Research Summary
This research explores the political economy of climate governance, analyzing how policy uncertainty and political incentives shape the effectiveness of carbon markets and corporate decarbonization commitments. It investigates the constraints governments and firms face in implementing climate policies, particularly in navigating regulatory uncertainty and market-based mechanisms. By integrating quantitative analysis of carbon pricing models with case studies of corporate climate strategies, this study will contribute to debates on climate policy effectiveness, the distributional effects of regulation, and international climate cooperation. The findings aim to inform policymakers and private sector actors on designing more effective, stable regulatory frameworks for the global energy transition, closely aligning with Professor Bayer’s research agenda (https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/staff/patrickbayer/#researchinterests,supervision,biography,teaching ).
Research Plan (Outline)
- Introduction & Research Questions
- Overview of climate governance challenges
- Research questions: How does policy uncertainty affect carbon markets? What incentives or constraints drive corporate decarbonization?
- Context & Literature Review
- Theoretical foundations in political economy and environmental regulation
- Key debates on carbon markets, policy uncertainty, and firm behavior
- Gaps in the literature and how this research contributes
- Methodology
- Quantitative analysis: Carbon pricing models, corporate climate commitments, and policy uncertainty metrics
- Case studies: Comparative analysis of government and corporate decarbonization strategies in different regulatory environments
- Expected Contributions & Policy Implications
- Impact on climate policy design and implementation
- Insights for firms, regulators, and international organizations in balancing incentives and regulatory stability
- Conclusion & Feasibility
- Summary of key contributions
- Research timeline and feasibility within the PhD framework
Professor’s link: https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/staff/patrickbayer/#researchinterests,supervision,biography,teaching
Possible literature please chose proper ones that are related: Bayer, P. , Crippa, L., Hughes, H. and Hermansen, E. (2024)Government participation in virtual negotiations: Evidence from IPCC approval sessions. Climatic Change, 177, 132. (doi: 10.1007/s10584-024-03790-7)
Bayer, P. and Schaffer, L.M. (2024) Distributional consequences shape public support for the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism: evidence from four European countries. Environmental Research Letters, 19(8), 084040. (doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad5743)
Bayer, P. (2023) Foreignness as an asset: European carbon regulation and the relocation threat among multinational firms. Journal of Politics, 85(4), pp. 1291-1304. (doi: 10.1086/724963)
Bayer, P. and Genovese, F. (2020) Beliefs about consequences from climate action under weak climate institutions: sectors, home bias, and international embeddedness. Global Environmental Politics, 20(4), pp. 28-50. (doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00577)
Bayer, P. and Aklin, M. (2020) The European Union Emissions Trading System reduced CO2 emissions despite low prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(16), pp. 8804-8812. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1918128117) (PMID:32253304)
Bayer, P. , Kennedy, R., Yang, J. and Urpelainen, J. (2020) The need for impact evaluation in electricity access research. Energy Policy, 137, 111099. (doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111099)
Hamburger, D., Jaeger, J., Bayer, P. , Kennedy, R., Yang, J. and Urpelainen, J. (2019) Shades of darkness or light? A systematic review of geographic bias in impact evaluations of electricity access. Energy Research and Social Science, 58, 101236. (doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101236)
Bayer, P. and Ovodenko, A. (2019) Many voices in the room: a national survey experiment on how framing changes views toward fracking in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science, 56, 101213. (doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.023)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2018) Economics of household technology adoption in developing countries: evidence from solar technology adoption in rural India. Energy Economics, 72, pp. 35-46. (doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.02.011)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2017) Does basic energy access generate socioeconomic benefits? A field experiment with off-grid solar power in India. Science Advances, 3(5), e1602153.(doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602153)
Bayer, P. and Urpelainen, J. (2016) It is all about political incentives: democracy and the renewable feed-in tariff. Journal of Politics, 78(2), pp. 603-619. (doi: 10.1086/684791)
Bayer, P. , Urpelainen, J. and Xu, A. (2016) Explaining differences in sub-national patterns of clean technology transfer to China and India.International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(2), pp. 261-283. (doi: 10.1007/s10784-014-9257-2)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2015) The political economy of energy access: Survey evidence from India on state intervention and public opinion. Energy Research and Social Science, 10, pp. 250-258. (doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.07.006)
Bayer, P. , Marcoux, C. and Urpelainen, J. (2015) When international organizations bargain: evidence from the global environment facility.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(6), pp. 1074-1100. (doi: 10.1177/0022002713520533)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2015) Quantifying slum electrification in India and explaining local variation. Energy, 80, pp. 203-212. (doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.063)
Bayer, P. , Pinkerton, V. M. and Urpelainen, J. (2015) Small and beautiful? The programme of activities and the least developed countries. Climate and Development, 7(2), pp. 153-164. (doi: 10.1080/17565529.2014.900471)
Bayer, P. , Marcoux, C. and Urpelainen, J. (2014) Choosing international organizations: when do states and the World Bank collaborate on environmental projects? Review of International Organizations, 9(4), pp. 413-440. (doi: 10.1007/s11558-013-9184-y)
Bayer, P. , Urpelainen, J. and Xu, A. (2014) Laissez faire and the Clean Development Mechanism: determinants of project implementation in Indian states, 2003–2011. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16(8), pp. 1687-1701. (doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0746-3)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2014) Information and energy policy preferences: a survey experiment on public opinion about electricity pricing reform in rural India. Economics of Governance, 15(4), pp. 305-327. (doi: 10.1007/s10101-014-0146-5)
Bayer, P. and Urpelainen, J. (2014) Does it pay to play? How bargaining shapes donor participation in the funding of environmental protection. Strategic Behavior and the Environment, 4(3), pp. 263-290.(doi: 10.1561/102.00000046)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2014) Who blames corruption for the poor enforcement of environmental laws? Survey evidence from Brazil. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 16(3), pp. 241-262. (doi: 10.1007/s10018-014-0076-z)
Bayer, P. , Marcoux, C. and Urpelainen, J. (2013) Leveraging private capital for climate mitigation: evidence from the clean development mechanism. Ecological Economics, 96, pp. 14-24. (doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.008)
Aklin, M., Bayer, P. , Harish, S.P. and Urpelainen, J. (2013)Understanding environmental policy preferences: new evidence from Brazil. Ecological Economics, 94, pp. 28-36. (doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.012)
Bayer, P. , Dolan, L. and Urpelainen, J. (2013) Global patterns of renewable energy innovation, 1990–2009. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(3), pp. 288-295. (doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2013.02.003)
Bayer, P. , Urpelainen, J. and Wallace, J. (2013) Who uses the Clean Development Mechanism? An empirical analysis of projects in Chinese provinces. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), pp. 512-521. (doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.002)
Bayer, P. and Urpelainen, J. (2013) External sources of clean technology: evidence from the clean development mechanism. Review of International Organizations, 8(1), pp. 81-109. (doi: 10.1007/s11558-012-9150-0)
Followings are rules:
1. Research Proposal
The research proposal must be a detailed description of the intended research topic. It will form the basis for assessing the application. The proposal should be written in a clear and concise manner and applicants should be aware that applications will be reviewed by interdisciplinary panels so please make sure that you fully explain disciplinary specific concepts or techniques. Your research project must be feasible within the funded PhD – CoSS funded students are expected to submit their thesis by the end of the funded period. Feasibility will be considered carefully by reviewers. The main body of the research proposal (excluding the bibliography) must not exceed 1,500 words.
Please also note that reviewers of this proposal will include those outwith your discipline.
The Research Proposal MUST include the following sections:
· Overview – a general introduction that succinctly sets out exactly what the project seeks to explore. This should also include the research question(s) to be addressed and the overall aim of the project.
· Context – situate the research within the relevant literature/s. This should include a brief summary of research already taken in the field, addressing key works and scholars. Specific attention should be paid to problems in the existing literature and ways in which your proposed research challenges/addresses these problems. You should also give an account of the theoretical issues relevant to your research, and whether you intend to test existing theories or develop new ones.
· Methodology – provide a detailed account of the methodology and/or methods that will be used. Specific attention should be paid, where relevant, to any innovative aspects of the proposed methodology.
· An indication of ethical issues associated with this proposal (including those that may impact on formal ethics committee approval and those requiring ongoing consideration in the field/during analysis) and proposed actions to mitigate these.