Do New Zealand select committees still make a difference? The case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/00323187.2021.2019591
W. Dreyer, Elisabeth Ellis
{"title":"Do New Zealand select committees still make a difference? The case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019","authors":"W. Dreyer, Elisabeth Ellis","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.2019591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An emerging consensus among scholars of environmental politics includes public participation in the legislative process as a critical condition of the transition to sustainability. The select committee process in Aotearoa New Zealand has long been celebrated for its apparent openness to public participation. We examine the select committee process as it functioned in the case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019, employing a quantitative analysis that mapped categories of submitters’ policy propositions through the constant comparative method, and compare them against the recommendations of the majority and minority perspectives of the Environment Select Committee. In addition, we compare the majority and minority recommendations to the Departmental Report. The results of this case study incline us to question the assumption that submitters have influence with select committees and the extent of committee deliberation. If the transition to sustainability depends on the government’s capacity for transformative change, and that capacity in turn depends on the strength of its deliberative system, then our study provides some reason to worry about the capacity of government in Aotearoa New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"73 1","pages":"123 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.2019591","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT An emerging consensus among scholars of environmental politics includes public participation in the legislative process as a critical condition of the transition to sustainability. The select committee process in Aotearoa New Zealand has long been celebrated for its apparent openness to public participation. We examine the select committee process as it functioned in the case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019, employing a quantitative analysis that mapped categories of submitters’ policy propositions through the constant comparative method, and compare them against the recommendations of the majority and minority perspectives of the Environment Select Committee. In addition, we compare the majority and minority recommendations to the Departmental Report. The results of this case study incline us to question the assumption that submitters have influence with select committees and the extent of committee deliberation. If the transition to sustainability depends on the government’s capacity for transformative change, and that capacity in turn depends on the strength of its deliberative system, then our study provides some reason to worry about the capacity of government in Aotearoa New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新西兰的专责委员会还能发挥作用吗?《2019年气候变化应对(零碳)修正法案》案例
环境政治学者之间正在形成一种共识,即公众参与立法过程是向可持续性过渡的关键条件。新西兰奥特罗阿的特别委员会程序长期以来一直因其对公众参与的明显开放性而备受赞誉。我们研究了特别委员会在《2019年气候变化应对(零碳)修正案法案》中的运作情况,采用定量分析方法,通过持续比较方法绘制了提交者政策主张的类别,并将其与环境特别委员会多数和少数观点的建议进行了比较。此外,我们会将多数和少数建议与部门报告进行比较。本案例研究的结果使我们怀疑提交者对特别委员会有影响力的假设以及委员会审议的程度。如果向可持续发展的过渡取决于政府进行变革的能力,而这种能力又取决于其审议制度的强度,那么我们的研究提供了一些理由来担心新西兰政府应对气候变化挑战的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Sloppy targeting of Chinese voters in the 2020 New Zealand general election: an exploration of National and Labour’s targeting strategies Leaderless Movements? Rethinking Leaders, Spontaneity, and Organisation-Ness The Realpolitik of small states: explaining New Zealand’s silence on human rights violations in Turkey (Türkiye) and China Identity and institutional thickening of Asia and the Pacific: narrating regional belonging in the foreign policy of Indonesia Referendum campaign financing by political parties: the case of the United Kingdom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1