Advanced

Limiting costs or correcting market failures? : Finance ministries and frame alignment in UN climate finance negotiations

Skovgaard, Jakob LU (2017) In International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17(1). p.89-106
Abstract
Finance ministries are increasingly involved in UN climate finance negotiations,
yet this development received very limited attention in the literature on climate finance or climate negotiations. It is not obvious from the literature on bureaucratic politics how these ministries will position themselves on climate finance: they may frame climate finance as expenditure to be limited or as an instrument for correcting the market failure of climate change. This paper investigates which frames have characterised the positions of finance ministries on key issues in the climate finance negotiations, and whether the use of a given frame corresponds to particular factors. Case studies of Denmark, India, Indonesia and the USA based on official... (More)
Finance ministries are increasingly involved in UN climate finance negotiations,
yet this development received very limited attention in the literature on climate finance or climate negotiations. It is not obvious from the literature on bureaucratic politics how these ministries will position themselves on climate finance: they may frame climate finance as expenditure to be limited or as an instrument for correcting the market failure of climate change. This paper investigates which frames have characterised the positions of finance ministries on key issues in the climate finance negotiations, and whether the use of a given frame corresponds to particular factors. Case studies of Denmark, India, Indonesia and the USA based on official documents and interviews show that the position of each finance ministry is generally consistent with one particular frame. The Indonesian and Danish finance ministries predominantly framed climate finance as a way of correcting a market
failure. The Indian Ministry of Finance emphasised Common but Differentiated Responsibilities,which fits with the budget frame. The US Treasury’s position similarly fits with the budget frame while sharing elements of the market failure frame. Finance ministries that had the lead on climate finance were more likely follow the budget frame. The use of both frames cuts across the divide between industrialised and emerging economies. With the exception of the USA, left- and right-wing governments were equally likely to adopt either frame. These findings indicate that strengthening finance ministry forums built around the market failure frame can be a way of reducing norm fragmentation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics
volume
17
issue
1
pages
18 pages
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • scopus:85008157647
  • wos:000394315800006
ISSN
1573-1553
DOI
10.1007/s10784-016-9348-3
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
78b51be8-ac68-4e3b-b32e-977c691671f4
date added to LUP
2017-01-31 20:37:50
date last changed
2018-01-07 11:47:18
@article{78b51be8-ac68-4e3b-b32e-977c691671f4,
  abstract     = {Finance ministries are increasingly involved in UN climate finance negotiations,<br/>yet this development received very limited attention in the literature on climate finance or climate negotiations. It is not obvious from the literature on bureaucratic politics how these ministries will position themselves on climate finance: they may frame climate finance as expenditure to be limited or as an instrument for correcting the market failure of climate change. This paper investigates which frames have characterised the positions of finance ministries on key issues in the climate finance negotiations, and whether the use of a given frame corresponds to particular factors. Case studies of Denmark, India, Indonesia and the USA based on official documents and interviews show that the position of each finance ministry is generally consistent with one particular frame. The Indonesian and Danish finance ministries predominantly framed climate finance as a way of correcting a market<br/>failure. The Indian Ministry of Finance emphasised Common but Differentiated Responsibilities,which fits with the budget frame. The US Treasury’s position similarly fits with the budget frame while sharing elements of the market failure frame. Finance ministries that had the lead on climate finance were more likely follow the budget frame. The use of both frames cuts across the divide between industrialised and emerging economies. With the exception of the USA, left- and right-wing governments were equally likely to adopt either frame. These findings indicate that strengthening finance ministry forums built around the market failure frame can be a way of reducing norm fragmentation.},
  author       = {Skovgaard, Jakob},
  issn         = {1573-1553},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {89--106},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics},
  title        = {Limiting costs or correcting market failures? : Finance ministries and frame alignment in UN climate finance negotiations},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9348-3},
  volume       = {17},
  year         = {2017},
}