Abstract
This chapter concludes the enquiry of this book into a new guideline for integrated economic assessments. The proposals for future integrated economic assessments made in Chap. 11 are briefly evaluated (Sect. 12.4) in light of the assumed direct effects of these proposals regarding the general norms for scientific expertise in policy from Part I (Sect. 12.1), risks and unwanted side effects (Sect. 12.2), and possible co-benefits (Sect. 12.3). This discussion can be regarded as Step 4 of a Deweyan enquiry; it is about evaluating (1) the means proposed for overcoming the problems of current integrated economic assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and (2) perhaps even the underlying general norms for scientific expertise in policy themselves – in light of the possible practical implications of these means. It is argued that realising the proposals from Chap. 11 may have several valuable positive effects, including on deliberative policy learning, while perhaps also facing some remaining challenges regarding feasibility and acceptance. Gaps in research and potential applications of the proposals to institutions other than the IPCC are discussed in Sect. 12.4. Finally, the thoughts on a philosophy-based framework for future integrated economic assessments developed in the present book are summarised (Sect. 12.5).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Such examples include, e.g., (1) alternative scenarios for the controversial issue of bioenergy in the IPCC SRREN (see particularly the exemplary figure TS.2.9 of the Technical Summary; IPCC 2011, p. 59); (2) the two volumes of the Mirrlees Review of the tax system (see http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesReview; accessed 30 Jun 2015); and (3) an assessment of geo-engineering options by the Royal Society (see http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/; accessed 30 Jun 2015).
- 2.
As a feedback to my proposals developed in this book, I sometimes heard assessment practitioners saying that these are precisely the ideas that guide their own work. However, when analysing the practice at the science-policy interface (IPCC and beyond), my feeling is that they significantly underestimate how far-reaching the proposals developed here actually are.
- 3.
Methodological questions include, e.g.: how to deal with the complexity of multi-level governance and the various interdependencies? How to deal with value judgements in policy analysis? What are appropriate indicators and methods for ex-post policy evaluation?
- 4.
Furthermore, the standpoints of some societal groups – that do, e.g., not have the funds and networks to initiate the production of scientific studies advocating for their interests – are often neglected in public debates. My arguments here, however, do not necessarily imply that the IPCC should continue producing voluminous reports over a long period of time (see Chap. 11).
- 5.
On the other hand, it is increasingly hard for the IPCC to conduct a comprehensive literature review and assessment regarding specific topics such as bioenergy (as a crosscut that is crucial to all the global mitigation goals), because thousands of papers were published on this topic in recent years. Developing better methods for synthesis and meta-analysis would be required to mitigate this challenge.
- 6.
This implies risks for their career perspective if they are heavily engaged in assessments. It can furthermore imply health risks (burnout, etc.).
- 7.
A good example of what I mean is the current academic debate in Germany about whether or not “transformative research,” i.e., highly policy-relevant, solution-oriented research, poses a threat to scientific purity, integrity and credibility (see, e.g., Grunwald 2015).
- 8.
An example of this approach is the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, see http://www.ipbes.net/ (accessed 30 Jun 2015).
- 9.
An example of this approach is the International Panel on Social Progress, see http://www.ip-socialprogress.org/ (accessed 30 Jun 2015); it does not (yet) have a mandate from policymakers.
- 10.
See again the research project on assessments already mentioned in Sect. 10.5 at http://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/cooperation/unep.html (accessed 30 Jun 2015).
- 11.
Two interesting examples of health-related assessments include http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/models-for-community-health-and-development/health-impact-assessment/main and http://www.integrated-assessment.eu/ (both accessed 30 Jun 2015).
References
Ansell, Christopher K. 2011. Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bammé, Arno. 2004. Science wars. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Carraro, Carlo, Charles Kolstad, and Robert Stavins. 2015. Assessment and communication of the social science of climate change: Bridging research and policy. Memorandum from Workshop conducted 18–20 February 2015 in Berlin. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/climate_assessment_memorandum-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.
Dewey, John. 1927. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Hold & Co.
Dewey, John. 1988. Creative democracy: The task before us. In John Dewey. The later works, 1925–1953, volume 14: 1939–1941. Essays, reviews, and miscellany, ed. Jo A. Boydston, 224–230. Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Edenhofer, Ottmar, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller (eds.). 2012. Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grunwald, Armin. 2015. Transformative Wissenschaft: eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? GAIA 24(1): 17–20.
IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón P. Madruga, Youba Sokona, Kristin Seyboth, Patrick Matschoss, Susanne Kadner, Timm Zwickel, Patrick Eickemeier, Gerrit Hansen, Steffen Schlömer, and Christoph von Stechow. 2011. Renewable energy sources and climate change Mitigation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. eds. Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Leo A. Meyer. 2014. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keynes, John M. 1936. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan.
Kowarsch, Martin. 2016. Policy assessments to enhance EU scientific advice. Nature Climate Change 6(1): 15–17.
Rayner, Steve. 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 163–170.
Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7(5): 385–403.
Schiermeier, Quirin. 2013. IPCC: The climate chairman. News feature. Nature 501: 303–305.
Siebenhüner, Bernd. 2003. The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments: The case of the IPCC. Global Environmental Change 13(2): 113–123.
Stocker, Thomas F., and Gian-Kasper Plattner. 2014. Climate policy: Rethink IPCC reports. Comment. Nature 513: 163–165.
Weber, Max. 2006. In Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, 2nd ed, ed. Dirk Kaesler. Munich: Beck.
Weston, Samuel. 1994. Toward a better understanding of the positive/normative distinction in economics. Economics and Philosophy 10(1): 1–17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kowarsch, M. (2016). Potential Implications of the IPCC Reform: Deliberative Learning and Difficulties of In-Depth Policy Assessment. In: A Pragmatist Orientation for the Social Sciences in Climate Policy. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 323. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43281-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43281-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43279-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43281-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)