Transnational Climate Governance Liliana B. Andonova, Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley Transnational Climate Governance • Liliana B. Andonova, Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley Introduction Scholars and practitioners have traditionally viewed multilateral agreements negotiated by national governments as the central mechanism for global envi- ronmental governance.1 Today, the governance of global environmental issues is multifaceted, with governance mechanisms taking on a variety of forms beyond multilateral agreements. Moreover, authority is diffuse across levels of social or- ganization and types of actors. This complexity is clearly illustrated in the case of climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol exemplify intergovernmental cooperation. Na- tional governments develop and implement climate policies within a context of national politics and institutions, sometimes under the umbrella of the interna- tional climate change regime, but not always (e.g. the United States). European Union countries function within an additional layer of regional, supranational cooperation that includes climate change along with many other policy areas. Subnational authorities have become active players in the climate change policy arena in a number of countries, often ahead of central governments. In the pri- vate sphere,2 both nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations have initiated programs to shape public understandings of climate change and to develop innovative policies and technologies for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. In this manner, climate change exempliªes the multi-actor and multi-level nature of global environmental governance. One area that has received relatively limited systematic attention is the growing trend of transnational cooperation on climate change between sub- national governments, regions, NGOs, corporations, and government agencies. Several studies have examined individual networks for climate cooperation ranging from cities,3 to climate-related partnerships,4 a climate action plan for 1. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the International Studies Association and the 2007 Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. We are grateful to Frank Biermann and Dimitris Stevis, three anony- mous referees, and editor Matthew Paterson for their helpful comments. Liliana B. Andonova is grateful to Colby College and to the Jean Monnet Fellowship Programme of the European University Institute for supporting the research presented in this article. 2. Here we use the term “private” to include both corporate and civil society actors. 3. Bulkeley and Betsill 2003. 4. Andonova 2008; and Glasbergen and Groenenberg 2001. Global Environmental Politics 9:2, May 2009 © 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 52 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52 by guest on 23 September 2021 Liliana B. Andonova, Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley • 53 US New England states and Eastern Canadian provinces,5 or the insurance in- dustry’s response to climate risk.6 There has been little attempt, however, to put the different pieces together and examine the varieties and the broader signiªcance of this phenomenon.7 This article addresses this gap in the litera- ture. We argue that such networks frequently constitute a form of transnational governance, which involves the authoritative steering of network constituents to achieve public goals, and which is of growing signiªcance in world politics and in climate cooperation in particular. The article develops a framework for systematically analyzing and docu- menting the phenomenon of transnational climate change governance. In the ªrst section, we draw on the literatures concerning transnational relations and global governance to establish a deªnition of transnational governance that clariªes who engages in transnational governance and what it entails. We em- phasize that transnational governance is characterized not only by the types of actors involved, but also by a particular set of relations and forms of purposive steering. This is important for distinguishing both analytically and empirically transnational governance in its different forms from the broader phenomenon of transnational relations. In the second section, we discuss the factors that have contributed to the emergence of transnational governance on the issue of cli- mate change, and its relation to the intergovernmental climate regime and other institutions of climate governance. We then introduce a typology that distin- guishes between public, private, and hybrid transnational networks on the basis of the actors and authority involved, and identify three governance functions through which steering is accomplished—information-sharing, capacity build- ing and implementation, and rule-setting. Through some illustrative examples, we demonstrate that the typology provides a foundation for the systematic study of transnational climate change governance. Speciªcally, it allows us to identify the various institutional forms that governance takes, and to investigate the process of governing through transnational networks. In the conclusion, we consider the implications for the future study of transnational climate change governance and global affairs. Towards Transnational Governance Transnational relations are not a new phenomenon. Direct cross-border con- tacts of business people, bureaucrats, aristocracy, elites, intellectuals, and revo- lutionaries have long been and remain a part of the international system. Keohane and Nye were among the ªrst to draw attention to the contemporary signiªcance of these cross-border transactions and networks, which they deªned as “contacts, coalitions, and interactions across state boundaries that are 5. Selin and VanDeveer 2005. 6. Jagers and Stripple 2003. 7. For exceptions, see Bäckstrand 2008; and Pattberg and Stripple 2007. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52 by guest on 23 September 2021 54 • Transnational Climate Governance not controlled by the central foreign policy organs of governments.”8 In the 1970s, a number of studies on the organization and inºuence of transnational actors such as companies, societal organizations, ªnanciers, and foundations charted a new dimension of international politics beyond the nation-state and intergovernmental politics.9 Theoretical interest in transnational relations, how- ever, proved transient. Much of the debate in mainstream International Rela- tions during the 1980s focused on intergovernmental regimes. Transnational actors and their networks were treated as epiphenomenal. As Ruggie points out, “If they did not directly challenge the state by potentially embodying a substitute for it, they might be interesting in practice, but not worthy of serious consideration.”10 The study of transnational relations was revived with new vigor in the 1990s. In an edited volume titled Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Nonstate Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, Risse-Kappen added more detail to the deªnition of transnational relations, highlighting the types of actors involved: “regular interactions across national boundaries when at least one actor is a nonstate agent or does not operate on behalf of a national government or an international organization.”11 Importantly, Risse-Kappen con- tends that interactions by governmental actors across national boundaries constitute transnational relations “when at least one actor pursues her own agenda independent of national decisions.”12 The reality of world affairs, not least the increasing salience of global environmental problems and various manifestations of globalization, meant that transnational actors became in- creasingly hard to ignore. The transnational relations literature has since made great strides in analyzing the role of transnational actors and networks. It has il- luminated the strategies and inºuence of multinational corporations and indus- try associations,13 advocacy networks,14 epistemic communities,15 and govern- ment bureaucrats.16 This reintroduction of the study of transnational relations into mainstream International Relations placed an emphasis ªrst on under- standing transnational actors as agents of change, uncovering the mechanisms through which these actors inºuence domestic and international politics, states, and international policies. Perhaps curiously, given the now ubiquitous use of the term global gover- nance, less systematic attention has been given to the extent to which the activi- 8. Keohane and Nye 1971, xi. 9. Forsythe 1976; Huntington 1973; Keohane and Nye 1971; and Strange 1976. 10. Ruggie 2004, 500. 11. Risse-Kappen 1995a, 3. 12. Risse-Kappen 1995a, 9. 13. Andonova 2003; Choucri 1993; and Garcia-Johnson 2000. 14. Betsill and Corell 2008; Keck and Sikkink 1998; Mathews 1997; Risse, Ropp and Sikkink 1999; True and Mintrom 2001; and Wapner 1996. 15. Haas 1989. 16. Slaughter 2004; and Steinberg 2001. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.52 by guest on 23 September 2021 Liliana B. Andonova, Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley • 55 ties of transnational actors and networks constitute transnational governance.17 The term “global governance” owes much to the work of James Rosenau and his distinction between “government,” here encompassing the world of states,