SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Sosyal Siyasal ve Mali Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Climate Change as a Stress Test for Public Governance

Kamu Yönetişimi İçin Bir Stres Testi Olarak İklim Değişikliği

Özden Şentürk(İstanbul Üniversitesi)0000-0002-6801-6530
Pages
232–243
Publication Date
2026-10-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study concludes that durable climate action requires long-term investment in governance reforms: strengthened coordination, closer integration of policy and budgeting frameworks, accountable governance of digital infrastructures, and institutionalized participation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study conceptualizes climate change as a stress test for public governance systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Findings show that persistent implementation gaps stem primarily from weak governance capacity, even where formal strategies and commitments exist.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concludes that durable climate action requires long-term investment in governance reforms: strengthened coordination, closer integration of policy and budgeting frameworks, accountable governance of digital infrastructures, and institutionalized participation.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:climate change · governance · climate policy.

Abstract

This study conceptualizes climate change as a stress test for public governance systems. Moving beyond technological and informational explanations, it examines how institutional design, coordination mechanisms, digital governance tools, and participatory processes shape climate policy implementation. The article uses a structured narrative literature review with systematic search, screening, and thematic synthesis steps, drawing on peer-reviewed studies, academic books/book chapters, working papers, and leading institutional reports. Findings show that persistent implementation gaps stem primarily from weak governance capacity, even where formal strategies and commitments exist. Core barriers include limited vertical and horizontal coordination, institutional fragmentation, low policy coherence, weak governance of digital tools, and under-institutionalized participation. The “stress test” metaphor is used analytically to show how climate change reveals structural vulnerabilities in governance systems. The study concludes that durable climate action requires long-term investment in governance reforms: strengthened coordination, closer integration of policy and budgeting frameworks, accountable governance of digital infrastructures, and institutionalized participation.

Özet

Bu çalışma, iklim değişikliğini kamu yönetişim sistemleri için bir “stres testi” olarak kavramsallaştırır. Teknolojik ya da bilgi eksikliği açıklamalarının ötesine geçerek kurumsal düzenlemelerin, koordinasyon mekanizmalarının, dijital yönetişim araçlarının ve katılımcı süreçlerin iklim politikalarının uygulanmasını nasıl şekillendirdiğini inceler. Çalışmada, sistematik arama, eleme ve tematik sentez adımlarını içeren yapılandırılmış anlatı temelli bir literatür taraması kullanılmış; hakemli çalışmalar, akademik kitap/kitap bölümleri, çalışma raporları ve yüksek politika etkisine sahip kurumsal raporlar incelenmiştir. Bulgular, resmî strateji ve taahhütler bulunsa bile uygulama boşluklarının esasen yönetişim kapasitesindeki zayıflıklardan kaynaklandığını göstermektedir. Temel engeller; dikey ve yatay koordinasyon eksikliği, kurumsal parçalanmışlık, sınırlı politika uyumu, dijital araçların hesap verebilir biçimde yönetilememesi ve katılım mekanizmalarının yeterince kurumsallaşmamasıdır. “Stres testi” metaforu, iklim değişikliğinin yönetişim sistemlerindeki yapısal kırılganlıkları görünür kıldığını göstermek üzere analitik olarak kullanılır. Sonuç olarak etkili iklim eylemi; koordinasyonu güçlendiren, politika-bütçe entegrasyonunu sağlayan, dijital altyapıları hesap verebilir biçimde yöneten ve katılımı kurumsallaştıran uzun vadeli yönetişim reformları gerektirir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şentürk, Ö. (2026). Climate Change as a Stress Test for Public Governance. Uluslararası Sosyal Siyasal ve Mali Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 232–243. https://doi.org/10.70101/ussmad.1848794

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
  2. Balogun, A. L., Marks, D., Sharma, R., Shekhar, H., Balmes, C., Maheng, D., Arshad, A., & Salehi, P. (2020). Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centres. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101888
  3. Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2006). Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change. Global Governance, 12(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01202004
  4. Bulkeley, H., & Newell, P. (2010). Governing climate change. Routledge.
  5. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffmann, M. J., Newell, P., Paterson, M., Roger, C., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Cole, D. H. (2011). From global to polycentric climate governance (EUI RSCAS Working Paper No. 2011/30). European University Institute. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/19193
  7. Contipelli, E. (2018). Multi-level climate governance: Polycentricity and local innovation. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental, 9(2), 1-35.
  8. de Macedo, L. S. V., Jacobi, P. R., & de Oliveira, J. A. P. (2023). Paradiplomacy of cities in the Global South and multilevel climate governance: Evidence from Brazil. Global Public Policy and Governance, 3(1), 86–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-023-00060-7
  9. Dubash, N. K., Mitchell, C., Boasson, E. L., Borbor-Cordova, M. J., Fifita, S., Haites, E., Jaccard, M., Jotzo, F., Naidoo, S., Romero-Lankao, P., Shlapak, M., Shen, W., & Wu, L. (2022). National and sub-national policies and institutions. In Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change (pp. 1355–1450). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.01
  10. Dzebo, A., Shawoo, Z., & Browne, K. (2025). Does policy coherence make national implementation of global sustainability agendas more successful? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 50, 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-111523-102337
  11. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
  12. European Parliamentary Research Service. (2019). A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2019)624262
  13. Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.
  14. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649
  15. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2004). Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.
  16. Hsu, A., Höhne, N., Kuramochi, T., Vilariño, V., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Beyond states: Harnessing sub-national actors for the deep decarbonisation of cities, regions, and businesses. Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101738
  17. Hughes, S., Chu, E. K., & Mason, S. G. (Eds.). (2020). Climate change in cities: Innovations in multi-level governance. Springer.
  18. IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
  19. Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493
  20. Jordan, A., & Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: A state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539
  21. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (Eds.). (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108284646
  22. Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
  23. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. SAGE.
  24. Lamb, W. F., Creutzig, F., Callaghan, M. W., Minx, J. C., & Edenhofer, O. (2020). What are the social outcomes of climate policies? Environmental Research Letters, 15(11), 113006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc11f
  25. Meijer, A. J., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2016). Governing the smart city. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
  26. Mietule, I., Arbidane, I., Maksymova, I., Kulishov, V., & Amantova-Salmane, L. (2025). Strategic role of sustainable digitalization in driving the green transition. Grassroots Journal of Natural Resources, 8(2), 817–836. https://doi.org/10.33002/nr2581.6853.080238
  27. Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., & McGuinn, J. (2012). Understanding policy coherence. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(6), 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1589
  28. OECD. (2021). Green budgeting in OECD countries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ef0f7d0e-en
  29. OECD. (2022). Going digital: Guide to data governance policy making. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4a9c08c5-en
  30. OECD. (2025). Government at a glance 2025. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en Peters, B. G. (2018). The politics of bureaucracy (7th ed.). Routledge.
  31. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Macmillan.
  32. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076586
  33. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  34. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University Press.
  35. Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755387
  36. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
  37. UN DESA. (2024). Multilevel governance for climate change mitigation and adaptation. United Nations. https://desapublications.un.org/policy-briefs/un-desa-policy-brief-no-162-multilevel-governance-climate-change-mitigation-and
  38. UNDP. (2021). Budgeting for climate change: A guidance note for governments to integrate climate change into budgeting. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org/publications/budgeting-climate-change-guidance-note-governments-integrate-climate-change-budgeting
  39. Van Loo, R. (2022). Stress testing governance. Vanderbilt Law Review, 75(2), 553–624. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol75/iss2/2/
  40. World Bank. (2021). Climate change budget tagging: A review of international experience. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/35174
  41. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001