2023年第5期   DOI:10.19830/j.upi.2023.410
Cross-border Low-carbon Action in North America: The Perspective of Polycentric Governance

段寒潇 赵志荣

Duan Hanxiao, Zhao Zhirong


Keywords:Global Climate Governance; Cross-border Governance; Low-carbon Action; Polycentric Governance; Collective Action


跨界合作正在成为推进全球气候治理实践的重要方式之一。本研究在奥斯特罗姆的制度分析与发展(IAD)框架和集体行动三要素的基础上,构建了一个整合性多情景IAD 框架,用于分析地跨美加的西部气候倡议低碳行动。本文总结了西部气候倡议成功运作的五大外部因素,包括基于气候政策的观念共识、特定的经济结构、适宜的制度环境、倡导性的地方政治以及环保领域的先锋意识。通过分析若干行动情景下参与主体的互动与合作成效,发现碳交易立法与政策体系的供给、可信价值承诺的建立、多主体监督体系的搭建这三个要素促进了跨界集体行动。本文揭示了地方与区域层面协作解决气候问题的可能性,为气候治理的跨界合作提供了重要参考。


Cross-border cooperation is becoming one of the most essential approaches to moving forward the practice of global climate governance. Based on Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and the three elements of collective action, this study develops an integrated multi-scenario IAD framework to analyze the Western Climate Initiative, a transboundary low-carbon action across the US and Canada. This paper summarizes five external factors for successful WCI cooperation, including a consensus based on climate policy, a particular economic structure, an appropriate institutional environment, a facilitative local politics, and a pioneering sense of environmental protection. By analyzing the interaction and cooperation effectiveness of actors in several action scenarios, we find that the provision of carbon trading legislation and policy system, the establishment of credible commitments, and multi-subject supervision structures are conducive to the sustainable development of cross-border collective action. This paper illustrates the possibility of collaborative efforts at the local and regional levels to solve the climate crisis, which provides an important reference for crossborder cooperation on climate governance.




