自下而上的市场促进与自上而下的市场导向:欧盟和中国绿色金融模式的比较与概念化

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Asia Europe Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-28 DOI:10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z
Mathias Lund Larsen
{"title":"自下而上的市场促进与自上而下的市场导向:欧盟和中国绿色金融模式的比较与概念化","authors":"Mathias Lund Larsen","doi":"10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To address environmental problems, efforts to green financial systems are proliferating across the globe. However, green finance policy approaches differ substantially and in ways left unexplained in current literature. Focusing on the EU and China as the most active and influential in green finance, the paper provides a comparative analysis and conceptualization of their approaches. The analysis is based on the dissection of policy documents, a review of stakeholder statements and articles, and insights from semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The paper finds that in terms of similar characteristics, both parties seek inclusive expertise input, establish thematic committees, and initiate green finance efforts through financial system-wide guidelines. In terms of different characteristics, the paper finds that through a consultation-based, transparent, and limited mandate approach, the EU is characterized by longer time horizons and organic growth. This can be contrasted with the Chinese technocratic, closed-door, and non-limited mandate approach, characterized by rapid rollout and command-and-control growth. These findings can be conceptualized as a <i>bottom-up market-facilitating</i> approach in the EU and a <i>top-down market-steering</i> approach in China. The different approaches help explain current difficulties in coordination between the EU and China and imply that cooperation is only possible through compatibility rather than harmonization. The findings show that different governance models can actively use the state to pursue sustainable development, and second that such an active state can function in very different ways towards the same goals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45680,"journal":{"name":"Asia Europe Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bottom-up market-facilitation and top-down market-steering: comparing and conceptualizing green finance approaches in the EU and China\",\"authors\":\"Mathias Lund Larsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To address environmental problems, efforts to green financial systems are proliferating across the globe. However, green finance policy approaches differ substantially and in ways left unexplained in current literature. Focusing on the EU and China as the most active and influential in green finance, the paper provides a comparative analysis and conceptualization of their approaches. The analysis is based on the dissection of policy documents, a review of stakeholder statements and articles, and insights from semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The paper finds that in terms of similar characteristics, both parties seek inclusive expertise input, establish thematic committees, and initiate green finance efforts through financial system-wide guidelines. In terms of different characteristics, the paper finds that through a consultation-based, transparent, and limited mandate approach, the EU is characterized by longer time horizons and organic growth. This can be contrasted with the Chinese technocratic, closed-door, and non-limited mandate approach, characterized by rapid rollout and command-and-control growth. These findings can be conceptualized as a <i>bottom-up market-facilitating</i> approach in the EU and a <i>top-down market-steering</i> approach in China. The different approaches help explain current difficulties in coordination between the EU and China and imply that cooperation is only possible through compatibility rather than harmonization. The findings show that different governance models can actively use the state to pursue sustainable development, and second that such an active state can function in very different ways towards the same goals.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Europe Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Europe Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Europe Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10308-023-00663-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

为了解决环境问题,绿色金融体系的努力正在全球范围内激增。然而,绿色金融政策的方法有很大不同,而且在目前的文献中无法解释。本文以欧盟和中国作为绿色金融领域最活跃、最具影响力的国家为研究对象,对其方法进行了比较分析和概念化。该分析基于对政策文件的剖析、对利益相关者声明和文章的审查,以及半结构化访谈和参与者观察的见解。论文发现,就相似的特征而言,双方都寻求包容性的专业知识投入,成立专题委员会,并通过金融系统范围的指导方针启动绿色金融工作。从不同的特点来看,本文发现,通过基于协商、透明和有限授权的方法,欧盟具有更长的时间跨度和有机增长的特点。这可以与中国的技术官僚、封闭的、非限制的授权方法形成对比,后者的特点是快速推出和指挥控制增长。这些发现可以被概念化为欧盟自下而上的市场促进方法和中国自上而下的市场引导方法。不同的方法有助于解释目前欧盟和中国之间协调的困难,并意味着只有通过兼容性而不是协调才能进行合作。研究结果表明,不同的治理模式可以积极利用国家来追求可持续发展,其次,这种积极的国家可以以非常不同的方式实现相同的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bottom-up market-facilitation and top-down market-steering: comparing and conceptualizing green finance approaches in the EU and China

To address environmental problems, efforts to green financial systems are proliferating across the globe. However, green finance policy approaches differ substantially and in ways left unexplained in current literature. Focusing on the EU and China as the most active and influential in green finance, the paper provides a comparative analysis and conceptualization of their approaches. The analysis is based on the dissection of policy documents, a review of stakeholder statements and articles, and insights from semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The paper finds that in terms of similar characteristics, both parties seek inclusive expertise input, establish thematic committees, and initiate green finance efforts through financial system-wide guidelines. In terms of different characteristics, the paper finds that through a consultation-based, transparent, and limited mandate approach, the EU is characterized by longer time horizons and organic growth. This can be contrasted with the Chinese technocratic, closed-door, and non-limited mandate approach, characterized by rapid rollout and command-and-control growth. These findings can be conceptualized as a bottom-up market-facilitating approach in the EU and a top-down market-steering approach in China. The different approaches help explain current difficulties in coordination between the EU and China and imply that cooperation is only possible through compatibility rather than harmonization. The findings show that different governance models can actively use the state to pursue sustainable development, and second that such an active state can function in very different ways towards the same goals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asia Europe Journal
Asia Europe Journal INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Asia-Europe Journal is a quarterly journal dedicated to publishing quality academic papers and policy discussions on common challenges facing Asia and Europe that help to shape narratives on the common futures - including both risks and opportunities - of Asia and Europe. The Journal welcomes academically and intellectually rigorous research papers as well as topical policy briefs and thought pieces on issues of bi-regional interest, including management and political economy, innovation, security studies, regional and global governance, as well as on relevant socio-cultural developments and historical events. Officially cited as: Asia Eur J
期刊最新文献
Development support as education aid or labor trade? South Korean nurses in West Germany (1965–1976) The embrace and resistance of Chinese battery investments in Hungary: The case of CATL Neighbours under the North Star: Civil wars in Finland and Korea Correction to: Everybody wins? Chinese perceptions on Europe‑China third‑party market cooperation in Africa Two tigers in one mountain: Europeanising the Western Balkans amid China’s engagement
×
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