The study of how environmental policies proliferate is an exercise in simplicity and competing complexities. On the one hand, policy diffusion is relatively easy to understand. A state develops emissions controls or sustainable fishing practices, and other countries adopt similar policies. On the other hand, a myriad of factors determines whether an adopting state can facilitate such advancements. This essay examines the challenge of policy diffusion in the arena of environmental politics with a focus on fisheries and emissions controls. Works by Kern et al (2001) provide a detailed overview of how policies proliferate, while Stafford (2019) provides useful background on sustainability concepts, flaws, and limitations. Mainstream media coverage of Chinese fishing practices is also reviewed as are the lobbying efforts of industry special interests. Finally, literature from the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, 2017) illustrates how policy dissemination doesn’t necessarily result in environmentally favorable outcomes while Chasek (2016) provides an overview of policy arenas, actors, and the various interests that influence international policy. To address these issues, the discussion begins with how the tragedy of the commons applies to overfishing and potential policy approaches to remediating risk. It then examines how states differ in their approach to environmental issues and what factors influence policy diffusion. Finally, we’ll consider how fuel efficiency standards have improved in the United States and why they continue to lag behind their European frontrunners.
Analysis
The need for collective international action and good policy is perhaps no more apparent than in the arena of global fisheries, yet as Stafford (2019) writes, the overuse of sustainability has led to confusion about what the word means and ironically, resulted in unsustainable practices. Fishing quotas, he notes, are both poorly defined and difficult to project, yet are considered sustainable (pp. 1-2). Similarly, Kern et al (2001) cite the importance of clear policy and clearer problem statements, writing that the best policy is useless against a poorly understood problem and vice versa (pp. 7-8). Accurate verbiage, therefore, is essential to crafting good policy, particularly with respect to common pool resources like breathable air, clean water, and ocean life. Such resources are vulnerable to socioeconomic theories like the tragedy of the commons, which Stafford (2019) and Chasek (2016) describe as the exploitation of a shared resource to the detriment of the broader community. Overfishing of the sort practiced by China (Urbina, 2020) is one such example and poses significant environmental risks from bycatch and collapsed fisheries to international instability. Furthermore, China’s practices undermine international policy by exposing weaknesses in enforcement. At the same time, China’s population needs food and special interests have an incentive to maintain the status quo. More broadly, global fisheries are thought to provide over 200 million jobs (Chasek, 2016, p. 8), which further complicates the policy picture, all of which contributes to the tragedy of the commons playing out in the world’s oceans.
While concerns over military action garner headlines, a policy of economic and financial coercion would more effectively dissuade Chinese activity. For example, much of the fishing reported by Urbina (2020) has taken place in international waters off the coast of South America. The countries of Argentina, Chile, Brazil and others could utilize MERCOSUR to enact coordinated tariffs on Chinese goods or freeze collaborative projects domestically. Such economic coercion was used by the United States in the 1980s to enact a ban on whaling (Chasek, 2016, p. 16). To that extent, countries affected by China’s aggressive fishing tactics could form tighter bonds with the U.S. and leverage American tariffs to alter Chinese policy. For example, the United States could utilize the USMCA to block Chinese exports attempting to enter via Mexico. The World Bank and IMF could be used to influence smaller players where China is an active lender to seek partnerships with western sources. Another option is to use NGOs (like Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club) to raise public awareness and put pressure on international companies to reduce their investments in China. Finally, it’s worth noting that Chinese veto power makes enacting policy through the UN unlikely. It’s also unclear that such a policy would be enforceable without the aforementioned collaboration. Moreover, Kern et al (2001) note that the budget for the United Nations Environmental Programme is less than that of Greenpeace (p. 10), further calling into question the ability of the UN to act persuasively.
The Chinese use case provides a useful entrance into the examination of how state actors differ in their response to environmental issues. As Chasek (2016) writes, a myriad of factors can affect a state’s approach to climate issues, from NGOs to economic concerns and others. Urbina (2020), for example, reported that Chinese long-range fishing began, in part, due to depleted local fisheries. China’s response to this crisis was to expand their fishing footprint, a response that reflects both the economic and social concerns associated with food security. Alternatively, the United States’ opposition to whaling was largely predicated on its declining need for whaling products and mounting pressure from environmental groups, which subsequently produced a radically different policy than that demonstrated by the Chinese. A final example can be found in the United States’ slow adoption of fuel economy standards. In this, strong cultural and institutional biases play a role. As Nivola (2009) writes, the United States has trailed European policymakers in fuel economy largely because Americans won’t support the necessary taxes, a policy that has ensured cheap gas and disincentivized fuel economy. In this way, culture and precedent work together to influence a country’s response to climate concerns, whether long or short-term.
The discussion of international policy owes some attention to how such policies proliferate throughout the global community. The notion of policy diffusion was discussed at length by Kern et al (2001) who identified three primary drivers of policy proliferation. The first of these concerns the technical capabilities of the imitating country and the public demand for action. These require that the adopting nation have the technical knowledge and functional capacity to implement environmental controls in the presence of strong public will. The second stipulation addresses policy frontrunners and disseminating organizations, like the United Nations Environmental Programme. This entails that the frontrunners not only implement policies but that they publish those policies (and their results) internationally through designated organizations. Finally, both the policy and the problem must be thoroughly understood. Good policy is meaningless if applied against a poorly understood problem. Therefore, it is essential that the adopting nation understand both the policy and the problem they are trying to solve (pp. 7-13).