  • [1] BORAN I. Principles of public reason in the UNFCCC: rethinking the equity framework[J]. Science and engineering ethics, 2017, 23: 1253-1271.
    [2] OSTROM E. A polycentric approach for coping with climate change[R]. The World Bank, 2009: 2-39.
    [3] COLE D H. Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy[J]. Nature climate change, 2015, 5(2): 114-118.
    [4] BULKELEY H, CASTáN BROTO V. Government by experiment? global cities and the governing of climate change: government by experiment?[J]. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2013, 38(3): 361-375.
    [5] BULKELEY H, CARMIN J, CASTáN BROTO V, et al. Climate justice and global cities: mapping the emerging discourses[J]. Global environmental change, 2013, 23(5): 914-925.
    [6] KOUSKY C, SCHNEIDER S H. Global climate policy: will cities lead the way?[J]. Climate policy, 2003, 3(4): 359-372.
    [7] ABBOTT K W. Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change[J]. Transnational environmental law, 2014, 3(1): 57-88.
    [8] LIPSCHUTZ R D. From place to planet: local knowledge and global environmental governance[J]. Global governance, 1997, 3(1): 83-102.
    [9] LIPSCHUTZ R D. Bioregionalism, civil society and global environmental governance[M]. London: Routledge, 1998: 103-105.
    [10] ABERLEY D C. Interpreting bioregionalism[M]. London: Routledge,1999: 219-221.
    [11] MOSS T. Solving problems of‘ fit’ at the expense of problems of‘ interplay’? the spatial reorganisation of water management following the EU Water Framework Directive[M] // BREIT H, ENGELS A, MOSS T, et al. How institutions change. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2003: 85-121.
    [12] 叶超, 赵江南, 张清源, 等. 跨界治理的理论重构——以长江三角洲地区为例[J]. 地理科学, 2022, 42(3): 363-372.
    [13] 丁煌, 叶汉雄. 论跨域治理多元主体间伙伴关系的构建[J]. 南京社会科学, 2013(1): 63-70.
    [14] 武俊伟, 孙柏瑛. 我国跨域治理研究: 生成逻辑、机制及路径[J]. 行政论坛, 2019, 26(1): 65-72.
    [15] OSTROM E. Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales?[J]. Economic theory, 2012, 49(2): 353-369.
    [16] OSTROM E. Organizational economics: applications to metropolitan governance[J]. Journal of institutional economics, 2010, 6(1): 109-115.
    [17] OSTROM E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socialecological systems[J]. Science, 2009, 325(5939): 419-422.
    [18] COLE D. From global to polycentric climate governance[J]. Climate law, 2011, 2: 395-413.
    [19] PAAVOLA J. Climate change: the ultimate“ tragedy of the commons”?[M] // COLE D H, OSTROM E, eds. Property in land and other resources. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, 2011: 417-433.
    [20] SOVACOOL B K. An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance[J]. Energy policy, 2011, 39(6): 3832-3844.
    [21] JORDAN A J, HUITEMA D, HILDéN M, et al. Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects[J]. Nature climate change, 2015, 5(11): 977-982.
    [22] 王亚华. 公共事物治理概论[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2022: 38-39.
    [23] KISER L, OSTROM E. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches in strategies of political inquiry[M]. London: Sage Publications, 1982: 179-222.
    [24] 王亚华. 对制度分析与发展(IAD) 框架的再评估[J]. 公共管理评论, 2017(1): 3-21.
    [25] OSTROM E. Understanding institutional diversity[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005: 15, 32-40.
    [26] OSTROM E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990: 280.
    [27] BATES R H. Contra contractarianism: some ref lections on the new institutionalism[J]. Politics & society, 1988, 16(2-3): 387-401.
    [28] SMITH E K, MAYER A. A social trap for the climate? collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries[J]. Global environmental change, 2018, 49: 140-153.
    [29] 埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆. 公共事物的治理之道——集体行动制度的演进[M]. 余逊达, 陈旭东, 译. 上海: 上海三联书店, 2000: 277-280.
    [30] 王亚华, 唐啸. 中国环境治理的经验:集体行动理论视角的审视[J]. 复旦公共行政评论, 2019(2): 187-202.
    [31] CLEMENT F. Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a “politicised” institutional analysis and development framework[J]. Policy sciences, 2010, 43(2): 129-156.
    [32] WHALEY L, WEATHERHEAD E K. An integrated approach to analyzing (adaptive) comanagement using the“ politicized” IAD framework[J]. Ecology and society, 2004, 19(1): 10-22.
    [33] CHALOUX A. The implementation of the Western Climate Initiative: how north American states and provinces lead international climate negotiations[J]. International negotiation, 2017, 22(2): 239-258.
    [34] KLINSKY S. Bottom-up policy lessons emerging from the Western Climate Initiative’s development challenges[J]. Climate policy, 2013, 13(2): 143-169.
    [35] HOWE P D, MILDENBERGER M, MARLON J R, et al. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA[J]. Nature climate change, 2015, 5(6): 596-603.
    [36] GOSSELIN P, BéLANGER D. Research, impacts, and adaptation in public health for the new climate in Quebec[J]. Sante publique, 2010, 22(3): 291-302.
    [37] COOK J, NUCCITELLI D, GREEN S A, et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature[J]. Environmental research letters, 2013, 8(2): 1-7.
    [38] HOULE D, LACHAPELLE E, PURDON M. Comparative politics of subfederal cap-and-trade: implementing the Western Climate Initiative[J]. Global environmental politics, 2015, 15(3): 49-73.
    [39] PURDON M, HOULE D, LACHAPELLE E. The political economy of California and Québec’s cap-and-trade systems[R]. Sustainable Prosperity, University of Ottawa, 2014: 6-10.
    [40] BANG G, VICTOR D G, ANDRESEN S. California’s cap-and-trade system: diffusion and lessons[J]. Global environmental politics, 2017, 17(3): 12-30.
    [41] XU X, HE P, XU H, et al. Supply chain coordination with green technology under cap-and-trade regulation[J]. International journal of production economics, 2017, 183: 433-442.

《国际城市规划》编辑部    北京市车公庄西路10号东楼E305/320    100037
邮箱:upi@vip.163.com  电话:010-58323806  传真:010-58323825
京ICP备13011701号-6  京公网安备11010802014223