Deadline: May 1, 2019
Call for Contributions
Public Administration Review’s Blog (Bully Pulpit) Symposium:
THE GREEN NEW DEAL: PATHWAYS TO A LOW CARBON ECONOMY
Guest Editors
Nives Dolšak
School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle
Aseem Prakash
Department of Political Science and the Center for Environmental Politics
University of Washington, Seattle
Objective and Rationale
In 2007, Thomas Friedman called for the Green New
Deal<https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/opinion/19friedman.html?module=inline>.
In 2010 report prepared for the United Nations Environment Program, Edward
Barbier outlined a plan for a Global Green New
Deal<https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/natural-resource-and-environmental-economics/global-green-new-deal-rethinking-economic-recovery?format=PB>.
But the idea of a Green New Deal captured popular imagination when Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) formally
presented the Green New Deal resolution to the US Congress (House Resolution
109<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text> &
Senate Resolution
59<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59>) in 2019.
Their Green New Deal (GND) proposal outlines an ambitious vision to transform
America into a low carbon economy alongside addressing equity and justice
issues. Several 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls have endorsed it fully
while others have endorsed it in spirit. The GND also has its critics. Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has shrugged it off as a "green dream." Virtually, all
Republican leaders have opposed it. They have dubbed it as socialist,
un-American, and so on.
Very few dispute that climate change is real and requires urgent attention. The
recent IPCC report and the US Federal Climate
Assessment<https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-federal-climate-assessment-for-us-released>
paint a grim picture of climate change. Yet, climate policy remains a
polarizing issue. Moreover, under the Trump Administration, the US has
withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. It seeks to roll back the Clean Power Plan
and dilute the fuel economy standards. But even at the global level, climate
policies are facing a political challenge. Carbon emissions increased in 2018
and countries continue to invest in coal. Rural France has violently protested
against a carbon tax. Political leaders in Australia and Brazil seem to have
abandoned their countries' Paris pledges.
In the absence of federal leadership on climate policy, US States have emerged
as climate leaders. But even climate leaders face challenges. California has
canceled the high-speed rail project linking San Francisco with Los Angles
citing cost overruns. Washington state voted down citizen initiatives for a
carbon tax in 2016 and again in 2018. Even Seattle, whose Mayor took the
leadership role in founding the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005,
is witnessing rising carbon emissions.
Given these policy challenges, this blog symposium will feature short,
1,000-word commentaries that examine both the successes and failures in the
transition to a low carbon economy. Given the short time frame for climate
action, which GND elements should be prioritized for implementation and why?
Which administrative units ought to take the lead? What sorts of policy
instruments should be employed? How will it be financed? What is the role of
firms and nonprofits in the GND rollout? How can non-climate goals get
incorporated in climate policies?
Given the expansive vision for GND, all policy scholars and practitioners are
invited to explore how their work and expertise might relate to GND, and more
broadly to the transition to a low carbon economy. The commentaries could
address issues such as (but not limited to) the following:
* What sort of administrative structures are required to implement GND? To
what extent is the experience of FDR’s New Deal relevant? Might the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security, a more recent case of administrative
innovation in response to 9/11, offer a template on how to think (or not think)
about the administrative challenges in the policy translation of the GND?
* Which specific elements of the GND can be implemented in the next 10
years, in what sequence, and why?
* How might the GND at the state and city level look like if the federal
government supports it? What if it remains uninterested in implementing it?
What new policies might these subnational units adopt, beyond what they are
already doing so? How will they fund them given that unlike the federal
government, they cannot run sustained levels of budget deficits?
* Which elements of the GND offer the possibility of bipartisan support?
Wind energy is often suggested as an issue area where both sides, at least at
the state level, have a shared interest. Are there other issue areas where such
common ground might be found?
* California has recently canceled its high-speed rail project between San
Francisco and Los Angeles due to massive cost overruns. Given that the GND
seeks to create a network of high-speed railways, what lessons can be distilled
from California’s failure? Several countries have successfully created
high-speed rail networks. What can America learn from them?
* How can the experiences of other counties in phasing out the fossil fuel
sector and supporting the renewable energy sector inform the GND’s policy
translation?
* How might the GND influence the market and the nonmarket environment for
firms? What specific industries can be expected to lend their political support
or oppose it?
* The GND talks about a just transition to a low carbon economy. What are
examples where the concerns of workers and communities in which they reside
have been addressed in the process of industrial transformation? What roles
should labor unions play in GND’s policy translation and how would this be
accomplished?
* What roles might nonprofits and advocacy organizations play in the policy
translation of the GND?
Logistics
We invite submissions (maximum 1,000 words) that examine one or more of these
issues. These commentaries can summarize existing research or report on new
research. All commentaries must be written in an accessible style; references,
tables, and appendices should be provided as links embedded in the text.
In order to assure a timely review, please first email the story pitch to
<ni...@uw.edu> and <as...@uw.edu>, in the following format:
(1) What is the story/argument? What is the takeaway? (maximum 100 words)
(2) How does this illuminate the theory or practice of public administration?
(maximum 100 words)
Based on these submissions, the guest editors will invite the selected authors
to submit their commentaries (1,000 words maximum).
Timeline
Submissions of the pitch: May 1, 2019
Invitation to submit commentaries: May 10, 2019
Submission of the Commentary: June 1, 2019
Guest editors revert with comments: June 15, 2019
Submission of the revised Commentary, June 30, 2019
Online publication: July 1, 2019
About Public Administration Review
Public Administration Review (PAR) is the premier journal in the field of
public administration research, theory, and practice with an Impact factor of
4.591. Google Scholar Ranks it as #1in the “Public Policy and Administration
category.” The 2017 ISI Journal Citation Reports also ranks PAR as the top
journal in the field of public administration.
________________________________________________
Aseem Prakash<https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/>
Professor, Department of Political Science
Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences
Founding Director, UW Center for Environmental
Politics<http://depts.washington.edu/envirpol/>
University of Washington, Seattle
https://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to gep-ed+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
