PD

1.1

1998 2010 5
Townsend et al 20132012 67%
Dubash et al. 2013

2015 2014
Schreurs 2003=2007

1.2

1998 2000 2002 2008

NGO 2014 2002

Fisher 2004
EU 2015

Broadbent et al 2013 GDP

Lachapelle and Paterson 2013

1997 2013 66 500

Frankhauser 2015

112 1998 2009

Stadelmann Castro 2014
EU
Biesenbender Tosun2014

Massey 2014
Stadelmann Castro2014

Biesenbender and Tosun 2014

Levy et al. 1992

1.3
1999
1999

2012
COMPON
1
2014

1COMPONComparing Climate Change Policy Networks

National Science FoundationJeffrey Broadbent

webhttp://compon.org/

4
 2
3
3

4

2
2.1
Policy domain
Policy network
Paul Burstein
Burstein 1991, 328

Kenis and Schneider 1991

Knoke 2011, 210

Brzel 1997, 1

2.2

5


2007120118
110664

20072009
1,627
COMPON

121

42012220137

1257257.6%
2 COMPON

2.3
2.3.1

5

2 5 38.5%
9 77.8%14 100.0%4 80.0%
NGO10 83.3%3 75.0%5 71.4%3
75.0%13 28.9%8 66.7%

2.3.2

7
3
3.1

1 15



1 51
1 51
3 42
4 39
5 28
5 28
7 27
8 25
9 24
10
IPCC 23
10
UNF CCC 23
12 22
13 20
14 19
15 18
72

1 15

3
2014

10 IPCC
UNFCCC13

1 155
7.71 49
11 22.4% 5
1

3.2
103
5

Degree centrality
3

2A 4
3.5
5.2
1

=
A B) C



n=103
-0.96 ** (0.29)
3.5 5.2 0.78 *** 0.30 ** (0.09)
1.4 1.8 0.81 *** 0.30 (0.35)
1.7 2.2 0.79 *** 0.40 (0.25)
1.4 1.9 0.85 *** 1.21 *** (0.25)
0.9 1.3 0.70 *** -0.68 (0.34)
R 2 0.79 ***
R2 0.78 ***
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01.

IPCC
NGO NGO

4
4.1

10
 11 3

3 10

1 IPCC 23
1 UNFCCC 23
3 20
4 EU 18
5 IEA 16
6 15
7 UNEP 9
7 9
9 OECD 8
9 8
9 8
11

5 4RC, OP, PP

Recognition1RC1

RC2

Opinion1
OP1
Opinion2OP2

Policy Preference1PP1

5
2016

11


Policy Preference 2PL2

CCS

12
 4

n
RC:
5:4: 3: 2: 1:
RC1=0.78
68 4.6 (0.58)
68 4.4 (0.66) 4.5 (0.50)
69 4.7 (0.58)
RC2=0.72
* 61 4.0 (0.97)
* 59 3.9 (0.89) 2.4 (0.86)
* 67 3.0 (1.17)
OP:
5:4: 3: 2: 1:
OP1=0.92
202020%
66 3.0 (1.34)
*
* 68 2.8 (1.19)
* 66 3.5 (1.06)
2020199025%* 65 3.6 (1.49) 3.0 (1.05)
* 66 3.1 (1.36)
* 66 2.6 (1.24)
* 67 2.7 (1.16)
67 3.4 (1.31)
OP2=0.77
67 3.8 (1.15)
66 3.9 (0.96) 3.7 (0.92)
67 3.8 (1.03)
PP:
5:4: 3: 2: 1:
PP1=0.80
67 3.2 (1.38)
67 3.7 (1.38)
67 3.7 (1.19)
3.2 (0.92)
67 3.6 (1.17)
* 67 4.0 (0.98)
* 65 3.4 (1.39)
PP2=0.76
68 4.1 (0.86)
68 4.1 (0.84)
67 4.3 (0.79) 4.0 (0.68)
67 3.8 (0.81)
CCS 67 3.8 (1.10)
*R
mice2.22van Buuren 201120n=72

10
1 0VIF>10

13
 5

RC1 RC2 OP1 OP2 PP1 PP2


n=72
4.60 *** (0.09) 2.47 *** (0.17) 3.03 *** (0.17) 3.92 *** (0.16) 3.32 *** (0.15) 4.07 *** (0.12)
4 1.06 (0.62) 2.33 * (1.01) 3.73 ** (1.13) 2.89 ** (1.03) 2.75 ** (0.98) 2.01 * (0.79)
(UNEP) 17 0.91 ** (0.31) 0.59 (0.48) 0.85 (0.55) 0.74 (0.49) 0.65 (0.47) -0.19 (0.38)
8 0.43 (0.39) 0.55 (0.66) 1.07 (0.75) 0.77 (0.68) 0.63 (0.64) 0.50 (0.53)
(OECD) 12 0.21 (0.22) -0.06 (0.38) 0.27 (0.43) 0.18 (0.38) 0.03 (0.37) 0.15 (0.30)
IEA
24 0.05 (0.21) -0.21 (0.36) -0.46 (0.39) -0.73 * (0.35) -0.50 (0.34) -0.27 (0.28)

7 0.03 (0.34) 0.03 (0.57) 0.09 (0.65) -0.44 (0.59) -0.03 (0.56) -0.36 (0.45)

(IPCC) 36 -0.28 (0.18) -0.35 (0.31) -0.12 (0.35) -0.20 (0.33) -0.09 (0.30) -0.16 (0.25)

(UNFCCC) 20 -0.42 (0.27) 0.23 (0.41) -0.18 (0.46) -0.08 (0.41) -0.60 (0.40) 0.15 (0.32)

2 -0.42 (0.76) -0.62 (1.33) -1.48 (1.34) -1.73 (1.22) -0.17 (1.14) -1.01 (0.94)
EU 12 -0.49 (0.28) -0.65 (0.45) -0.78 (0.52) -0.32 (0.47) -0.25 (0.45) 0.37 (0.36)
7 -0.92 (0.51) -1.33 (0.85) -2.24 * (0.97) -1.42 (0.88) -1.72 * (0.84) -1.14 (0.68)
6 0.60 (0.50) 0.38 (0.85) 1.33 (0.93) 0.84 (0.84) 1.09 (0.80) -0.70 (0.65)
(UNEP) 6 0.03 (0.42) 0.60 (0.67) 0.78 (0.76) -0.12 (0.73) 0.68 (0.66) 0.40 (0.56)
(EU) 7 0.88 (0.50) 0.38 (0.83) 0.50 (0.95) -0.10 (0.90) 0.19 (0.82) -0.90 (0.67)
(IEA) 7 -0.23 (0.36) -0.17 (0.61) 0.04 (0.68) 0.43 (0.68) 0.06 (0.59) 0.11 (0.50)
(IPCC) 7 -0.07 (0.45) 0.06 (0.75) 0.11 (0.97) -0.15 (1.06) -0.21 (0.87) 0.03 (0.79)
(UNFCCC) 7 -1.00 (0.56) -0.19 (0.94) -1.26 (1.09) -0.10 (1.15) -0.36 (0.95) 0.48 (0.81)
3 -0.08 (0.49) -0.98 (0.95) -1.10 (0.94) -1.05 (0.86) -1.56 (0.80) 1.40 * (0.66)

R2 0.41 0.34 0.41 0.39 0.26 0.33

R2 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.26 0.10
*** p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, p<0.10.
1mice2.2220
2RC2R2R2van Buuren 2012:156

RC1
PP1
4

OP1PP1

IPCC UNFCCC

RC1

14


4.2
3.2

72

1 6

C A B

F D

A

-

2 3 1
4 7 3
1 3 2

6 UCINet ver.6

15

Closeness centrality

7
Broker

1
A B-C

8

9
6

6




8.75 (1.18)
2.1 6.1 0.96 0.18 -0.04 0.95 3.89 ** (1.19)

42.9 151.2 0.96 0.08 0.01 0.94
5.0 10.4 0.11 0.96 -0.18 0.96 -0.64 (1.19)

167.4 715.9 0.13 0.96 -0.07 0.94
462.5 176.1 0.24 -0.30 0.78 0.75 0.39 (1.19)

640.9 139.3 -0.47 0.03 0.71 0.73
2.16 1.96 1.15 R2 0.14
% 0.36 0.69 0.88 R2 0.10
**p < 0.01.

1
8 Betweenness Centrality

9 R psych ver. 1.4.3 (Revelle 2014)

16


7
NGO

0.59
0.5

17
 7 10



1 4.60 25
2 NGO A 4.59 11
3 3.73 51
4 B 1.48 5
5 1.19 12
6 C 1.14 9
7 D 0.90 17
8 NGO E 0.41 6
9 0.31 4
10 0.30 27

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

18


NGO

19


2016

2008
207-245
2016
27
2014
20100-116.
2002


31148-176
1998
1999 -
52 1 12
2000
61-22
2015

Biesenbender, Sophie and Jale Tosun. 2014. Domestic politics and the diffusion of
international policy innovations: How does accommodation happen? Global
Environmental Change 29: 424-433.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Everett, Martin G., and Freeman, Linton C. 2002. Ucinet 6
for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis , Harvard, MA: Analytic
Technologies.
Brzel, Tanja A. 1997. Whats so special about policy networks?: An exploration of
the concept and its usefulness in studying european governance. European
Integration online Papers 1: 1-28. (Electric article, retrieved on Sept. 13, 2013.,
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-016a.htm.)
Boykoff, Maxwell T. 2007. Flogging a dead norm?: Newspaper coverage of
anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from

