Authority and Influence in Hybrid Global Climate Governance

Climate governance is increasingly characterised by hybrid constellations of public, private, and transnational actors operating across multiple levels (Kuyper et al., 2017). While International Relations scholarship has extensively analysed global and transnational climate governance, less attention has been paid to how authority and influence are relationally structured within domestic governance fields that are deeply embedded in global norms and expertise (Barnett & Duvall 2005¸Hickmann, 2017). This paper addresses this gap by conceptualising domestic climate governance as a case of hybrid global governance at home and by examining how different forms of authority are produced through networks of interaction. Empirically, the paper draws on an original survey to organisations involved in climate governance in Spain, including public authorities, scientific organisations, environmental NGOs, business actors, and international organisations. Using social network analysis, the study maps three relational dimensions of governance: perceived influence (reputational authority), scientific information exchange (epistemic authority), and collaboration networks (coordinative authority). Rather than treating authority as a formal or legal attribute, this paper conceptualises authority as a relational and socially recognised form of influence, observable through patterns of recognition, information dependence, and coordination (Barnett & Duvall 2005). Central state actors and specialised public agencies occupy key coordinating positions, while large environmental NGOs emerge as influential agenda-setters through reputational authority. Scientific organisations function as hubs of epistemic authority, and a small number of public organisations play critical brokerage roles, translating global knowledge and standards into domestic governance practices. In contrast, business actors remain more selectively integrated into intensive collaboration networks. By applying relational network analysis to domestic climate governance, the paper demonstrates the added value of network approaches for International Relations research on global governance and authority. It shows how influence and cooperation in hybrid governance systems are structured through relationships rather than formal hierarchies, offering insights into who governs climate policy “at home” and through which networked mechanisms. References Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75. Hickmann, T. (2017). The Reconfiguration of Authority in Global Climate Governance. International Studies Review, 19(3), 430–451. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48557445 Kuyper, J.; Linnér, B.O; Shroeder, H. (2017). Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era. Wires Climate Change, 9 (1).