دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی شرایط کارآفرینی ملیتی: شرایط نوآوری عمل در کالیفرنیا و سائوپائولو - اشپرینگر 2017

Abstract

The distinct role of subnational governments such as states and provinces in addressing climate change has been increasingly acknowledged. But while most studies investigate the causes and consequences of particular governments’ actions and networking activities, this article argues that subnational governments can develop climate action as a collective entrepreneurial activity. Addressing many elements explored in this special issue, it focuses on the second question and identifies climate entrepreneurship in two subnational governments—the states of California (USA) and São Paulo (Brazil). Examining internal action, as well as interaction with local authorities, national governments and the international regime, entrepreneurial activities are identified in the invention, diffusion and evaluation of subnational climate policy in each case. The article draws from the recent scholarship on policy innovation, entrepreneurship and climate governance. It contributes to the literature by exploring entrepreneurial subnational government activity in addressing climate change and expanding the understanding of the effects of policy innovation at the subnational level.

Conclusion

Considering the constituent elements of innovation, this article used a comparative case study approach to explore the collective entrepreneurial strategies that subnational governments can undertake to address climate change. A number of similarities are clear in the subnational climate entrepreneurship that California and São Paulo have displayed over the past decade. Both states sought mandatory reduction targets out and legislated accordingly, and both established platforms to promote their own work and advocate for similar and enhanced responses at scale. Longer-term visions have been set, and mechanisms are evolving to deliver against these aims. This entrepreneurial strategy was established through in-state, domestic and transnational activities and can be attested to these subnational governments as a whole, rather than to particular individuals.

Clearer differences, however, are observed in the means through which entrepreneurial action is sustained. While both climate legislations were enacted, in California the cap-andtrade scheme has been operationalized, extended to link with Canadian Provincial schemes via the WCI. California’s scoping plan and supplementary legislation have been introduced to achieve the interim targets laid out in AB32, and the state is working together with local authorities to deliver emission reductions. The initial collective entrepreneurship to get AB32 passed is extending into the other phases of innovation. In São Paulo, however, the emphasis on enacting the legislation and the resources to support the achievement of the targets has been weaker. Although rigorous and thorough, the state Climate Law is not being sufficiently enforced. Challenges to enforce the new legislation include limited capacity of regulatory agencies in terms of staff, technical expertise, financial resources and political will. As a result, after 7 years of its enactment, the law still lacks implementation. Further study is required to unpack the reasons for the differences in experiences and outcomes in the implementation of the laws in both states.