This article uses a framework combining the discourse of scalar politics with a social dilemma perspective. The aim is to find answers to why political interests advocate a specific scalar arrangement. Analyzing informant interviews with top politicians and administrators in four municipal governments in the Gothenburg region of southwestern Sweden, we find that although all recognize the social dilemma, the size and capacity of their local government lead to different scalar arguments about responsibility for climate change. Regardless of municipal size and capacity, however, actors' recommendations finally converge in a pattern of path dependence. Already well-entrenched structures of intermunicipal urban cooperation are seen as the scalarly most appropriate vehicle for addressing the social dilemma and for allocating responsibility for climate-related regional action. This opens up for comparative urban research on how new and existing transboundary urban structures handle climate issues in terms of legitimacy and efficiency.
Adger, W.N., N.W. Arnell, and E.L. Tompkins.2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change15 (2): 77—86.
2.
Adger, W.N., K. Brown, and E.L. Tompkins.2006. The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society10 (2): 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/ (accessed on January 23, 2007).
3.
Betsill, M.M., and H. Bulkeley.2004. Transnational networks and global environmental governance: The cities for climate protection program. International Studies Quarterly48 (2): 571—93.
4.
Bulkeley, H.2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography24 (8): 875—902.
5.
Bulkeley, H., and M.M. Betsill.2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the “urban” politics of climate change. Environmental Politics14 (1): 42—63.
6.
Bulkeley, H., A. Davies, B. Evans, D. Gibbs, K. Kern, and K. Theobald.2003. Environmental governance and transnational municipal networks in Europe. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning5 (3): 235—54.
7.
Brown, J.C., and M. Purcell.2005. There's nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum36 (5): 607—24.
8.
Cabinet Bill. 2001/02:55. Sveriges klimatstrategi (Sweden's climate strategy) . Stockholm: Parliamentary Record .
9.
Cash, D.W., W.N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Level, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young.2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society11 (2): 8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ (accessed on January 23, 2007).
10.
Cox, K.R.1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics. Political Geography17 (1): 1—23.
11.
Dagens Industri.2006. Hamburg motor i den svenska exporten [Hamburg the engine for Swedish exports]. News report, November 28.
12.
Dawes, R.M., and D.M. Messick.2000. Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology35 (2): 111—16.
13.
Eckerberg, K.2001. Sweden: Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LA21 implementation. In Sustainable communities in Europe, edited by W. M. Lafferty, 15—39. London: Earthscan.
14.
Esaiasson. P., M. Gilljam, H. Oscarsson, and L. Wängnerud.2007. Metodpraktikan. Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad [Methodological practice: The art of studying societies, individuals, and markets], 3rd ed. Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts.
15.
GR (Gothenburg Region Association of Local Authorities)2005a. http://www.gr.to/english/index.shtm (accessed on October 6, 2006).
16.
———. 2005b. Folkmängd 1 Jan 2005 [Inhabitants January 1, 2005]. http://www.gr.to/publicerat/folkmangd_041231.pdf (accessed on October 6, 2006).
17.
———. 2006. Förbundsstyrelsen 2003-2006 [GR Association Board 2003-2006]http://www.gr.to/politisk-ledning/index.shtm#styrelsen (accessed on October 6, 2006).
18.
Göteborgs-Posten.2006. Storleken helt avgörande för tillväxten [Size determines growth]. Interview with Göran Johansson, Chairman, Gothenburg City Council Board, February 26.
19.
Hammar, H., and S.C. Jagers.2006. Can trust in politicians explain individuals' support for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax. Climate Policy5 (6): 613—25.
20.
Kousky, C., and S.H. Schneider.2003. Global climate policy: Will cities lead the way?Climate Policy3 (4): 359—72.
21.
Lindseth, G.2006. Scalar strategies in climate-change politics: Debating the environmental consequences of a natural gas project. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24:739—54.
22.
Lundqvist, L.J.1998. Local-to-local partnerships among Swedish municipalities: Why and how neighbours join to alleviate resource constraints. In Partnerships in urban governance: European and American experiences, edited by J.Pierre, 93-111. London : Macmillan.
23.
———. 2004. Sweden and ecological governance: Straddling the fence . Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press.
24.
Meadowcroft, J.1999. Co-operative management regimes: Collaborative problem solving to implement sustainable development. International Negotiations4 (2): 225—54.
25.
———. 2002. Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landscape and Urban Planning61 (2-4): 169—79.
26.
Ministry of Finance.2004/43. Local government in Sweden: Organisation, activities and finance. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Finance. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/03/91/67/b5d68d50.pdf (accessed on November 11, 2005).
27.
Olson, M.1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Univ. Press.
28.
Ostrom, E.1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
29.
SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency).2003. 300 miljoner i bidrag till 14 klimatinvesteringsprogram [300 million in grants to 14 climate investment programs]. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/ (accessed on March 15, 2004).
30.
———. 2005. Investeringsprogram: LIP och KLIMP [Investment programs: LIP and KLIMP]. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/ (accessed on September 21, 2005).
31.
SKL (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting).2004 . Kommunal personal 2004: Personalstatistisk undersökning [Local government personnel 2004: A statistical investigation]. Stockholm, Sweden: Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting .
32.
Tompkins, E.L., and W.N. Adger.2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental Science and Policy8 (6): 562—71.
33.
von Borgstede, C., and L.J. Lundqvist.2006. Organizational culture, professional role conceptions and local decision-makers' views on climate policy instruments . Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning8 (4): 279—92.
34.
Young, O.2006. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society11 (1): 27. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art27/ (accessed on January 23, 2007).
