Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Analyzing Climate Change Debates in the U.S. Congress: Party Control and Mobilizing Networks

2014; Wiley; Volume: 5; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/rhc3.12062

1944-4079

Hyung Sam Park, Xinsheng Liu, Arnold Vedlitz,

Policy Transfer and Learning

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public PolicyVolume 5, Issue 3 p. 239-258 Article Analyzing Climate Change Debates in the U.S. Congress: Party Control and Mobilizing Networks Hyung Sam Park, Hyung Sam ParkSearch for more papers by this authorXinsheng Liu, Xinsheng LiuSearch for more papers by this authorArnold Vedlitz, Arnold VedlitzSearch for more papers by this author Hyung Sam Park, Hyung Sam ParkSearch for more papers by this authorXinsheng Liu, Xinsheng LiuSearch for more papers by this authorArnold Vedlitz, Arnold VedlitzSearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 December 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12062Citations: 8Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract This study examines the differences, if any, in congressional hearings and testimonies on global climate change between Democrat- and Republican-controlled Congresses from 1976 to 2006. Using statistical and network analysis, we examine along party lines the connectedness among congressional committees, issue foci, and witness sectors. While the levels of attention to global climate change were similar between Democrat- and Republican-controlled Congresses, our findings reveal that Democratic Congresses tend to seek scientific evidence for global climate change and advance energy-regulatory policies with a focus on mobilizing environmentalists and scientific knowledge. In contrast, Republican Congresses tend to expand the climate change debates and conflicts by bringing in a diversified set of witnesses, focusing on the implications of international climate negotiations and economic impacts of policy changes, and mobilizing pro-industrial sectors and non-scientific opinions. Showing the differences in the networks that connect policy actors and mobilize various policy sources in congressional hearings and testimonies, we conclude that party control significantly affects the dynamics of climate change debates in the U.S. Congress for the given period. References Anderson, Kai S. 2002. “ The Climate Policy Debate in the U.S. Congress.” In Climate Change Policy: A Survey, eds. Stephen H. Schneider Armin Rosencranz and John O. Niles. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Google Scholar Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Baumgartner, Frank R., Suzanna De Boef, and Amber E. Boydstun. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511790638 Google Scholar Borgatti, S.P., M.G. Everett, and L.C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Google Scholar Broadbent, Jeffrey. 2010. “ Science and Climate Change Policy Making: A Comparative Network Perspective.” In Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change, eds. Akimasa Sumi Ken Fukushi and Ai Hiramatsu. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978-4-431-99798-6_13 Web of Science®Google Scholar Brown, George E. 1997. “ Environmental Science under Siege in the U.S. Congress.” Environment 39 (2): 12–31. 10.1080/00139159709604359 Web of Science®Google Scholar Burstein, Paul, and Marie Bricher. 1997. “ Problem Definition and Public Policy: Congressional Committees Confront Work, Family, and Gender, 1945–1990.” Social Forces 76 (1): 135–68. Web of Science®Google Scholar Burstein, Paul, Marie Bricher and Rachel L. Einwohner. 1995. “ Policy Alternatives and Political Change: Work, Family, and Gender on the Congressional Agenda, 1945–1990.” American Sociological Review 60 (1): 67–83. 10.2307/2096346 Web of Science®Google Scholar Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder. 1983. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar Diani, Mario and Doug McAdam. 2003. Social Movements and Networks. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0199251789.001.0001 Google Scholar Dunlap, Riley E., Chenyang Xiao, and Aaron M. McCright. 2001. “ Politics and Environment in America: Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Public Support for Environmentalism.” Environmental Politics 10 (4): 23–48. 10.1080/714000580 Google Scholar Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar Gough, Clair, and Simon Shackley. 2001. “ The Respectable Politics of Climate Change: The Epistemic Communities and NGOs.” International Affairs 77 (2): 329–46. 10.1111/1468-2346.00195 Web of Science®Google Scholar Herrick, Charles, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2000. “ Ex Post Evaluation: A More Effective Role for Scientific Assessments in Environmental Policy.” Science Technology and Human Values 25 (3): 309–31. 10.1177/016224390002500303 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hilgartner, Steven, and Bosk Charles. 1988. “ The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model.” American Journal of Sociology 94: 53–78. 10.1086/228951 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hinich, Melvin, Xinsheng Liu, Arnold Vedlitz and Charles Lindsey. 2013. “ Beyond the Left-right Cleavage: Exploring American Political Choice Space.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 25 (1): 75–104. 10.1177/0951629812453215 Web of Science®Google Scholar Jones, Bryan D. 1994. Reconceiving Decision-making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar ———. 2001. Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Jones, Bryan D., Frank R. Baumgartner and Jeffery C. Talbert. 1993. “ The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in Congress.” American Political Science Review 87 (3): 657–71. 