Potential Implications of the IPCC Reform: Deliberative Learning and Difficulties of In-Depth Policy Assessment

  • Martin Kowarsch
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 323)


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).


Climate Policy Policy Option Scientific Expertise Deliberative Democracy Political Legitimacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ansell, Christopher K. 2011. Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bammé, Arno. 2004. Science wars. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 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. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.
  4. Dewey, John. 1927. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Hold & Co.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grunwald, Armin. 2015. Transformative Wissenschaft: eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? GAIA 24(1): 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. IPCC. eds. Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Leo A. Meyer. 2014. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Keynes, John M. 1936. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Kowarsch, Martin. 2016. Policy assessments to enhance EU scientific advice. Nature Climate Change 6(1): 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7(5): 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schiermeier, Quirin. 2013. IPCC: The climate chairman. News feature. Nature 501: 303–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stocker, Thomas F., and Gian-Kasper Plattner. 2014. Climate policy: Rethink IPCC reports. Comment. Nature 513: 163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weber, Max. 2006. In Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, 2nd ed, ed. Dirk Kaesler. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  19. Weston, Samuel. 1994. Toward a better understanding of the positive/normative distinction in economics. Economics and Philosophy 10(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kowarsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations