Climate clubs are valuable platforms for international and public-private collaboration in global climate governance;however,not all climate clubs enjoy durable support from their members.The existing literature attri...Climate clubs are valuable platforms for international and public-private collaboration in global climate governance;however,not all climate clubs enjoy durable support from their members.The existing literature attributes the varied fates of climate clubs to factors like legitimacy and club goods.We further argue that the norm-making function of clubs,the perceived value of club goods,and the costs of club good production collectively affect club development.We present a comparative study on two U.S.-initiated climate clubs-the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate(APP)and the Clean Energy Ministerial(CEM).While legitimacy concerns had some marginal influence on both clubs,the niche clubs occupy and the costs of club goods provision were crucial factors that influenced the two clubs’different fates.The APP’s failure was due to its focus on norm-making and providing information-oriented assistance to the private sector.As government interest in norm-making declined,the APP’s value declined accordingly.Moreover,assistance to private sector actors was costly and less attractive to governments.In comparison,the CEM found its niche by focusing on facilitating policymaking in the clean energy sector in a cost-efficient manner.To make clubs durable,constructing an action-oriented working environment and providing value-added and low-cost services to key stakeholders are of great importance.展开更多
基金We acknowledge financial support from Shanghai Pujiang Program[Grant number.2020PJC010]the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
文摘Climate clubs are valuable platforms for international and public-private collaboration in global climate governance;however,not all climate clubs enjoy durable support from their members.The existing literature attributes the varied fates of climate clubs to factors like legitimacy and club goods.We further argue that the norm-making function of clubs,the perceived value of club goods,and the costs of club good production collectively affect club development.We present a comparative study on two U.S.-initiated climate clubs-the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate(APP)and the Clean Energy Ministerial(CEM).While legitimacy concerns had some marginal influence on both clubs,the niche clubs occupy and the costs of club goods provision were crucial factors that influenced the two clubs’different fates.The APP’s failure was due to its focus on norm-making and providing information-oriented assistance to the private sector.As government interest in norm-making declined,the APP’s value declined accordingly.Moreover,assistance to private sector actors was costly and less attractive to governments.In comparison,the CEM found its niche by focusing on facilitating policymaking in the clean energy sector in a cost-efficient manner.To make clubs durable,constructing an action-oriented working environment and providing value-added and low-cost services to key stakeholders are of great importance.
