@incollection{LedererHoehneStehleetal.2020, author = {Lederer, Markus and H{\"o}hne, Chris and Stehle, Fee and Hickmann, Thomas and Fuhr, Harald}, title = {Multilevel climate governance in Brazil and Indonesia}, series = {Climate governance across the globe : Pioneers, leaders and followers}, booktitle = {Climate governance across the globe : Pioneers, leaders and followers}, editor = {Wurzel, R{\"u}diger K. W. and Andersen, Mikael Skou and Tobin, Paul}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY}, isbn = {978-1-003-01424-9}, doi = {10.4324/9781003014249}, pages = {101 -- 119}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Focusing on forest policy and urban climate politics in Brazil and Indonesia, the primary objective of this chapter is to identify domestic pioneers and leaders who, compared to other sectors, governmental levels or jurisdictions within the same nation-state, move 'ahead of the troops' (Liefferink and Wurzel, 2017: 2-3). The chapter focuses especially on the role of multilevel governance in bringing about pioneership and leadership and on the different types of that have emerged. It also explores whether and, if so, to what extent domestic pioneers and leaders attract followers and whether there are signs of sustained domestic leadership. The chapter identifies the actors that constitute pioneers and leaders and assesses the processes which lead to their emergence. The chapter authors take up Wurzel et al.'s (2019) call to open up the black box of the nation-state. But instead of stressing the role of non-state actors, the chapter authors focus on vertical interactions among different governmental levels within nation states. The main argument put forward is that international and transnational processes, incentives, and ideas often trigger the development of domestic pioneership and leadership. Such processes, however, cannot be understood properly if domestic politics and dynamics across governmental levels within the nation-state are not taken into account.}, language = {en} } @misc{Hickmann2019, author = {Hickmann, Thomas}, title = {Rezension zu: Andonova, Liliana B: Governance Entrepreneurs: International Organizations and the Rise of Global Public-Private Partnerships. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. - XI,275 S. - ISBN 978-1-107-16566-3}, series = {Global environmental politics}, volume = {19}, journal = {Global environmental politics}, number = {2}, publisher = {MIT Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {1526-3800}, doi = {10.1162/glep_r_00510}, pages = {175 -- 177}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @article{BansardHickmannKern2019, author = {Bansard, Jennifer S. and Hickmann, Thomas and Kern, Kristine}, title = {Pathways to urban sustainability}, series = {GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society}, volume = {28}, journal = {GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society}, number = {2}, publisher = {Oekom Verlag}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, issn = {0940-5550}, doi = {10.14512/gaia.28.2.9}, pages = {112 -- 118}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Recent years have seen a considerable broadening of the ambitions in urban sustainability policy-making. With its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, the 2030 Agenda stresses the critical role of cities in achieving sustainable development. In the context of SDG17 on partnerships, emphasis is also placed on the role of researchers and other scientific actors as change agents in the sustainability transformation. Against this backdrop, this article sheds light on different pathways through which science can contribute to urban sustainability. In particular, we discern four forms of science-policy-society interactions as key vectors: 1. sharing knowledge and providing scientific input to urban sustainability policy-making; 2. implementing transformative research projects; 3. contributing to local capacity building; and 4. self-governing towards sustainability. The pathways of influence are illustrated with empirical examples, and their interlinkages and limitations are discussed. We contend that there are numerous opportunities for actors from the field of sustainability science to engage with political and societal actors to enhance sustainable development at the local level.}, language = {en} } @incollection{HickmannPartzschPattbergetal.2019, author = {Hickmann, Thomas and Partzsch, Lena and Pattberg, Philipp H. and Weiland, Sabine}, title = {Conclusion}, series = {The anthropocene debate and political science}, booktitle = {The anthropocene debate and political science}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-0-8153-8614-8}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {237 -- 251}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @article{Hickmann2017, author = {Hickmann, Thomas}, title = {Voluntary global business initiatives and the international climate negotiations}, series = {Journal of Cleaner Production}, volume = {169}, journal = {Journal of Cleaner Production}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0959-6526}, doi = {10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.183}, pages = {94 -- 104}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The past few years have witnessed the emergence of a plethora of transnational climate governance experiments. They have been developed by a broad range of actors, such as cities, non-profit organizations, and private corporations. Several scholars have lately devoted particular attention to voluntary global business initiatives in the policy domain of climate change. Their studies have provided considerable insights into the role and function of such new modes of climate governance. However, the precise nature of the relationship between the various climate governance experiments and the international climate negotiations has not been analyzed in enough detail. Against this backdrop, the present article explores the interplay of a business sector climate governance experiment, i.e. the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) with the international climate regime. On the one hand, the article underscores that the GHG Protocol has filled a regulatory gap in global climate policy-making by providing the means for the corporate sector to comprehensively account and report their GHGs. On the other hand, it reveals that the application of the GHG Protocol guidelines depends to a large extent on the existence of an overarching policy framework set up by nation-states at the intergovernmental level. Only if private companies receive a clear political signal that stringent mandatory GHG emission controls and a global market-based instrument are at least likely to be adopted will they put substantial efforts into the accurate measurement and management of their GHGs. Thus, this article points to the limits of climate governance experimentation and suggests that business sector climate governance experiments need to be embedded in a coherent international regulatory setting which generates a clear stimulus for corporate action.}, language = {en} } @article{Hickmann2017, author = {Hickmann, Thomas}, title = {The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance}, series = {International Studies Review}, volume = {19}, journal = {International Studies Review}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1521-9488}, doi = {10.1093/isr/vix037}, pages = {430 -- 451}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Much of the literature in the field of international relations is currently concerned with the changing patterns of authority in world politics. This is particularly evident in the policy domain of climate change, where a number of authors have observed a relocation of authority in global climate governance. These scholars claim that multilateral treaty making has lost much of its spark, and they emphasize the emergence of transnational governance arrangements, such as city networks, private certification schemes, and business self-regulation. However, the different types of interactions between the various transnational climate initiatives and the intergovernmental level have not been studied in much detail and only recently attracted growing scholarly interest. Therefore, the present article addresses this issue and focuses on the interplay between three different transnational climate governance arrangements and the international climate regime. The analysis in this article underscores that substate and nonstate actors have attained several authoritative functions in global climate policy making. Nevertheless, the three case studies also demonstrate that this development does not imply that we are witnessing a general shift of authority away from the intergovernmental level toward transnational actors. Instead, what can be observed in global climate governance is an ongoing reconfiguration of authority, which apparently reaffirms the centrality of the international climate regime. Thus, this article points to the need for a more nuanced perspective on the changing patterns of authority in global climate governance. In a nutshell, this study shows that the international climate regime is not the only location where the problem of climate change is addressed, while it highlights the persistent authority of state-based forms of regulation.}, language = {en} }