When studying policy diffusion, it’s easy to assume that only good policies proliferate, but this is not always the case. For example, the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, 2017), found that lobbyists effectively won concessions from Spanish regulators that closely mirrored their Dutch counterparts. In both cases, fishing quotas were increased, and regulatory oversight decreased. It’s also worth acknowledging that good policy is wholly within the eye of the beholder. Spanish fishing interests, for example, were likely satisfied with their lobbyists’ efforts. Nonetheless, policies can proliferate in the presence of opposition. For example, Kern et al, (2001), cite the rise of environmental agencies, ministries, and other national organizations throughout Europe and North America as a prominent instance of policy proliferation (pp. 13-15). The EPA is one such example that has both ardent support and opposition from various political groups within the United States. That said, sometimes good policies fail to proliferate or do so more slowly. Such is the case with fuel economy in the United States. Reducing vehicle emissions is seen as a critical step in reducing global GHGs, yet policymakers have been slow to implement regulations until recently. Nivola (2009) writes that U.S. fuel efficiency standards are half of what they are in Europe, largely because Americans have no tolerance for taxes either publicly or politically. Furthermore, cheap gas has disincentivized innovation and largely kept America behind Europe. Nonetheless, the United States possesses many of the prerequisites for successful policy adoption. America has the technical capability to achieve greater fuel economy, benefits from a clear policy frontrunner to emulate, and enjoys strong public support for GHG reduction. However, they lack institutional and public support for higher taxes. These issues haven’t prevented the diffusion of policy, but they have slowed its progress.
Finally, a great deal of attention has been paid to policy and policymakers, however, private sector innovation can be a major source of environmental change. For example, SeaPact (SP, n.d.) is a collaboration of 11 leading North American seafood companies committed to the sustainable use of international fisheries. While organized by for-profit companies, SeaPact works with a select number of NGOs who act as advisors on resource management and innovation. According to the SeaPact site, the organization’s members have developed better nets, trawling gear, and other technologies to help reduce bycatch and damage to the environment. Beyond SeaPact, industry leaders like Trident Seafoods have a well-published commitment to sustainability. In their most recent ESG report, the company identifies their customers, community, employees, and owners as the beneficiaries of sustainable practices (TRD, 2023). Such commitments reflect broad support, not only from management and ownership, but from the public whose concerns often manifest through NGOs.
Prospective Outlook
The preceding discussion has covered a wide range of issues from overfishing and fuel efficiency to policy diffusion and private sector change. It goes without saying that future solutions to climate change will incorporate all of local, global, and private sector policy proliferation. However, while Kern et al (2001) detail the prerequisites for policy diffusion, they note that adopting nations must tailor such policies to their needs. This point cannot be overstated. The United States’ slow roll toward greater fuel economy is a perfect example. PEW research indicates that two-thirds of Americans think the government should do more to address climate change and a bipartisan majority supports tougher fuel efficiency standards (Tyson & Kennedy, 2020, pp. 1-6), yet our aversion to taxes runs countercurrent to those desires. This implies that a wholesale, blind adoption of European gas taxes would not be the best approach. Instead, tailoring tax policy to the American mindset, for example through hybrid incentives paid for by carbon taxes, could achieve the same ends through a slightly different means. In that, innovative policy must compliment private sector innovation and social norms. Policy proliferation, therefore, is as much about adopting what works as much as it is understanding the cultural and political factors at play.
References
CEO. (2017). Fishing for influence: Press passes give lobbyists EU council building access
during fishing quota talks. Corporate Europe Observatory. https://corporateeurope.org/en/power-lobbies/2017/05/fishing-influence
Chasek, P. S. (2016). Global Environmental Politics (7th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780813350356
Kern, K., Jorgens, H. & Janicke, M. (2001). The diffusion of environmental policy innovations: A
contribution to the globalisation of environmental policy. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228202810_The_Diffusion_of_Environmental_Policy_Innovations_A_Contribution_to_the_Globalisation_of_Environmental_Policy
Nivola, P.S. (2009). The long and winding road: Automotive fuel economy and American
politics. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0225_cafe_nivola.pdf
Safford, R. (2019). Sustainability: A flawed concept for fisheries management? University of
California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.346
SP. (n.d.). Our projects. Sea Pact. https://www.seapact.org/
TRD. (2023). Ocean allies: Strengthening our bond with the ocean and each other. Trident
Seafood Corp. https://cdn.bfldr.com/VUHD2VO5/as/2htqnw77xq8nrk4snzxc23j/Trident_Seafood_Corp_ESG_Report
Tyson, A., & Kennedy, B. (2020). Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should
Do More on Climate: Bipartisan backing for carbon capture tax credits, extensive tree-planting efforts. Pew Research Center. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep57745
Urbina, I. (2020). How China’s expanding fishing fleet is depleting the world’s oceans. Yale
Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-chinas-expanding-fishing-fleet-is-depleting-worlds-oceans