ABSTRACT
The preceding chapters assessed who exercised what type and style of leadership in climate change politics, how and when. In Chapter 1 we introduced different leadership types (structural, entrepreneurial and cognitive as well as symbolic) and leadership styles (heroic/humdrum and transformational/transactional as well as symbolic) (see Table 1.2). The ‘how’ concerns different strategies (e.g. ‘leader by example’), ideas (e.g. the use of ecological modernisation as an action guiding norm) and policy instruments (e.g. market-based instruments) that were favoured by different EU climate change policy actors. The ‘when’ relates to the timing and sequencing of different leadership types and/or styles. All chapters adopted an actor-centred approach to the analysis of EU climate change politics while focusing on the following four key themes: (1) leadership, (2) ecological modernisation, (3) policy instruments, and (4) multi-level governance. Because leadership has been the overarching analytical theme, the preceding chapters have shed light on the paradox that the EU developed into a leader in international climate change politics despite having been set up as a ‘leaderless Europe’ (Hayward 2008) in which power is shared amongst a wide range of EU institutional, Member State and societal actors thus increasing the potential number of veto actors. Schreurs and Tiberghien (2007: 24) argue that the EU’s climate policymaking process follows ‘a kind of logic that is the reverse of that of veto points or veto players’ because it offers an ‘open-ended and competitive governance structure . . . [which] has created multiple and mutually-reinforcing opportunities for leadership’. The empirical evidence and theoretical insights offered in the foregoing chapters suggest that resistance from (potential) veto actors to the EU’s leadership role in international climate change politics can be overcome but only under certain conditions and with the help of certain types of leadership which we will now review. We will also briefl y explain how the different types of leadership interact with the preferences of different EU institutional, Member State and societal actors for certain leadership styles.
