@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}
}
@article{HeinzelLiese2021,
  author    = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Liese, Andrea},
  title     = {Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK},
  series = {West European politics},
  journal   = {West European politics},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0140-2382},
  doi       = {10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630},
  pages     = {1258 -- 1282},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens' behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens' support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HickmannFuhrHoehneetal.2017,
  author    = {Hickmann, Thomas and Fuhr, Harald and H{\"o}hne, Chris and Lederer, Markus and Stehle, Fee},
  title     = {Carbon Governance Arrangements and the Nation-State: The Reconfiguration of Public Authority in Developing Countries},
  series = {Public administration and development},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Public administration and development},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0271-2075},
  doi       = {10.1002/pad.1814},
  pages     = {331 -- 343},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Several scholars concerned with global policy-making have recently pointed to a reconfiguration of authority in the area of climate politics. They have shown that various new carbon governance arrangements have emerged, which operate simultaneously at different governmental levels. However, despite the numerous descriptions and mapping exercises of these governance arrangements, we have little systematic knowledge on their workings within national jurisdictions, let alone about their impact on public-administrative systems in developing countries. Therefore, this article opens the black box of the nation-state and explores how and to what extent two different arrangements, that is, Transnational City Networks and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, generate changes in the distribution of public authority in nation-states and their administrations. Building upon conceptual assumptions that the former is likely to lead to more decentralized, and the latter to more centralized policy-making, we provide insights from case studies in Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and India. In a nutshell, our analysis underscores that Transnational City Networks strengthen climate-related actions taken by cities without ultimately decentralizing climate policy-making. On the other hand, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation tends to reinforce the competencies of central governments, but apparently does not generate a recentralization of the forestry sector at large.},
  language  = {en}
}