Das Klima und die EU: Eine Diskursperspektive auf die deutsche und schweizerische Klimapolitik

  • Marlene KammererEmail author
  • Fadri Crameri
  • Karin Ingold


This contribution analyzes the potential transformation of the media discourse related to Swiss and German climate policy. In particular, we strive to highlight how the crises of the European Union (EU) are echoed in the climate policy discourse. A new dataset was generated to analyze the political discourse of climate policy between 2009-2017, through the systematic review of media attention and a detailed discourse network analysis. Several hypotheses have guided the analysis. Firstly, we expect that climate discourses in both countries are generally similar, primarily with regard to media attention and the composition of discourse coalitions. Secondly, we expect that external events such as the climate conference in Copenhagen, the reactor accident in Fukushima or the Paris agreement to influence media attention. The third expectation claims that EU crises may be noticed in the discourse as well, visible as dips in attention, primarily in Germany. Finally, the discourse coalitions in both countries will promote a different discourse related to the EU in order to achieve their climate policy goals; in Switzerland pursued primarily through conservative voices, while in Germany the progressive coalitions will argue in favor of EU climate policy and strengthened cooperation among member states.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barthe, Susan. 2001. Die verhandelte Umwelt. Zur Institutionalisierung diskursiver Verhandlungssysteme im Umweltbereich am Beispiel der Energiekonsensgespräche von 1993. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, Frank und Bryan Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball und Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Birkland, Thomas A. 1997. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Birkland, Thomas A. 2015. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making, 4. Aufl. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, James S. 1974. Power and Structure of Society. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, Manuel. 2014. “Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy.” Policy Studies Journal 42 (3): 344–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ingold, Karin. 2011. “Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (3): 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ingold, Karin, Eva Lieberherr, Isabelle Schläpfer, Kathrin Steinmann und Willi Zimmermann. 2016. Umweltpolitik der Schweiz: Ein Lehrbuch. St. Gallen: Dike Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Janning, Frank, Philip Leifeld, Thomas Malang und Volker Schneider. 2009. “Diskursnetzwerkanalyse. Überlegungen zur Theoriebildung und Methodik.” In Politiknetzwerke. Modelle Anwendungen und Visualisierungen, herausgegeben von Volker Schneider, Frank Janning, Philip Leifeld und Thomas Malang, 59–92. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kenis, Patrick und Volker Schneider. 1991. “Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox.” In Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, herausgegeben von Bernd Marin und Renate Mayntz, 25-59. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Knill, Christoph und Jale Tosun. 2012. Public Policy: A New Introduction. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Knoke, David. 1996. Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kolaczyk, Eric D. und Gábor Csárdi. 2014. Statistical Analysis of Network Data with R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Kübler, Daniel. 2001. “Understanding Policy Change with the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4): 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leifeld, Philip. 2016. “Discourse Network Analysis: Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks, herausgegeben von Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Alexander H. Montgomery, Mark Lubell, Michael T. Heaney und James M. Strickland, 301-326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leifeld, Philip. 2018. DNA 2.0 beta 22. Software. Verfügbar Online: (Stand: 14.01.2019)
  21. Moyson, Stéphane. 2017. “Cognition and Policy Change: The Consistency of Policy Learning in the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Policy and Society 36 (2): 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nohrstedt, Daniel. 2010. “Do Advocacy Coalitions Matter? Crisis and Change in Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy.” British Journal of Political Science 20 (2): 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nohrstedt, Daniel, Christopher Weible, Karin Ingold und Adam Henry. Im Erscheinen. Advancing Comparative Policy Process Research: Insights and Lessons from the Advocacy Coalition Framework Research Program. In Handbook of Methods for Comparative Policy Analysis, herausgegeben von Guy Peters und Guillaume Fontaine: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Sabatier, Paul und Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sabatier, Paul und Christopher Weible (Hrsg.). 2014. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sager, Fritz, Karin Ingold und Andreas Balthasar. 2018. Policy-Analyse in der Schweiz: Besonderheiten, Theorien, Beispiele, 2. Aufl. Zürich: NZZ Libro.Google Scholar
  27. Schön, Donald Alan und Martin Rein. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones und Mark K. McBeth. 2011. “Policy Narratives and Policy Processes.” Policy Studies Journal 39 (3): 535–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tosun, Jale und Achim Lang. 2016. “The Politics of Hydraulic Fracturing in Germany: Party Competition at Different Levels of Government.” In Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe, herausgegeben von Christopher M. Weible, Tanya Heikkila, Karin Ingold und Manuel Fischer, 177-200. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walgrave, Stefaan und Frédéric Varone. 2008. “Punctuated Equilibrium and Agenda-Setting: Bringing Parties Back in: Policy Change after the Dutroux Crisis in Belgium.” Governance 21 (3): 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weible, Christopher und Karin Ingold. 2018. “Why Advocacy Coalitions Matter and Practical Insights About Them.” Policy & Politics 46 (2): 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations