Climate policy integration as a process: from shallow to embedded integration

References

• Adelle, C., & Russel, D. (2013). Climate policy integration: A case of Déjà Vu? Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2006. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2006. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 28. April. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2007. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2007. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 26. April. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2008. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 25. April. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2009. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2009. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 28. April. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2010. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2010. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 27. April. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2011. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2011. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 28. April. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2012. Fra ord til handling! Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2012. Økt matproduksjon på norske ressurser – over hele landet! Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 27. April. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2013. Inntektsløft gir økt norsk matproduksjon. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2013. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 26. April. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2014. Lønnsom og bærekraftig matproduksjon over hele landet. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2014. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 25. April. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2015. Bærekraftig matproduksjon i hele landet! Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2015. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 24. April. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2016. Norge trenger grønn verdiskaping! Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2016. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 25. April. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2017. Et løft for framtidig matproduksjon. Krav til ramme og fordeling ved jordbruksforhandlingene 2017. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 26. April. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2018. Jordbruksforhandlingene 2018 - Krav til ramme og fordeling. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 26. April. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2019. Jordbruksforhandlingene 2019 - Krav til ramme og fordeling. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 29. April. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural demand. 2021. Jordbruksforhandlingene 2021 - Krav til ramme og fordeling. Jordbrukets forhandlingsutvalg. Arbeidsdokument av 27. April. 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmad, I. H. (2009). Climate policy integration: Towards operationalization. DESA Working Paper No.73.
   Google Scholar
• Alons, G. (2017). Environmental policy integration in the EU’s common agricultural policy: Greening or greenwashing? Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1604–1622. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, A., & Steurer, R. (2015). National adaptation strategies, what else? Comparing adaptation mainstreaming in German and Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 15(2), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0655-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2019). Climate politics, metaphors and the fractal carbon trap. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0618-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesbroek, R. (2021). Policy integration and climate change adaptation. Environmental Sustainability, 52, 75–81.
   Google Scholar
• Bjørkhaug, H., & Richards, C. A. (2008). Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boasson, E. L., Burns, C., & Pulver, S. (2022). The politics of domestic climate governance: Making sense of complex participation patterns. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boasson, E. L., & Tatham, M. (2022). Climate policy: From complexity to consensus. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(3), 401–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candel, J. J. L., & Biesbroek, R. (2016). Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sciences, 49(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candel, J. J. L., & Biesbroek, R. (2020). Mechanisms for policy (dis)integration: Explaining food policy and climate change adaptation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 53(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09354-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cejudo, G. M., & Trein, P. (2023a). Policy integration as a process. Policy Sciences, 56(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09494-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cejudo, G. M., & Trein, P. (2023b). Pathways to policy integration: A subsystem approach. Policy Sciences, 56(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, M. A., Domingo, N. G. G., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S. K., Tilman, D., Lynch, J., Azevedo, I. L., & Hall, J. D. (2020). Global good system emissions could preclude achieving the 1,5⁰ and 2⁰ climate change targets. Science, 6(370), 705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357
   Google Scholar
• Climate Change Committee. (2022). Progress in reducing emissions. 2022 report to parliament.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, W. D. (1998). From protected development to market liberalism: Paradigm change in agriculture. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(4), 632–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501769880000061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., & Feindt, P. H. (2017). Post-exceptionalism in public policy: Transforming food and agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1565–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., & Swinbank, A. (2012). An introduction to the ‘new’ politics of agriculture and food. Policy and Society, 31(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupont, C., & Oberthür, S. (2012). Insufficient climate policy integration in EU energy policy: The importance of the long-term perspective. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8(2), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v8i2.474
   Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M., Olsen, J. P., & Sætren, H. (1978). Organisasjonssamfunnet og den segmenterte stat. In J. P. Olsen (Ed.), Politisk Organisering (pp. 115–144). Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Farsund, A. A. (2014). Norsk jordbruk i krysspress mellom nasjonal og internasjonal politikk. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift, 2(30), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2936-2014-02-01
   Google Scholar
• Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back. In symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geels, F. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture, & Society, 31(5), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grue, P. H. (2014). Norsk landbrukspolitikk 1970-2010: Del 2. Landbrukspolitikken 1986- 2010. NILF. Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Hernández, A. L. G., & Lucatello, S. (2022). Climate policy integration: Taking advantage of policy windows? An analysis of the energy and environment sectors in Mexico (1997-2018). Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 24(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1940893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernes, G. (1983). Bind 5. Makt og styring. In H. F. Dahl, & A. M. Klausen (Eds.), Det moderne Norge (pp. 1–357). Gyldendal.
   Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, D. M., Nunn, P. D., & Beazley, H. (2021). Challenges and opportunities for food systems in changing climate: A systematic review of climate policy integration. Environmental Science and Policy, 123, 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.017
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, L., & Urpelainen, J. (2015). Interests, institutions and climate policy: Explaining the choice of policy instruments for the energy sector. Environmental Science & Policy, 54(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.014
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land an IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. (2021). Summary for policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, & S. L. Connors (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kettner, C., & Kletzan-Slamaning, D. (2019). Is there climate policy integration in European Union energy efficiency and renewable energy policies? Yes, no, maybe. Environmental Policy and Governance, 30(3), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. ([1984] 2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Lafferty, W., & Hovden, E. (2003). Environmental policy integration: Towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics, 12(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010412331308254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MCE. (2021). Klimaplan for 2021-2030. Meld.St.13. (2020–2021). Norway’s Climate Action Plan for 2021–2030—Parliamentary White Paper to the Storting (2020–2021)]. Ministry of Climate and Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., & Persson, Å. (2003). Framework for analysing environmental policy integration. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5(4), 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908032000171648
   Google Scholar
• Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. T., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Advances to the institutional logics perspective. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed.) (pp. 509–531). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Prestegard, S. S. (2016). Jordbruksavtalen. In A. Hegrenes, K. Mittenzwei, & S. S. Prestegard (Eds.), Norsk Jordbrukspolitikk: Handlingsrom I Endring. (pp. 54–72). Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, U., Ingold, K., & Fischer, M. (2023). The role of actors’ issue and sector specialization for policy integration in the parliamentary arena: An analysis of Swiss biodiversity policy using text as data. Policy Sciences, 56(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09490-2
   Google Scholar
• Rietig, K. (2019). The importance of compatible beliefs for effective climate policy integration. Environmental Politics, 28(2), 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1549781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommetvedt, H. (2002). Landbrukets makt: Krise eller nye muligheter? In T. Rødseth (Ed.), Landbruket ved en korsvei. (pp. 159–177). Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Skogstad, G. (1998). Ideas, paradigms and institutions: Agricultural exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States. Governance: An Institutional Journal of Policy and Administrations, 11(4), 463–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• State offer. 2006. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2006. Arbeidsdokument 6. Mai 2006.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2007. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2007. Arbeidsdokument 5. Mai 2007.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2008. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2008. Arbeidsdokument 9. Mai 2008.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2009. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2009. Arbeidsdokument 9. Mai 2009.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2010. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2010. Arbeidsdokument 7. Mai 2010.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2011. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2011. Arbeidsdokument 11. Mai 2011.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2012. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2012. Arbeidsdokument 9. Mai 2012.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2013. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2013. Arbeidsdokument 7. Mai 2013.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2014. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2014. Arbeidsdokument 6. Mai 2014.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2015. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2015. Arbeidsdokument 6. Mai 2015.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2016. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2016. Arbeidsdokument 4. Mai 2016.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2017. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2017. Arbeidsdokument 5. Mai 2017.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2018. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2018. Arbeidsdokument 4. Mai 2018.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2019. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2019. Arbeidsdokument 7. Mai 2019.
   Google Scholar
• State offer. 2021. Statens tilbud Jordbruksforhandlingene 2021. Arbeidsdokument 4. Mai 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Stavins, R. N. (2011). The problem of the commons: Still unsettled after 100 years. American Economic Review, 101(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tosun, J., & Lang, A. (2017). Policy integration: Mapping the different concepts. Policy Studies, 38(6), 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2017.1339239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underdal, A. (1980). Integrated marine policy. What? why? how? Marine Policy, 159–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vik, J. (2020). The agricultural policy trilemma: On the wicked nature of agricultural policy making. Land Use Policy, 99, 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, G. A. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (Un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar