European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 31

European Policy Analysis

Policy Preferences

Through the following steps,
actors’ preferences about the different
policy options were aggregated (Nohrstedt
and Ingold 2011; Nownes 2000). First,
we calculated the Manhattan distance
measure by creating a matrix with actors
in the first column and the respective
preference for each policy option (on a
four-point Likert scale) in the first row4.
Manhattan distance then transforms
this matrix into an actor × actor matrix,
where every cell indicates the overall
preference distance between two actors.
The minimum distance in the matrices is
0, the maximum is 16 for the national, and
is 32 for the international process among
every pair of actor. A multidimensional
scaling (MDS) then attributes a relative
preference distance to every actor in the
space. Table 1 summarizes the relative
distances for all three categories of actors:
those integrated in the national climate
change process, those integrated in the
Swiss position on international climate
change policy and, finally, those actors
integrated in both.

In Swiss national climate policy,
industry representatives and center-right
parties seem to prefer the climate penny,
which is expressed through an alignment
on the belief continuum toward –1 (Table
1). Green NGOs, left parties, and some
federal agencies however are in favor of a
strong national mitigation policy and the
introduction of a CO2 tax (represented
with a position toward +1 on the belief

scale in Table 1).

The results for the preparatory
phase of the COP16 in Cancun are very
different: first of all, one notices that the
distances are not as extreme as in the
national process. All survey participants
who evaluated the policy options for
the Swiss position in international
climate negotiations seem to agree
that international mitigation as well
as adaptation policies are relevant and
necessary. No strong opposition to any
of those international measures can be
identified. Positions toward 0 simply
indicate that those actors (typically green
NGOs) emphasize—besides climate
adaptation—a stronger commitment
toward effective mitigation measures.

Discussion

I

n our first hypothesis, we test if the
discrepancies of policy outputs on
both levels stem from the fact that
barely any actor participate in both,
national and international climate
decision making. We have to reject this
hypothesis: 12 actors representing four
different organizational types (industry,
science, NGOs, and administration)
are involved in both processes and
would thus have the formal potential to
coordinate actions on both levels. But
mere participation in several processes
does not guarantee that those actors
have the power, interest, and capacity to
impact upon decision making on both
levels in an integrative way.

4

For the national decision-making process, we had four different policy instruments (voluntary
agreements, tax, penny, and permits) that could be ranked and that could thus receive a value between 1
and 4. The same is true for the eight policy preferences evaluated for the international level.

31