Skip to main content

The polycentricity of climate policy blockage


This paper builds on recent research on polycentric governance and the Ecology of Games to understand climate politics in the USA. Complementing previous work from 2005 to 2009, we map out the ideological networks of political actors engaged in the climate policy network using data from the US Congress as an arena of symbolic interaction. Our analysis identifies polycentric sites of ideological congruence and conflict in the discourse network on climate change. Political actors from different levels and including several actor types formed multiple centers that became bipolarized between the 112th and 114th sessions of the US Congress. This process took place in tandem with the increased participation of subnational actors in the polycentric system. By the 114th session of the Congress—during which the 2016 election took place—subnational policy actors, along with a diversity of other actors, contributed to an extremely polarized discussion of one of the central policies in the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan: the Clean Power Plan. This finding is remarkable as the concept of polycentricity tends to be normatively associated with policy innovation, rather than stagnation. Our longitudinal analysis demonstrates, using Discourse Network Analysis, how increased multi-level participation can be associated with policy blockage of progressive climate policies rather than enabling policy innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. (Accessed 9 May 2019)

  2. The Clean Power Plan was first proposed by the Obama Administration in June 2014. For details, see 8 May 2019).

  3. For details, see (Accessed 8 May 2019).

  4. Details available at: (accessed 27 January 2018).


  • Berardo R, Lubell M (2019) The ecology of games as a theory of polycentricity: recent advances and future challenges. Policy Stud J 47(1):6–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betsill MM, Bulkeley H (2006) Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Glob Gov 12:141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp 2008(10):P10008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley H (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit Geogr 24(8):875–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein P, Hirsh CE (2007) Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the US congress. In: Sociological Forum, vol 22. Wiley online library, pp 174–199

  • Burt RS (1995) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. 1st Paperback Edition edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle K, Gruby RL (2017) Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Stud J n/a-n/a

  • Clifton BM (2004) Romancing the GOP: assessing the strategies used by the Christian Coalition to influence the Republican party. Party Polit 10(5):475–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole DH (2011) From global to polycentric climate governance. Climate Law 2(3):395–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole DH (2015) Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat Clim Chang 5(2):114–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service (2015) House Committee Hearings: The “Minority Witness Rule”

  • DeGregorio C (1998) “Assets and access: linking lobbyists and lawmakers in congress.” The Interest Group Connection: Electioneering, Lobbying, and Policymaking in Washington. Chatham House Publishers, Chatham, p Viii 376

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer M, Leifeld P (2015) Policy forums: why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sci 48(3):363–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DR (2013) Understanding the relationship between subnational and national climate change politics in the United States: toward a theory of boomerang federalism. Eviron Plann C Gov Policy 31(5):769–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DR, Leifeld P, Iwaki Y (2013a) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Clim Chang 116(3–4):523–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P (2013b) Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. Am Behav Sci 57(1):70–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García MM, Bodin Ö (2019) Participation in multiple decision making water governance forums in Brazil enhances actors’ perceived level of influence. Policy Stud J 47(1):27–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillard R, Gouldson A, Paavola J, Van Alstine J (2017) Can national policy blockages accelerate the development of polycentric governance? Evidence from climate change policy in the United Kingdom. Glob Environ Chang 45:174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gormley WT Jr (1998) Witnesses for the revolution. American Politics Quarterly 26(2):174–195

  • Hamilton M, Lubell M (2018) Collaborative governance of climate change adaptation across spatial and institutional scales. Policy Stud J 46(2):222–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris BA (2016) What the supreme court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan means for the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation moving forward. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. Accessed 7 Aug 2018

  • Harvard Law Review (2016) The Clean Power Plan. Harv Law Rev 129(4):1152–1159

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitshusen V (2017) Senate committee hearings: arranging witnesses. Congressional Review Service Report for Congress

  • Jain AK, Dubes RC (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasny L, Waggle J, Fisher DR (2015) An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat Clim Chang 5(8):782–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones BS (1991) State responses to global climate change. Policy Stud J 19(2):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan AJ, Huitema D, Hildén M, van Asselt H, Rayner TJ, Schoenefeld JJ, Tosun J, Forster J, Boasson EL (2015) Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat Clim Chang 5(11):977–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A, Huitema D, van Asselt H, Forster J (2018) Governing climate change: polycentricity in action? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Krane D (2007) The middle tier in American federalism: state government policy activism during the bush presidency. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37(3):453–477

  • Laumann EO, Knoke D (1987) The organizational state: social choice in national policy domains. Univ of Wisconsin Press

  • Leifeld P (2016) Policy debates as dynamic networks: German pension politics and privatization discourse. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifeld P (2017) Discourse network analysis: policy debates as dynamic networks. In: Victor JN, Montgomery AH, Lubbell MN (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford University Press, pp 301–325

  • Leifeld P (2019) rDNA. Discourse network analysis in R. R Package Version 2.1.18

  • Leifeld P, Haunss S (2012) Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. Eur J Polit Res 51(3):382–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifeld, P, J Gruber, and FR Bossner. 2018. Discourse Network Analyzer manual. Retrieved from

  • Liu X, Lindquist E, Vedlitz A (2011) Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969-2005: an empirical test of agenda-setting theory. Polit Res Q 64(2):405–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Henry AD, McCoy M (2010) Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. Am J Polit Sci 54(2):287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Soc Probl 50(3):348–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee ZA, Jones BD (2019) Reconceptualizing the policy subsystem: integration with complexity theory and social network analysis. Policy Stud J 47(S1):S138–S158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison TH (2017) Evolving polycentric governance of the great barrier reef. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(15):E3013–E3021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(23):8577–8582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obama B (2015) Remarks by the president in announcing the clean power plan. The white house of president Barack Obama. Retrieved Accessed 24 June 2019

  • Oberthür S (2016) Reflections on global climate politics post Paris: Power, interests and polycentricity. The International Spectator 51(4):80–94

  • Ostrom E (2012) Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory 49(2):353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2014) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Ann Econ Financ 15(1):71–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Park HS, Liu X, Vedlitz A (2010) Framing climate policy debates. Science, Network, and US Congress, pp 1976–2007

  • Rabe B (2007) Environmental policy and the bush era: the collision between the administrative presidency and state experimentation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 37(3):413–431

  • Rabe B (2013) Racing to the top, the bottom, or the middle of the pack? The evolving state government role in environmental protection. In: Vig N, Craft M (eds) Environmental policy: New directions for the 21st Century. CQ Press, Washington, DC, pp 30–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabe B, Borick C (2013) Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania’s early move into fracking policy development. Rev Policy Res 30(3):321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Weible CM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, vol 2, pp 189–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott TA, Greer RA (2019) Polycentricity and the hollow state: exploring shared personnel as a source of connectivity in fragmented urban systems. Policy Stud J 47(1):52–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreng CP, Sovacool BK, Spreng D (2016) All hands on deck: polycentric governance for climate change insurance. Clim Chang 139(2):129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The New York Times (2017) What is the clean power plan, and how can trump repeal it? The New York Times, October 10

  • Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana R. Fisher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisher, D.R., Leifeld, P. The polycentricity of climate policy blockage. Climatic Change 155, 469–487 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: