The Climate Governance Dilemma: A Comparative Assessment of Top-down and
Bottom-Up Approaches
, Introduction
This Paper presents a comparative analysis of two scholarly arguments concerning the structure and
effectiveness of international climate regimes. The primary objective is to evaluate which of the two
perspectives provides a more comprehensive and persuasive argumentation for mitigating global
climate change. The analysis proceeds through a section-by-section examination of two peer-
reviewed journal articles: Curbing Global Warming the Easy Way: An Alternative to the Kyoto
Protocol by Verweij (2003), and The Architecture of a Global Climate regime: The Easy Way Out by
Hare et al. (2010). Both articles address the limitations of existing climate governance, yet they
advocate opposing approaches. Verweij (2003) argues that the prevailing top-down regime has
proven largely ineffective and proposes a bottom-up strategy centered on technological innovation.
In contrast, Hare et al. (2010) maintain that a top-down framework remains the most viable
mechanism for achieving global mitigation efforts.
The argument presented by Verweij (2003) is more compelling as the author systematically
deconstructs the limitations of the top-down climate governance model and, in response, proposes a
bottom-up alternative which is centered on technological innovation and informal flexible
cooperation. By Comparison, Hare et. al. (2010) maintain that a top-down framework remains the
most viable mechanism for limiting global warming to 2°C . However, the argument lacks a thorough
explanation of why the top-down structure fails to meet its objectives. Moreover, Hare et. al (2010)
provide only a brief and insufficient discussion, in the conclusion, of how the shortcomings of the
existing regime might be addressed. Given that both authors share the objective of enabling rapid
and effective climate mitigation, a critical evaluation of how the shortcomings of the existing regime
could be addressed is essential.
The comparative analysis is organized around four key components: the research questions,
hypotheses, conceptual frameworks- including causal mechanisms-and empirical evidence. By
engaging critically with these dimensions, the paper assesses which argument offers a more
theoretically coherent, empirically grounded, and practically viable approach to climate mitigation.
Comparing both Research Questions
The divergence between the two articles begins with how each author frames the central research
question. Verweij (2003) interrogates the widely held assumption that curbing global warming
requires formal international cooperation, particularly through a top-down approach. The author
questions: Why a bottom-up approach is a better solution to curb global warming compared to a top-
down regime composed of formal international cooperation? Verweij (2003) critiques the
effectiveness of the international climate regime’s foundational structure and instead proposes a
Bottom-Up Approaches
, Introduction
This Paper presents a comparative analysis of two scholarly arguments concerning the structure and
effectiveness of international climate regimes. The primary objective is to evaluate which of the two
perspectives provides a more comprehensive and persuasive argumentation for mitigating global
climate change. The analysis proceeds through a section-by-section examination of two peer-
reviewed journal articles: Curbing Global Warming the Easy Way: An Alternative to the Kyoto
Protocol by Verweij (2003), and The Architecture of a Global Climate regime: The Easy Way Out by
Hare et al. (2010). Both articles address the limitations of existing climate governance, yet they
advocate opposing approaches. Verweij (2003) argues that the prevailing top-down regime has
proven largely ineffective and proposes a bottom-up strategy centered on technological innovation.
In contrast, Hare et al. (2010) maintain that a top-down framework remains the most viable
mechanism for achieving global mitigation efforts.
The argument presented by Verweij (2003) is more compelling as the author systematically
deconstructs the limitations of the top-down climate governance model and, in response, proposes a
bottom-up alternative which is centered on technological innovation and informal flexible
cooperation. By Comparison, Hare et. al. (2010) maintain that a top-down framework remains the
most viable mechanism for limiting global warming to 2°C . However, the argument lacks a thorough
explanation of why the top-down structure fails to meet its objectives. Moreover, Hare et. al (2010)
provide only a brief and insufficient discussion, in the conclusion, of how the shortcomings of the
existing regime might be addressed. Given that both authors share the objective of enabling rapid
and effective climate mitigation, a critical evaluation of how the shortcomings of the existing regime
could be addressed is essential.
The comparative analysis is organized around four key components: the research questions,
hypotheses, conceptual frameworks- including causal mechanisms-and empirical evidence. By
engaging critically with these dimensions, the paper assesses which argument offers a more
theoretically coherent, empirically grounded, and practically viable approach to climate mitigation.
Comparing both Research Questions
The divergence between the two articles begins with how each author frames the central research
question. Verweij (2003) interrogates the widely held assumption that curbing global warming
requires formal international cooperation, particularly through a top-down approach. The author
questions: Why a bottom-up approach is a better solution to curb global warming compared to a top-
down regime composed of formal international cooperation? Verweij (2003) critiques the
effectiveness of the international climate regime’s foundational structure and instead proposes a
