Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Access
  • Open access
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: June 2020

9 - Conclusions

from Part III - Legitimacy and Effectiveness in the Climate-Energy Nexus
  • View HTML
    • Send chapter to Kindle

      To send this chapter to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Available formats

      Send chapter to Dropbox

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Available formats

      Send chapter to Google Drive

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Available formats


The concluding chapter first summarizes some of the volume’s main results along the four evaluative themes. In terms of coherence and management, the three policy fields under scrutiny – renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing – are roughly marked by coordination, rather than competition or outright harmony. Regarding legitimacy, the specializations and work backgrounds of stakeholders lead to considerable variations in their perceptions of institutions. For effectiveness, institutional complexity plays both a supportive and a hindering role across all three cases. Following the summary, a series of policy recommendations is developed, including: improving awareness of each other’s activities to avoid duplication of efforts and conflicting messages; aligning interpretations of central concepts, i.e. what constitutes renewable sources of energy, fossil fuel subsidies and carbon pricing; building stronger connections to counterparts in other areas of the climate-energy nexus and beyond; and entrusting one institution with an orchestrator role. Finally, the chapter suggests a future research agenda on the governance of the climate-energy nexus, e.g. to learn more about the causes of institutional complexity, to identify conditions for successful management efforts, and to examine further subfields and even other domains outside the climate-energy nexus.

Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., and Keohane, R. O. 2016. Organizational Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance. International Organization 70(2), 247277.
Alter, K. J. and Meunier, S. 2009. The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics 7(1), 1324.
Andonova, L. and Mitchell, R. B. 2010. The Rescaling of Global Environmental Politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35, 255282.
Arts, B. and Buizer, M. 2009. Forests, Discourses, Institutions. A Discursive-Institutional Analysis of Global Forest Governance. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5–6), 340347.
Bäckstrand, K., Zelli, F., and Schleifer, P. 2018. Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Climate. In Governance Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? edited by Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., and Foster, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baldwin, R. 2014. Multilateralising 21st Century Regionalism. Background Paper, Global Forum on Trade, Reconciling Regionalism and Multilateralism in A Post-Bali World. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Bernstein, S. 2005. Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations 1(1–2) 139166.
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., and Zelli, F. 2009. The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics 9(4), 1440.
Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L., and Shang, B. 2017. How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies? World Development 91(C), 1127.
Conca, K. 2006. Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
G20 (Group of 20). 2009. Leaders’ Statement. Pittsburgh, United States. Available at
Hickmann, T., Widerberg, O., Pattberg, P., and Lederer, M. 2019. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Online first.
High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. 2017. Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2003. Is American Multilateralism in Decline? Perspectives on Politics 1(3), 533550.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. and Vihma, A. 2009. Comparing the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Global Hard and Soft Law: An Analytical Framework. Regulation and Governance 3(4), 400420.
Keohane, R. O. and Victor, D. G. 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 9(1), 723.
Lenz, T. and Viola, L. A. 2017. Legitimacy and Institutional Change in International Organisations: A Cognitive Approach. Review of International Studies 43(5), 939961.
Morse, J. C. and Keohane, R. O. 2014. Contested Multilateralism. Review of International Organization 9(1), 385412.
NAZCA (Global Climate Action portal). 2019. Global Climate Action NAZCA. Available at
Newell, P. and Mulvaney, D. 2013. The Political Economy of the Just Transition. The Geographical Journal 179(2), 132140.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 2018a. OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 2018b. OECD-IEA Analysis of Fossil Fuels and Other Support. Available at
Orsini, A., Morin, J.-F., and Young, O. R. 2013. Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance? Global Governance 19(1), 2739.
Raustiala, K. and Victor, D. G. 2004. The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. International Organization 58 (2), 277309.
Rittberger, V. and Zürn, M. 1990. Towards Regulated Anarchy in East-West Relations. Causes and Consequences of East-West Regimes. In International Regimes in East-West Politics, edited by Rittberger, V.. London: Pinter Publishers.
Sanderink, L. 2019. Governing Renewables Globally: Facing the Frames. Unpublished manuscript.
Sanderink, L. and Nasiritousi, N. 2019. How Institutional Interactions Can Strengthen Effectiveness: The Case of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Renewable Energy. Unpublished Manuscript.
Schmidt, V. A. 2008. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 303326.
Schmidt, V. A. 2017. Theorizing Ideas and Discourse in Political Science: Intersubjectivity, Neo-Institutionalisms, and the Power of Ideas. Critical Review 29(2) 248263.
Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. London: Sage.
Skovgaard, J. and Gallant, J. 2015. National Delegations to UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties: Who Participates? Earth System Governance Working Paper No. 35. Lund and Amsterdam: Earth System Governance Project.
Skovgaard, J. and van Asselt, H. 2019. The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10(4).
Stokke, O. S. 2001. The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work. FNI Report. Oslo: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., and Lundgren, M. 2016. The Performance of International Organizations: An Output-Based Approach. Journal of European Public Policy 23(7), 10771096.
Underdal, A. 2002. One Question, Two Answers. In Environmental Regime Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence, edited by Miles, E. L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjærseth, J. B., J. B., and Carlin, E. M.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 2019. Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nairobi: UNEP.
United Nations. 2015. General Assembly Resolution 70/1. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Van de Graaf, T. and Colgan, J. 2016. Global Energy Governance: A Review and Research Agenda. Palgrave Communications 2.
Verkuijl, C., van Asselt, H., Moerenhout, T., Casier, L., and Wooders, P. 2019. Tackling Fossil Fuel Subsidies through International Trade Agreements: Taking Stock, Looking Forward. Virginia Journal of International Law 58(2), 309368.
Wiener, A. 2004. Contested Compliance: Interventions on the Normative Structure of World Politics. European Journal of International Relations 10(2), 189234.
Zelli, F. 2018. Effects of Legitimacy Crises in Complex Global Governance. In Legitimacy in Global Governance: Sources, Processes, and Consequences, edited by Tallberg, J., Bäckstrand, K., and Scholte, J. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zelli, F., Möller, I., and van Asselt, H. 2017. Institutional Complexity and Private Authority in Global Climate Governance. Environmental Politics 26(4), 669693.
Zürn, M. 1993. Problematic Social Situations and International Institutions: On the Use of Game Theory in International Politics. In International Relations and Pan-Europe. Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Findings, edited by Pfetsch, F. R.. Münster: Lit.