20
 2003 to 2006. Area 39(4): 470-81.
Broadbent, Jeffrey P., Sun-Jin Yun, Dowan Ku, Kazuhiro Ikeda, Keiichi Satoh,
Sony Pellissery, Pradip Swarnarkar, Tze-Luen Lin, Ho-Ching Lee, and Jun Jin,
2013. Asian societies and climate change: The variable diffusion of global
norms. Globality Studies Journal: Global History, Society, Civilization 32: 1-24.
(Published in Electric form at https://globality.cc.stonybrook.edu/?p=681,
checked on Jun. 16, 2016.)
Broadbent, Jeffrey P. 2010. Science and climate change policy making: A
comparative network. In: Sumi, A., Fukushi, K., and Hiramatsu A eds. Adaptation
and Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change , Tokyo: Springer, pp. 187-214.
Burstein, Paul. 1991. Policy domains: Organization, culture, and policy outcomes.
Annual Review of Sociology 17: 327-50.
Dubash, Navroz K., Markus Hagemann, Niklas Hhne and Prabhat Upadhyaya,
2013, Developments in national climate change mitigation legislation and
strategy. Climate Policy 13 (6), 649664.
Fisher, Dana. 2004. National Governance and the Global Climate Change Regime .
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Frankhauser, Samuel, Caterina Gennaioli and Murray Collins. 2015. Do
international factors influence the passage of climate change legislation?,
Climate Policy 16(3): 318-331.
Jordan, Andrew and Dave Huitema, 2014. Policy innovation in a changing
climate: Sources, patterns and effects, Global Environmental Change 29:
387-394.
Kenis, Patric and Volker Schneider. 1991. Policy networks and policy analysis:
Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In: Marin, B. and Mayntz, R. eds. Policy
Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations .
Boulder/Frankfurt: Campus/Westview Press, pp. 25-59.
Knoke, David. 2011. Policy networks. In: Scott, J. and Carrington, PJ. eds. The
Sage Handbook of social Network Analysis . London: Sage, pp. 210-222.
Levy, Marc A., Peter M. Haas and Robert O. Keohane. 1992. Institutios for the
Earth: Promoting International Environmental Protection. Environment 34(4):
12-17 and 19-36.
Lachapelle, Erick and Matthew Patterson, 2013. Drivers of national policy.
Climate Policy 13(5): 547-571.
Massey, Eric, Robert Biesbroek, Dave Huitema, and Andy Jordan . 2014. Climate

21
 policy innovation: The adoption and diffusion of adaptation policies across
Europe. Global Environmental Change 29: 434-443.
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (Available at
http://www.R-project.org/., checked on Jun. 17, 2016.)
Revelle, William. 2014. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological
Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. (Available at
http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.4.8., checked on Jun.17,
2016.)
Stadelmann, Martin and Paula Castro, 2014, Climate policy innovation in the
South Domestic and international determinants of renewable energy policies
in developing and emerging countries. Global Environmental Change 29:
413-423.
Schreurs, Miranda. 2003. Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the
United States . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007,
.
van Buuren Stef. 2012. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton:
Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
van Buuren, Stef., and Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin. 2011. mice: Multivariate
Imputation by Chained Equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software 45(3):
1-67.
Townshend, Terry, Sam Fankhauser, Rafael Aybar, Murray Collins, Tucker
Landesman, Michal Nachmany, and Carolina Pavese, 2013. How national
legislation can help to solve climate change. Nature Climate Change 3: 430
432.

Parallel process of global convergence and national differentiation of climate change

policy ideas: Focusing on policy networks between national and global organizations

Keiichi Satoh
Tohoku University/JSPS Research Fellow

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to analyze and describe how the acknowledgement of

22
the climate change problem and the subsequent policy proposals are spread globally
and differentiated nationally, focusing on policy networks between national and global
organizations based on the survey on Japanese organizations which are active in the
domain of climate change policy.
Global organizations, especially those that are known for providing scientific
information and policy advice, influence the climate change policies being made by the
national organizations. The effects of this relationship between the global and national
organizations are two-fold: firstly, the information presented by global organizations
partially forms the policy preferences of national organizations. Secondly, the national
organizations can gain more reputation among policy domain actors by having ties
with global organizations, especially with those that do not have ties with other
national organizations.
This distribution process of scientific information and policy advice from
global organizations to domestic policy domain can be seen as the mechanism which
brings global convergence on climate change policy ideas. On the contrary, domestic
organizations form ties with global organizations based on their own policy preference.
As a result, the information from the global organizations is filtered by the national
organizations, which brings the national differentiations with respect to climate
change policies among the countries.
Keywords: Global warming, Climate change, policy network, social network analysis,
global organizations, policy learning, policy propagation, policy defusion, policy
process, interest group

11J07459,
15J03089JSPS22243036,
15H034062014
2014131

23