Menu Expand

Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do?

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 139, Issue 2–4
  5. pp. 325–348

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Novak, M. Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do?. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 139(2–4), 325-348. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.325
Novak, Mikayla "Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do?" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 139.2–4, 2019, 325-348. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.325
Novak, Mikayla (2019): Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do?, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 139, iss. 2–4, 325-348, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.325
Format
Download

Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do?

Novak, Mikayla

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 139 (2019), Iss. 2–4 : pp. 325–348

3 Citations (CrossRef)

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.325
Language
English
Pages
24
Keywords

Author Details

Novak, Mikayla, School of Sociology, College of Arts & Social Sciences, The Australian National University, 22 University Avenue, ACT 2600, Canberra, Australia.

Cited By

  1. Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age

    Küsters, Anselm | Oakes, Isabel

    Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 141 (2021), Iss. 3 P.149

    https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.3.149 [Citations: 1]

  2. Environmentalism, a flirt with eco-authoritarianism and the robustness of ordoliberalism

    Enninga, Justus

    Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. (2023), Iss.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09406-z [Citations: 1]

  3. Militarized climate planning: what is left?

    Goodman, Nathan P. | Lofthouse, Jordan K. | Novak, Mikayla

    The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. (2024), Iss.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-024-00652-4 [Citations: 0]

References

  1. Adler, J. H. 2009. “Taking Property Rights Seriously: The Case of Climate Change.” Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (2): 296 – 316.  Google Scholar
  2. Aligica, P. D., P. J. Boettke, and V. Tarko. 2019. Public Governance and the Classical-Liberal Perspective: Political Economy Foundations. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  3. Almudi, I., F. Fatas-Villafranca, L. R. Izquierdo, and J. Potts. 2017. “The Economics of Utopia: A Co-Evolutionary Model of Ideas, Citizenship and Socio-Political Change.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 27 (4): 629 – 62.  Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, S. E., T. L. Anderson, A. C. Hill, M. E. Kahn, H. Kunreuther, G. D. Libecap, H. Mantripragada, P. Mérel, A. J. Plantinga, and V. K. Smith. 2019. “The Critical Role of Markets in Climate Change Adaptation.” Climate Change Economics 10 (1): 1 – 17.  Google Scholar
  5. Australian Productivity Commission (PC). 2012. Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation. Inquiry Report No. 59. Canberra: PC.  Google Scholar
  6. Brennan, G. 2009. “Climate Change: A Rational Choice Politics View.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 53 (3): 309 – 26.  Google Scholar
  7. Brennan, G. and J. M. Buchanan. 2000 [1985]. The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M. 2003. “Public Choice: Politics Without Romance.” Policy 19 (3): 13 – 18.  Google Scholar
  9. Cantner, U. and S. Vannuccini. 2018. “Elements of a Schumpeterian Catalytic Research and Innovation Policy.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 833 – 50.  Google Scholar
  10. Coase, R. H. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1 – 44.  Google Scholar
  11. Colander, D. and R. Kupers. 2014. Complexity and the Art of Public Policy: Solving Society’s Problems from the Bottom Up. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  12. Cole, D. H. 2015. “Advantages of a Polycentric Approach to Climate Change Policy.” Nature Climate Change 5: 114 – 18.  Google Scholar
  13. Cordato, R. E. 1999. Global Warming, Kyoto, and Tradeable Emissions Permits: The Myth of Efficient Central Planning. Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation. Accessed October 8, 2019. http://iret.org/pub/SCRE-1.PDF.  Google Scholar
  14. Cordato, R. E. 2004. “Toward an Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7 (1): 3 – 16.  Google Scholar
  15. Dawson, G. 2011. “Free Markets, Property Rights and Climate Change: How to Privatize Climate Policy.” Libertarian Papers 3 (Art. 10): 1 – 29.  Google Scholar
  16. Dawson, G. 2013. “Austrian Economics and Climate Change.” Review of Austrian Economics 26 (2): 183 – 206.  Google Scholar
  17. Deneen, P. J. 2018. Why Liberalism Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.  Google Scholar
  18. DiZerega, G. 1996. “Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberal Theory.” The Review of Politics 58 (4): 699 – 734.  Google Scholar
  19. DiZerega, G. 2018. “Connecting the Dots: Hayek, Darwin, and Ecology.” Cosmos + Taxis 5 (3 – 4): 51 – 62.  Google Scholar
  20. Dockrill, P. 2019. “It’s Official: Atmospheric CO2 Just Exceeded 415 ppm for The First Time in Human History.” Science Alert, May 13, 2019. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just-exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history.  Google Scholar
  21. Dolan, E. 2016. How Liberals and Conservatives Can Have a Constructive Dialog about Climate Change. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.slideshare.net/dolaneconslide/how-to-talk-to-conservatives-about-climate-change.  Google Scholar
  22. Driesen, D. M. 2019. “Toward a Populist Political Economy of Climate Disruption.” Environmental Law 49 (2): 379 – 406.  Google Scholar
  23. Dryzek, J. S., R. B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg. 2011. “Climate Change and Society: Approaches and Responses.” In The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg, 3 – 17. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  24. Emanuel, K. A. 2016. Climate Science and Climate Risk: A Primer. Accessed October 10, 2019. ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Climate_Primer.pdf.  Google Scholar
  25. Eucken, W. 2004 [1952]. Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  26. Faber, M. and R. Winkler. 2006. “Heterogeneity and Time: From Austrian Capital Theory to Ecological Economics.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 65 (3): 803 – 26.  Google Scholar
  27. Fatas-Villafranca, F., C. M. Fernández-Márquez, and F. J. Vázquez. 2019. “Consumer Social Learning and Industrial Dynamics.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 28 (2): 119 – 41.  Google Scholar
  28. Furton, G. and A. Martin. 2019. “Beyond Market Failure and Government Failure.” Public Choice 178 (1 – 2): 197 – 216.  Google Scholar
  29. Ganguly, G., J. Setzer, and V. Heyvaert. 2018. “If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 38 (4): 841 – 68.  Google Scholar
  30. Geruso, M. and D. Spears. 2018. “Heat, Humidity, and Infant Mortality in the Developing World.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 24870. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24870.  Google Scholar
  31. Goldschmidt, N., E. Grimmer-Solem, and J. Zweynert. 2016. “On the Purpose and Aims of the Journal of Contextual Economics.” Schmollers Jahrbuch – Journal of Contextual Economics 136 (1): 1 – 14.  Google Scholar
  32. Hayek, F. A. 2007 [1944]. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  33. Hayek, F. A. 2006 [1960]. The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  34. Heath, J. 2016. Caring about Climate Change Implies Caring about Economic Growth. Draft manuscript. Accessed 10 October 2019. https://www.academia.edu/30297311/Caring_about_climate_change_implies_caring_about_economic_growth.  Google Scholar
  35. Hebert, D. and R. E. Wagner. 2013. “Taxation as a Quasi-Market Process: Explanation, Exhortation, and the Choice of Analytical Windows.” Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice 31 (1 – 3): 163 – 77.  Google Scholar
  36. Helm, D. 2008. “Climate-Change Policy: Why has so Little been Achieved?” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24 (2): 211 – 38.  Google Scholar
  37. Hill, P. J. 1992. “Environmental Problems under Socialism.” Cato Journal 12 (2): 321 – 35.  Google Scholar
  38. Horowitz, J. K. 2009. “The Income-Temperature Relationship in a Cross-Section of Countries and its Implications for Predicting the Effects of Global Warming.” Environmental and Resource Economics 44 (4): 475 – 93.  Google Scholar
  39. Humphreys, J. 2007. “Exploring a Carbon Tax for Australia.” Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) Policy Monograph No. 80. St. Leonards: CIS.  Google Scholar
  40. Iacobuta, G., N. K. Dubash, P. Upadhyaya, M. Deribe, and N. Höhne. 2018. “National Climate Change Mitigation Legislation, Strategy and Targets: A Global Update.” Climate Policy 18 (9): 1114 – 32.  Google Scholar
  41. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.  Google Scholar
  42. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Geneva: IPCC.  Google Scholar
  43. Jordan, A., D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, and J. Forster. 2018. Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  44. Keohane, R. O. and D. G. Victor. 2015. “After the Failure of Top-Down Mandates: The Role of Experimental Governance in Climate Change Policy.” In Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime, edited by S. Barrett, C. Carraro and J. de Melo, 201 – 12. London: CEPR Press.  Google Scholar
