This paper seeks to understand how the UK government's headline climate change targets are translated into action at the local level in the transport sector drawing on the findings of research in two English regions. In doing so, these headline targets are identified as a symbolic meta-policy that results in little action on the ground and which challenges established conceptions of policy implementation. Both the ‘meta’ and ‘symbolic’ aspects of the policy offer part of the explanation for the lack of substantive action on the ground. As a meta-policy, the headline targets across government require the elaboration of other policies at other levels such as targets for government departments and local authorities, but these are largely absent, leaving the meta-policy without teeth. Over time, these headline targets have developed into a symbolic policy, serving political goals but having little practical effectiveness.
AndertonK. (2010) ‘The Need for Integrated Institutions and Organizations in Transport Policy: The Case for Transport and Climate Change’, in GivoniM.BanisterD. (eds), Integrated Transport: From Policy to Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 55–74.
2.
BarrettS.FudgeC. (eds) (1981) Policy and Action. London: Methuen.
3.
Client Earth (2009) The UK Climate Change Act 2008: Lessons for National Climate Laws – An Independent Review by Client Earth [online]. Available from http://www.clientearth.org [Accessed 12 March 2013].
4.
Committee on Climate Change (CCC) (2008) Building A Low-Carbon Economy: The UK's Contribution to Tackling Climate Change – The First Report of the Committee on Climate Change. London: HMSO.
5.
Committee on Climate Change (CCC) (2012a) How Local Authorities Can Reduce Emissions and Manage Climate Change Risk. London: HMSO.
Department for Transport (DfT) (2009) Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future – A Carbon Reduction Strategy for Transport, July 2009. London: HMSO.
9.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2011) The Carbon Plan: Delivering on Our Low Carbon Future. London: HMSO.
10.
DochertyI.ShawJ. (2008) Traffic Jam: Ten Years of ‘Sustainable’ Transport in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.
11.
DoreyP. (2005) Policy Making in Britain: An Introduction. London: Sage.
12.
DudleyG.RichardsonJ. (2000) Why Does Policy Change? Lessons from British Transport Policy, 1945–99. London: Routledge.
13.
ElmoreR. (1979) ‘Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions’, Political Science Quarterly, 94 (4), 601–16.
14.
FlindersM.BacheI.BartleI.MarsdenG. (forthcoming) ‘Blame Games and Climate Change: Accountability, Multi-Level Governance and Carbon Management’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations.
15.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2011) Greater Manchester Climate Strategy, 2011–20. Manchester: Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
GreenawayJ.SalterB.HartS. (2004) ‘The Evolution of A “Meta-Policy”: The Case of the Private Finance Initiative and the Health Sector’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 507–26.
18.
GunnL. (1978) ‘Why is Implementation So Difficult?’, Management Studies in Government, 33 (4), 169–76.
HallP. (1993) ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics, 25 (3), 275–96.
21.
HappaertsS. (2012) Sustainable Development and Subnational Governments: Going Beyond Symbolic Politics?Working Paper Delivered at the ISA Annual Convention, San Diego, CA, 1–4 April.
22.
HillM.HupeP. (2009) Implementing Public Policy, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
23.
HjernB.PorterD. (1981) ‘Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis’, Organization Studies, 2 (3), 211–27.
24.
HogwoodB.GunnL. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
HowlettM.CashoreB. (2009) ‘The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11 (1), 33–46.
26.
JessopB. (2004) ‘Multi-Level Governance and Multi-Level Metagovernance’, in BacheI.FlindersM. (eds), Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–74.
Leeds City Council (2012b) Leeds Climate Change Strategy: Making the Change 2012 to 2015, Leeds Initiative: Leeds City Council.
29.
MacKinnonD.ShawJ.DochertyI. (2008) Diverging Mobilities? Devolution, Transport and Policy Innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
30.
MarsdenG.RyeT. (2010) ‘The Governance of Transport and Climate Change’, Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 669–78.
31.
MarsdenG.FerreiraA. C.BacheI.BartleI.FlindersM. (forthcoming) ‘Muddling through with Climate Change Targets: A Multi-Level Governance Perspective on the Transport Sector’, Climate Policy.
32.
MarsdenG. R.MayA. D. (2006) ‘Do Institutional Arrangements Make a Difference to Transport Policy and Implementation? Lessons for Britain’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24 (5), 771–89.
33.
MazmanianD.SabatierP. (1983) Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
NiemeierD.BeamishT.KendallA.GrattetR.LondonJ.da la PenaC.SzeJ. (2012) ‘Characterising the Impacts of Uncertainty in the Policy Process: Climate Science, Policy Construction and Local Governance Decisions’, in GeerlingsH.ShiftanY.SteadD. (eds), Transition towards Sustainable Mobility: The Role of Instruments, Individuals and Institutions. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 119–36.
36.
O'TooleL.Jr (2004) ‘Implementation Theory and the Challenge of Sustainable Development: The Transformative Role of Learning’, in LaffertyW. M. (ed.), Governance of Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 32–60.
37.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2012) 2011 Census: Population and Household Estimates for the United Kingdom. London: ONS.
38.
PetersB. G. (2007) The Meta-Governance of Policy Networks: Steering at a Distance, but Still Steering, Estudio/Working Paper 78/2007.
39.
PressmanJ.WildavskyA. (1984) Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland: Or, Why It's Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes, 3rd edn. London: University of California Press.
40.
SabatierP. (1986) ‘Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis’, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48.
41.
SabatierP.Jenkins-SmithH. (1986) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
42.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2008) ‘Theoretical Approaches to Metagovernance’, in SørensenE.TorfingJ. (eds), Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 169–82.
43.
SteadD.De JongM.ReinholdeI. (2008) ‘Urban Transport Policy Transfer in Central and Eastern Europe’, Planning Review, 44 (1), 62–73.
44.
TorfingJ.PetersB. G.PierreJ.SørensenE. (2012) ‘Metagovernance: The Art of Governing Interactive Governance’, in TorfingJ.PetersB. G.PierreJ.SørensenE. (eds), Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 122–44.
45.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) (2011) Greater Manchester's Third Local Transport Plan, 2011/12–2015/16. Manchester: Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Transport for Greater Manchester.
46.
United Nations (UN) (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [online]. Available from: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf [Accessed 11 June 2013].
47.
Van MeterD.Van HornC. (1975) ‘The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework’, Administration and Society, 6 (4), 445–88.
48.
WangR. (2010) ‘Shaping Urban Transport Policies in China: Will Copying Foreign Policies Work?’, Transport Policy, 17, 147–52.
West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership (WYLTPP) (2011b) West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan, 2011–26. Leeds: Metro, West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan Partnership.
