”. Integrating principles from the literature on complex systems, we can build a powerful analytical concept. To this end, this work proposes a preliminary three-level definition of institutional complexity based on complex systems thinking. More specifically, it builds on features of the complex system such as interconnectedness of its elements, nonlinearity and feedback loops, and openness. In what regards its properties, self-organisation, adaptability and unpredictability, are also considered. This leads to a structuring of the concept around a basic, a secondary and an indicator levels. A discussion of this effort then follows. Its main goal is to underscore the potential of the concept of institutional complexity for making several contributions to the study of global governance. On the theoretical side, this preliminary definition may encourage the elaboration of more structured theories of change in the current global governance system. Epistemologically, it could help us move away from our prediction goals and embrace uncertainty by focusing on the construction of plausible scenarios. These may later facilitate our policy interventions. Finally, regarding methodology, an analytical definition of institutional complexity may facilitate our using appropriate methods that most particularly focus on causal complexity and interconnections. This work is only a preliminary reflection but it hopes to foster new ideas on the way to analyse and understand institutional complexity.

In this working paper, I analyse Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs) as elements of the complex system of climate governance and assess their potential for innovation through the study of their governance instruments. Over the recent period, climate governance has experienced the rise of sub-state and non-state actors. Among them, TMNs, alliances cities create and or integrate to develop their climate action and be represented at the global scale, have received a lot of attention. Scholars have underlined their role in promoting local climate action and providing cities with cognitive, financial and political resources. They have also claimed their ability to bring innovation to climate governance by questioning who governs and how. Others imply that by combining institutional and market-based elements to elaborate and implement their actions, they generate a new system of governance from the middle. However, these efforts to examine the innovation role of TMNs need to be strengthened, considering the increasing complexity of the environment. More specifically, we must understand what TMNs do differently and how they may manage to change practices in the complex system of climate governance. To this end, this paper focuses on the governance instruments used by TMNs to steer their members towards climate action. Whereas states and intergovernmental organizations usually recur to regulatory and economic instruments, displaying a traditional vision of authority, TMNs seem to favour instruments based on nodal and organizational resources. In that sense, their steering would be softer and more indirect. The prospects of this innovation are then discussed to understand whether it might represent an effective alternative to the current managing of climate issues. Envisioning climate governance itself as a complex system, this paper analyses how change may emerge and diffuse in nonlinear ways to challenge dominant modes of governing. It will thus represent an interesting contribution to the discussion of the diverse strategies for effective environmental governance.

Voir la publication originale en format pdf