Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up: A Comparative Study of Governance Models in Climate Change Mitigation
トップダウン対ボトムアップ：気候変動緩和におけるガバナンスモデルの比較研究 (AI 翻訳)
Angel Ann A. Pagpaguitan, Althea T. Horca, Ana Rose B. Velunta, Diane Bernadeth L. Bitabara, Marinella C. Asoy
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
気候変動緩和におけるトップダウン（国際条約）とボトムアップ（都市・地域）のガバナンスモデルを比較。Ostromの多中心ガバナンス理論を用い、各モデルの権威・説明責任・実施能力を分析。トップダウンは正当性と普遍性を持つが実施ギャップに悩み、ボトムアップは実験的だが断片化と規模の限界がある。両者の連携が不可欠と結論。
English
This study compares top-down (international treaties) and bottom-up (city/community) governance models for climate mitigation, using Ostrom's polycentric governance theory. It finds top-down offers legitimacy but suffers implementation gaps, while bottom-up enables experimentation but faces fragmentation and limited scale. Concludes that linking scales is essential.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では、政府主導のカーボンニュートラル宣言と自治体・企業の自主的取り組みの連携が課題。本論文は、国と地方の役割分担やマルチレベルガバナンスの重要性を示唆し、日本の気候政策設計に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
Globally, the debate between international agreements and subnational action is central to climate governance. This paper provides a comparative framework that informs discussions on enhancing ambition and implementation under the Paris Agreement, relevant to ISSB and transition finance discussions.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a comparative analysis of governance models, useful for scholars studying climate policy effectiveness and polycentric governance.
🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for companies engaging with both international frameworks and local initiatives, helping navigate multi-level climate action.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for linking top-down and bottom-up approaches, informing policy design for more effective climate mitigation.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Two governance logics compete for dominance in climate mitigation policy today. One is top down: binding or quasi binding international agreement, negotiated by states and enforced, in theory, through treaty mechanisms. The other is bottom up: voluntary, decentralized action by cities, communities, and non state actors who do not wait for a treaty to move first. This study puts the two side by side through a comparative case analysis, the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement architecture on the top down side, local and community climate initiatives, including networks like C40 Cities and ICLEI, on the bottom up side. Using Elinor Ostrom's polycentric governance theory as a lens, the paper asks how each model structures authority, accountability, and implementation capacity, and where each one fails to live up to its own goals. Drawing on UNFCCC synthesis reports, peer reviewed policy studies, empirical work on subnational climate networks, and comparative climate litigation evidence, the paper finds that the top down model buys legitimacy, universality, and a shared accounting framework, but pays for it with a chronic implementation and ambition gap, a direct consequence of its voluntary, consensus driven design. The bottom up model, meanwhile, offers experimentation, contextual legitimacy, and faster iteration, but struggles with fragmentation, uneven capacity across regions, and limited impact once measured against global targets. Neither model, the paper argues, is sufficient on its own. What the polycentric literature has been saying for over a decade, that the real task is linking scales together rather than picking one, still holds up as both the empirical trend and the better normative path forward.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v9-i7-52first seen 2026-08-17 04:55:40
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。