  45. Kiesling, L. 2010. “The Knowledge Problem, Learning, and Regulation: How Regulation Affects Technological Change in the Electric Power Industry.” Studies in Emergent Order 3: 149 – 71.  Google Scholar
  46. Kiesling, L. 2012. “Regulation’s Effect on Experimentation in Retail Electricity Markets.” Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-Being of Nations 9: 89 – 113.  Google Scholar
  47. Kolev, S. 2019. “James Buchanan and the ‘New Economics of Order’ Research Program.” In James M. Buchanan: A Theorist of Political Economy and Social Philosophy, edited by R. E. Wagner, 85 – 108. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  48. Lamey, A. 2015. “Ecosystems as Spontaneous Orders.” Critical Review 27 (1): 64 – 88.  Google Scholar
  49. Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson, and M. Prather. 2007: “Historical Overview of Climate Change.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 93 – 127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  50. Marron, D. B. 2015. “Bigger, Cleaner, and More Efficient: A Carbon-Corporate Tax Swap.” In Reviving Economic Growth: Policy Proposals from 51 Leading Experts, edited by B. Lindsey, 189 – 92. Washington DC: Cato Institute.  Google Scholar
  51. Masters, W. A. and M. S. McMillan. 2001. “Climate and Scale in Economic Growth.” Journal of Economic Growth 6 (3): 167 – 86.  Google Scholar
  52. Mayrhofer, J. P. and J. Gupta. 2016. “The Science and Politics of Co-Benefits in Climate Policy.” Environmental Science & Policy 57: 22 – 30.  Google Scholar
  53. McChesney, F. S. 1997. Money for Nothing: Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  54. Mendelsohn, R. 2006. “The Role of Markets and Governments in Helping Society Adapt to a Changing Climate.” Climate Change 78 (1): 203 – 15.  Google Scholar
  55. Nader, R. 2014. Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. New York: Nation Books.  Google Scholar
  56. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Research). 2013. “CO2 at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory Reaches new Milestone: Tops 400 ppm.” Earth System Research Laboratory – Global Monitoring Division. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/7074.html.  Google Scholar
  57. Nentjes, A. 2005. “Austrian Views on Environmental Protection.” In Modern Applications of Austrian Thought, edited by J. G. Backhaus, 347 – 70. London: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  58. New Zealand Productivity Commission (NZPC). 2018. Low-Emissions Economy. Final Report. Wellington: NZPC.  Google Scholar
  59. Nordhaus, W. 2015. “Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-Riding in International Climate Policy.” American Economic Review 105 (4): 1339 – 70.  Google Scholar
  60. O’Neill, J. 2012. “Austrian Economics and the Limits of Markets.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 36 (5): 1073 – 90.  Google Scholar
  61. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1994. Regulatory Co-Operation for an Interdependent World. Paris: OECD.  Google Scholar
  62. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  63. Ostrom, E. 2009. “A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change.” World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No. 5095. Washington: World Bank.  Google Scholar
  64. Ostrom, E. 2012a. “Green from the Grassroots.” Accessed October 9, 2019. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/06/12/green-grassroots.  Google Scholar
  65. Ostrom, E. 2012b. “Nested Externalities and Polycentric Institutions: Must We Wait for Global Solutions to Climate Change before Taking Actions at Other Scales?” Economic Theory 49 (2): 353 – 69.  Google Scholar
  66. Pennington, M. 2011. Robust Political Economy: Classical Liberalism and the Future of Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  67. Persson, J., A. Hornborg, L. Olsson, and H. Thorén. 2018. “Toward an Alternative Dialogue Between the Social and Natural Sciences.” Ecology and Society 23 (4): 1 – 11.  Google Scholar
  68. Pigou, A. C. 1932 [1920]. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  69. Potts, J. 2010. “Innovation by Elimination: A Proposal for Negative Policy Experiments in the Public Sector.” Innovation: Management Policy & Practice 12 (2): 238 – 48.  Google Scholar
  70. Potts, J., J. Foster, and A. Straton. 2010. “An Entrepreneurial Model of Economic and Environmental Co-Evolution.” Ecological Economics 70 (2): 375 – 83.  Google Scholar
  71. Quiggin, J. 2019. Economics in Two Lessons: Why Markets Work So Well, and Why They Can Fail So Badly. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  72. Regan, S. E. 2015. “Austrian Ecology: Reconciling Dynamic Economics and Ecology.” Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 11 (2): 203 – 28.  Google Scholar
