| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 政治學研究所 === 98 === Policy researchers have paid much attention to the interactions between scientific knowledge, public policy and environmental governance. Currently, China has the most population, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Since climate change has become a critical issue, China’s reaction to climate change will have a great impact on global environment.
Based on the epistemic community approach (ECA) derived from global environmental governance and international relations theories, this paper uses literature analysis and in-depth interview in Beijing to explore epistemic communities in China’s climate governance. The study examines: (1) who the members of the epistemic communities are; (2) how these epistemic communities help facilitate international and domestic policy coordination; (3) whether these epistemic communities share common beliefs, casual beliefs, and policy enterprise; (4) how these epistemic communities interact with the government and tell the truth; and (5) what the characteristics of epistemic communities in the Chinese context are.
The thesis classifies the epistemic communities in China’s climate governance into six types: government officials, think tanks, universities, international non-governmental organizations, grassroots organizations, and business. In addition to academic researches, epistemic communities also help China in mitigation and adaptation by introducing foreign funds, technologies and projects, as well as educating and training the officials and local schools, and cooperating with the enterprises at domestic levels.
Second, the study shows that epistemic communities in China’s climate governance often put great emphasis on the national interests, and regard energy conservation and emission reduction as the guiding principle. However, when it comes to policy instruments (means) and policy outcomes (goals), there are still different opinions among the members of the epistemic communities. The members also demonstrate different behaviors due to members’ various self-positions. As for the approaches which the epistemic communities can take to influence the government, the thesis points out two kinds of approaches: the “outsider” and “insider”. The former one costs more and may not be adopted by the authority; the latter can be more direct, however, may be manipulated by the authority.
The epistemic communities in China’s climate governance tend to draw a line between academic researches and governmental decisions, and seldom accept strong policy advocacies. Besides, there are both cooperation (in implementing programs) and competition (to the funds) among the epistemic community members, eager to build a good reputation.
Finally, the thesis reconsiders some meta-questions, such as “Do the epistemic communities have to stay closely to the power structures?” “Do we over expect the epistemic communities can always communicate truthfully to authority?” Since it is hard to take knowledge out of the struggle of power and interest, this study claims that, in addition to knowledge production, researchers should pay attention to the applications of knowledge, including the process from which it is produced, interpreted, and represented. Researchers should also pay attention to the fact that knowledge would be enmeshed in current political discourses, ideologies, and institutional frameworks.
|
|---|
