مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد شرایط کارآفرینی ملیتی: نوآوری عمل – اسپرینگر 2017

The role of subnational governments1 in addressing climate change has been increasingly acknowledged in the past decade. Influential states and provinces can facilitate emission reductions and can be nimble in policy implementation where national governments falter (Chen et al. 2010; Falkner et al. 2010; Rabe 2008). They can also legislate and implement policies in areas where local governments lack resources, capacity and information to act (Anderton 2012; Van den Brande et al. 2012; Galarraga et al. 2011). This emerging role for subnational governments provides a potential alternative to or synergy with top-down and bottom-up approaches and can improve linkages between levels of government. However, a better understanding of subnational entrepreneurship in climate governance is still needed. This article addresses a number of questions posed by the special issue, particularly contributing to a more robust conceptualisation of entrepreneurship in regional climate governance. To help navigate the conceptual fuzziness associated with the term entrepreneurship in climate governance, we argue that collective entrepreneurship can be established by a subnational government as a whole, rather than by particular individuals, through in-state, domestic and transnational activities. We aim to better understand the motivation behind, the strategies of entrepreneurship and the effect of these activities. While developing this argument, we utilise the policy innovation framework developed by Jordan and Huitema (2014a, b) to combine research that examines the cases of California (USA) and São Paulo (Brazil). An application of this framework highlights how subnational entrepreneurship drives new policy elements (‘invention’), their entry into use (‘diffusion’) and their outcomes (‘evaluation’). As demonstrated by these case studies, subnational governments are in a unique position to develop policies and to share and coordinate their efforts with other levels of government. The states of California and São Paulo, particularly, have introduced innovative legislation with binding emission reduction targets and have been taking action in the absence of a coordinated, ambitious national response (invention). They also promote their actions, seeking a profile of policy entrepreneurship domestically and internationally, supporting the argument that action in one domain influences governance initiatives elsewhere (diffusion). Finally, in both California and São Paulo, coordination between actors and agencies is enabling the implementation of the policies. Climate litigation also constitutes a key tool in ensuring that the policies and laws developed are capable of and are used for delivering emission reductions, thus, making them effective and impactful (evaluation).