  73. Reinhoudt, J. and S. Audier. 2018. The Walter Lippmann Colloquium: The Birth of Neoliberalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  74. Schmidtz, D. 2000. “Natural Enemies: An Anatomy of Environmental Conflict.” Environmental Ethics 22 (4): 397 – 408.  Google Scholar
  75. Setzer, J. and R. Byrnes. 2019. Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2019 Snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science. Accessed 9 January 2020. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GRI_Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2019-snapshot-2.pdf.  Google Scholar
  76. Shahar, D. C. 2016. “Turning Adversaries into Allies: Conciliation in Environmental Politics.” In Interdisciplinary Handbooks in Philosophy: Environmental Ethics, edited by D. Schmidtz, 243 – 68. Farmington Hills: Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  77. Shahar, D. C. 2017. “Hayek’s Legacy for Environmental Political Economy.” In Interdisciplinary Studies of the Market Order, edited by P. J. Boettke, C. J. Coyne, and V. H. Storr, 87 – 109. London: Rowman & Littlefield.  Google Scholar
  78. Skovgaard, K. and H. van Asselt. 2019. “The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and their Reform: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation.” WIREs Climate Change 10 (4): 1 – 12.  Google Scholar
  79. Stavins, R. N. 2015. “What Can an Economist Possibly Have to Say About Climate Change?” Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-Being of Nations 7: 21 – 48.  Google Scholar
  80. Stigler, G. J. 1971. “The Theory of Economic Regulation.” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2 (1): 3 – 21.  Google Scholar
  81. Streissler, E. W. 1990. “Carl Menger on Economic Policy: The Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf.” History of Political Economy 22 (Annual Supplement): 107 – 29.  Google Scholar
  82. Thierer, A. 2016. Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom. Arlington: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  Google Scholar
  83. Tullock, G. 1967. “The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft.” Western Economic Journal 5 (3): 224 – 32.  Google Scholar
  84. Turnheim, B., P. Kivimaa, and F. Berkhout. 2018. Innovating Climate Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  85. van Asselt, H., D. Huitema, and A. Jordan. 2018. “Global Climate Governance after Paris: Setting the Stage for Experimentation?” In Innovating Climate Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments, edited by B. Turnheim, P. Kivimaa, and F. Berkhout, 27 – 46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  86. Wagner, R. E. 2016. Politics as a Peculiar Business: Insights from a Theory of Entangled Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  87. Wagner, R. E. 2019. “Governance within a System of Entangled Political Economy.” Forest Policy and Economics 107: 1 – 7.  Google Scholar
  88. Walls, H. L. 2018. “Wicked Problems and a ‘Wicked’ Solution.” Globalization and Health 14 (Art. 34): 1 – 3.  Google Scholar
  89. Wehner, M., F. Castillo, and D. Stone. 2017. “The Impact of Moisture and Temperature on Human Health in Heat Waves.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Natural Hazard Science. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-58.  Google Scholar
  90. Weitzman, M. L. 2011. “Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 5 (2): 275 – 92.  Google Scholar
  91. Yu, T. F-L. 2011. New Perspectives on Economic Development: A Human Agency Approach. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Ecological sustainability issues, including the desire to ameliorate climate change impacts upon economic, social and political systems, figure prominently in twenty-first century public discourses. Despite growing community agreement over the need to avert the worst effects of climate change, a perceived lack of political progress in advancing multilateral climate-change policy is fueling dissatisfaction over the capacity of technocratic administration to deliver solutions to tackle this deep-seated and, for some, existential problem. We draw upon classical liberal insights, and utilize the contextually-aware systems approach of “entangled political economy,” to consider a constructive case for actions on climate change.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Mikayla Novak: Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do? 1
Abstract 1
1. Introduction 1
2. The Need for Contextual Understanding of Climate Change 3
3. Toward a Contextualized Policy Environment Addressing Climate Change 6
3.1 Market Failure Basis for Addressing Climate Change: A Critical View 6
3.2 International Policy Coordination: Challenges and Opportunities 9
3.3 Climate Policy Principles for Nation-States and Sub-National Political Jurisdictions 1
4. Taking Contextualism Further: Bringing the Social into Climate Change 1
5. Conclusion 1
References 1

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.