Science and Climate Change Policy Making: A Comparative Network Perspective


When the author was conducting field work on environmental politics in Japan (1978–1981), he and his family (wife, son 1, daughter 3) lived in a small mountain farming village in Oita Prefecture, Kyushu, Japan. In this area, terraces of rice paddies held up by hand-built stone walls stepped down the mountainsides. Hundreds of years ago, the residents had hand-chipped a tunnel through a kilometer of mountain rock to bring water from the river on the other side over to water their mountain rice paddies. The water still flows through this tunnel, and then down through channels (mizo) along the sides of rice paddies with little gates to let it in when permitted. The residents carefully shared this precious resource, with a village committee deciding when each farmer could periodically get enough water to plant the rice seedlings in the spring, and to keep them growing in the summer. In this way, the village had survived for hundreds of years (Broadbent 1998).


Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Mitigate Climate Change Policy Network Compon Project 
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.



This chapter was made possible by generous support from the United States National Science Foundation “HSD: Collaborative Research: Social Networks as Agents of Change in Climate Change Policy Making” (BCS-0827006); the Abe Fellowship (Japan Foundation and Social Science Research Council); and the University of Minnesota Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment and the Life Sciences. The chapter contents represent the fruits of 2 years of discussions among the members of the Compon teams, advisors and staff, including (in alphabetical order) Anna-Liisa Aunio, Iosef Botetzagias, Moses Boudourides, Marcus Carson, Mario Diani, Christofer Edling, Dana Fisher, Tim Forsythe, Giouzepas “George” Georgios, Monica Di Gregorio, Koichi Hasegawa, Jasmine Harris, Klaus Jacob, Jun Jin, Richard Klein, Dowan Ku, Myanna Lahsen, Ho-Ching Lee, Philip Leifeld, Tze-Luen Alan Lin, Stephan Price, Joerg Raab, Ewald Rametsteiner, Leonardas Rinkevicius, Clare Saunders, Irina Shmeleva, Volker Schneider, David Tindall, Philip Vaughter, Yoshiki Yamagata, and Sun-Jin Yun.


  1. Anheier H (1987) Structural analysis and strategic research design: studying politicized interorganizational networks. Socio Forum 2(3):181–203Google Scholar
  2. Bolin B (2007) A history of the science and politics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET 6 for Windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Broadbent J (1998) Environmental politics in Japan: networks of power and protest. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadbent J (2001) Social capital and labor politics in Japan: cooperation or cooptation? In: Montgomery J, Inkeles A (eds) Social capital as a policy resource in Asia and the Pacific Basin. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 81–95Google Scholar
  6. Broadbent J (2008) Japan’s butterfly state: reciprocity, social capital and embedded networks in U.S. and German comparison. UnpublishedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly H, Cobb J (1989) For the common good: redirecting the economy towards community, the environment and a sustainable future. Beacon, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietz T, Dolsak N, Ostrom E, Stern P (2002) The drama of the commons. In: Ostrom E, National Research Council (US) (eds) The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 3–35Google Scholar
  10. Eder K (1996) Social construction of nature. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans PB, Jacobson HKJ, Putnam RD (1993) Double-edged diplomacy: international bargaining and domestic politics. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault M (1972) Power/knowledge. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman L (2004) The development of social network analysis: a study in the sociology of science. Empirical, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddens A (2009) The politics of climate change. Polity, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin J, Jasper JM (2004) Rethinking social movements structure, meaning, and emotion (People, passions, and power). Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  16. Hannigan JA (1995) Environmental sociology: a social constructivist perspective. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinz J, Laumann E, Salisbury R, Nelson R (1993) The hollow core: private interests in national policy making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Helm D (2005) Climate-change policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2007) Fourth assessment report – intergovernmental panel on climate change working group 1: the physical basis of climate change. Retrieved from
  20. Jacobson H, Weiss EB (1998) A framework for analysis. In: Weiss EB, Jacobson H (eds) Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  21. Janicke M (2002) The policy system’s capacity for environmental policy: the framework for comparison. In: Weidner H, Janicke M (eds) Capacity building in national environmental policy: a comparative study of 17 countries. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kabashima I, Broadbent J (1986) Referent pluralism: mass media and politics in Japan. J Jpn Stud 12(2):329–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenis P, Schneider V (1991) Policy networks and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In: Marin B, Mayntz R (eds) Policy networks. Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Campus, Frankfurt/Main, pp 25–59Google Scholar
  24. Knoke D (1990) Political networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knoke D, Pappi F, Broadbent J, Tsujinaka Y (1996) Comparing policy networks: labor politics in the U.S., Germany and Japan. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laumann EO (1979) Network analysis in large social systems: some theoretical and methodological problems. In: Holland PW, Leinhardt S (eds) Perspectives on social network research. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Laumann EO, Knoke D (1987) The organizational state. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  28. Laumann EO, Marsden P (1979) The analysis of oppositional structures in political elites: identifying collective actors. Am Sociol Rev 44:713–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laumann E, Pappi FU (1976) Networks of collective action: a perspective on community influence systems. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh D (1998) Comparing policy networks. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  31. McAdam D, Tarrow SG, Tilly C (2001) Dynamics of contention. Cambridge studies in contentious politics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCright A, Dunlap R (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50:348–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mol A, Sonnenfeld D (2000) Ecological modernization around the world: perspectives and critical debates. Frank Cass, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Olson M (1975) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Raab J, Kenis P (2007) Taking stock of policy networks: do they matter? In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, methods and politics. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  37. Ragin C (1987) The comparative method. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruckleshaus W (Former Director, US Environmental Protection Agency) (2005). Choosing our common future: democracy’s true test. In: Chaffee memorial lecture. Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center: National Council for Science and the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabatier PA, Weible C (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: Sabatier P (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 189–220Google Scholar
  40. Schnaiberg A, Pellow D, Weinberg A (2003) The treadmill of production and the environmental state. In: Humphrey CR, Lewis TL, Buttel FH (eds) Environment, energy, and society: examplary works. Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA, pp 412–423Google Scholar
  41. Schneider S, Rosencranz A, Niles J (2002) Climate change policy: a survey. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider V, Lang A, Leifeld P, Gundelach B (2007) Political networks – a structured bibliography. Retrieved 10 Feb 2008, from
  43. Schreurs MA (2002) Environmental politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Snow DA, Rochford EBJ, Worden SK, Benford RD (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. Am Sociol Rev 51:464–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Speth J, Haas P (2006) Global environmental governance. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilly C (1984) Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Tompkins EL, Amundsen H (2008) Perceptions of the effectiveness of the United Nations framework convention on climate change in advancing national action on climate change. Environ Sci Pol 11(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2007) Greenhouse gas inventory data. Retrieved Feb 1 2008, from
  49. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weidner H, Janicke M (2002) Summary: environmental capacity building in a converging world. In: Weidner H, Janicke M (eds) Capacity building in national environmental policy: a comparative study of 17 countries. Springer, Berlin, pp 409–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Institute for Global StudiesUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations