Focus on any part of the climate policy process and one theme is unlikely to be far away: complexity.

Scientific evidence has been fundamental to climate change becoming established as a public policy issue. The science is complex, “indistinguishable from magic (or gobbledygook)” for most. Policy responses to the issue have also proved complex. The Climate Change Levy became complex as subsequent Agreements were negotiated to give rebates to energy-intensive sectors. Ironically, these were in part driven by the perceived unfairness of the Levy’s basis on existing pollution measures, intended to reduce the amount of additional administration required for the Levy.

Complexity is also a hallmark of market-based initiatives such as the well-established EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the soon to be introduced Carbon Reduction Commitment Efficiency Scheme. The intricacies of the latter have been recognised by the Environment Agency who are administering the Scheme and adopting a ‘softly-softly’ approach in its early stages with a three-year introductory period where no cap on emissions will be enforced.

This theme of complexity is perhaps unsurprising. Closer working between a number of traditionally discrete government silos may be expected to make policy formulation and implementation more difficult. The trend from government to governance manifested in the proliferation of partnership working can be seen as a result of tackling cross-cutting ‘wicked issues’. For climate change policy, it may also be worth considering whether the issue’s social construction as a highly specialised scientific issue has contributed to greater complexity in public policy responses.

Complexity in policy implies greater potential for diversity in the ways policy practitioners understand a particular policy. This lends weight to the focus on policy meaning provided by an interpretive, decentred approach to public policy. Policies are not monolithic, but are interpreted in different ways. Complexity may  make implementation more difficult, by enabling radically different interpretations to co-exist alongside each other within a policy network. Alternatively, complexity could be seen as a deliberate strategy, providing cover for actors holding irreconcilable differences in values and enabling them to work together. What is clear at this very early stage of thinking about climate policy is that complexity, and how it is dealt with by policy actors, is likely to form a key backdrop to the research.

Further reading:

Davies J.S. (2009). The limits of joined-up government: towards a political analysis. Public Administration. 87(1), 80-96. Available at: http://blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01740.x

A.Smith (2004). Policy transfer in the development of UK climate policy. Policy & Politics. 32(1), 79-93. Available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/2004/00000032/00000001/art00006