首页> 外文期刊>Energy Policy >Really a front-runner, really a Straggler? Of environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union and beyond — A quantitative policy perspective
【24h】

Really a front-runner, really a Straggler? Of environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union and beyond — A quantitative policy perspective

机译:真的是领跑者,真的是流浪汉吗?欧盟及其他地区的环境领导者和落后者的数量政策角度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

As it has long been debated who is a front-runner and who is a laggard state in terms of environmental protection it is rather surprising that the topic has received rather scant attention as far as quantitative, large-n research endeavours are concerned. Of course, there is a broad literature on the topic. However, existing studies have shortcomings. The criteria on which the assessments rely are often neither equivalent cross-nationally nor are they communicated clearly enough (i.e., not transparent). Although ambitious efforts have been invested to rank countries in terms of their environmental performance, little systematic research exists that clearly determines leaders and laggards in terms of their policies (policy performance) and states' ranking, accordingly. To the best of our knowledge no empirical study has so far conducted a comprehensive and quantitative leader-laggard assessment policy analysis. Against this backdrop, we aim to provide such a paper. We especially strive to test the validity of "common knowledge" classifications or rankings derived from assessments in the literature. We demonstrate that while some known frontrunner states are indeed leaders if assessed from a broader policy data perspective, other countries commonly assigned a leader role find themselves in a lower position instead. In addition, some nations commonly excluded from the frontrunners are located unexpectedly high in the rankings. Even leader-laggard reversals occur if our results would be compared to existing classifications. Most importantly, the analyses show a considerable temporal dynamic. While often claimed or assumed, this has not been proven as clearly until now.
机译:长期以来,一直争论着谁在环境保护方面处于领先地位,谁在落后方面处于领先地位,令人惊讶的是,就定量,大型n研究工作而言,该话题受到的关注很少。当然,有关该主题的文献很多。但是,现有研究存在缺点。评估所依据的标准通常既不具有跨国性,也没有足够清楚地传达(即不透明)。尽管已经进行了雄心勃勃的努力来按照环境绩效对国家进行排名,但是很少有系统的研究可以明确地确定领导人和落后者的政策(政策绩效)和国家排名。据我们所知,迄今为止,还没有任何实证研究对领导者-拉格德评估政策进行了全面和定量的分析。在此背景下,我们旨在提供此类论文。我们特别努力测试从文献评估中得出的“公知”分类或等级的有效性。我们证明,如果从更广泛的政策数据角度评估,一些已知的领先国家确实是领导者,但通常被指定为领导者角色的其他国家却发现自己处于较低位置。此外,一些通常被排除在领跑者之外的国家的排名出乎意料地高。如果将我们的结果与现有分类进行比较,甚至发生领导者-拉格加德逆转。最重要的是,分析显示出相当大的时间动态。尽管经常声称或假定,但至今尚未证明这一点。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Energy Policy》 |2012年第9期|p.36-45|共10页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, P.O. Box D 91, 78457 Konstanz, Germany;

    Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, P.O. Box D 91, 78457 Konstanz, Germany;

    Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, P.O. Box D 91, 78457 Konstanz, Germany;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    environmental policy; performance; ranking;

    机译:环境政策;性能;排行;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号