10.2307/2938742 Web of Science®Google Scholar Jones, Michael D., and Geoboo Song. 2014. “ Making Sense of Climate Change: How Story Frames Shape Cognition.” Political Psychology 35 (4): 447–595. 10.1111/pops.12057 Web of Science®Google Scholar Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins. Google Scholar Knoke, David. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527548 Google Scholar Knoke, David, F.U. Pappi, J. Broadbent and Y. Tsujinaka. 1996. Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S. Germany and Japan: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174497 Google Scholar Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.8850 Web of Science®Google Scholar Laumann, Edward O., and D. Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Google Scholar Levy, David L. and Daniel Egan. 1998. “ Capital Contests: National and Transnational Channels of Corporate Influence on the Climate Change Negotiations.” Politics and Society 26 (1998): 337–61. 10.1177/0032329298026003003 Web of Science®Google Scholar Levy, David and Sandra Rothenberg. 2002. “ Heterogeneity and Change in Environmental Strategy: Technological and Political Responses to Climate Change in the Global Automobile Industry.” In Organizations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, eds. A. J. Hoffman and M Ventresca. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Web of Science®Google Scholar Liu, Xinsheng, Arnold Vedlitz, and Letitia Alston. 2008. “ Regional News Portrayals of Global Warming and Climate Change.” Environmental Science and Policy 11 (5): 379–93. 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.01.002 Web of Science®Google Scholar Liu, Xinsheng, Eric Lindquist and Arnold Vedlitz. 2011. “ Explaining Media and Congressional Attention to Global Climate Change, 1969–2005: An Empirical Test of Agenda Setting Theory.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 405–19. 10.1177/1065912909346744 Web of Science®Google Scholar Liu, Xinsheng, Arnold Vedlitz, and Liu Shi. 2014. “ Examining the Determinants of Public Environmental Concern: Evidence from National Public Surveys.” Environmental Science & Policy 39 (2014): 77–94. 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.006 Web of Science®Google Scholar Marshall Institute. 2008. “Climate Issues and Questions,” 3rd ed. Accessed on September 24, 2011 at http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=577. Google Scholar Mayewski, Paul Andrew, and Frank White. 2002. The Ice Chronicles: The Quest to Understand Global Climate Change, Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Google Scholar McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “ Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter Claims.” Social Problems 47 (4): 499–522. 10.2307/3097132 Web of Science®Google Scholar ———. 2003. “ Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy.” Social Problems 50 (3): 348–73. 10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348 Web of Science®Google Scholar ———. 2011. “ The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.” The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2): 155–94. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Lodge, Milton and Charles S. Taber. 2005. “ The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.” Political Psychology 26 (3): 455–82. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Mooney, Chris. 2005. The Republican War on Science, New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Google Scholar ———. 1994. Science Priorities for the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Google Scholar ———. 1999. Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Petrocik, John R. 1996. “ Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–50. 10.2307/2111797 Web of Science®Google Scholar Petrocik, John R., William L. Benoit and Glenn J. Hansen. 2003. “ Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly 118 (4): 599–626. 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00407.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Powell, Walter W, and Paul J. DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226185941.001.0001 Google Scholar Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb. 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Google Scholar Rosa, Eugene, Richard York and Thomas Dietz. 2004. “ Tracking the Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecological Impacts.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 33 (8): 509–12. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. “ How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science & Policy 7 (5): 385–403. 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001 Web of Science®Google Scholar Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar Scheraga, Joel D. and Anne E. Grambsch. 1998. “ Risks, Opportunities, and Adaptation to Climate Change.” Climate Research 10 (1): 85–9. 10.3354/cr011085 Web of Science®Google Scholar Schneider, Stephen H., Rosencranz Armin, and John O. Niles. 2002. Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Google Scholar Taber, Charles S., and Lodge Milton. 2005. “ Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar Wasserman, Stanley, and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar Watson, Robert T., Marufu C. Zinyowera, and Richard H. Moss, eds. 1997. The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. A Special Report of IPCC Working Group II. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar Wood, B. Dan, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2007. “ Issue Definition, Information Processing and the Politics of Global Warming.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 552–68. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00267.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume5, Issue3September 2014Pages 239-258 ReferencesRelatedInformation