Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy


Lack of progress in global climate negotiations has led scholars to reconsider polycentric approaches to climate policy. Several examples of subglobal mechanisms to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions have been touted, but it remains unclear why they might achieve better climate outcomes than global negotiations alone. Decades of work conducted by researchers associated with the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University have emphasized two chief advantages of polycentric approaches over monocentric ones: they provide more opportunities for experimentation and learning to improve policies over time, and they increase communications and interactions — formal and informal, bilateral and multilateral — among parties to help build the mutual trust needed for increased cooperation. A wealth of theoretical, empirical and experimental evidence supports the polycentric approach.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Core relations in repeated social dilemmas.


  1. 1

    Ostrom, E. A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change Policy Research Working Paper 5095 (World Bank, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Paavola, J. in Property in Land and Other Resources (eds Cole, D. H. & Ostrom, E.) 417–433 (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. The regime complex for climate change. Persp. Polit. 9, 7–23 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Cole, D. H. From global to polycentric climate governance. Clim. Law 2, 395–413 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Stewart, R. B., Oppenheimer, M. & Rudyk, B. Building blocks for global climate protection. Stanford Environ. Law J. 32, 341–392 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Heal, G. & Kunreuther, H. in Climate Change and Common Sense: Essays in Honour of Tom Schelling (eds Hahn, R. W. & Ulph, A.) 50–60 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Leal-Arcas, R. Top-down versus bottom-up approaches for climate change negotiations: an analysis. IUP J. Govern. Publ. Policy 6, 7–52 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Leal-Arcas, R. A bottom-up approach for climate change: the trade experience. Asian J. Law Econ. 2, 1–54 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Vasconcelos, V. V., Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. A bottom-up institutional approach to cooperative governance of risky commons. Nature Clim. Change 3, 797–801 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Victor, D. G. & Raustiala, K. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Indust. Organ. 32, 147–154 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Abbott, K. W. The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environ. Plan. C: Govern. Policy 30, 571–590 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Ostrom, E. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 641–672 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 550–557 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M. & Warren, R. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 55, 831–842 (1961).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Aligica, P. D. & Boettke, P. J. Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School (Routledge, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    McGinnis, M. D. in Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (ed. McGinnis, M. D.) 1–27 (Univ. Michigan Press, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Keohane, R. O. & Ostrom, E. (eds) Local Commons and Global Interdependence (Sage, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    De Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O. & Sable, C. Global experimentalist governance. Br. J. Pol. Sci. 44, 477–486 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Michaelowa, A. Global warming policy. J. Econ. Persp. 17, 204–205 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., Hugosson, M. B. & Brundell-Freij, K. The Stockholm congestion charges—5 years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt. Transp. Policy 20, 1–12 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Rotaris, L., Danielis, R., Marcucci, E. & Massiani, J. The Urban Road Pricing Scheme to Curb Pollution in Milan: A Preliminary Assessment Working Paper 122 (Universitá Degli Studi di Trieste, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiciie e Statistiche, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Schaller, B. New York City's congestion pricing experience and implications for road pricing acceptance in the United States. Transp. Policy 17, 266–273 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Sabel, C. F. & Zeitlin, J. Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    De Búrca, G. New governance and experimentalism: an introduction. Wisconsin Law Rev. 2010, 227–238 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Barrett, S. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Prynne, M. UK to fly 45 delegates to climate conference despite no deal being expected. The Telegraph (1 November 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (Univ. Michigan Press, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Ledyard, J. in The Handbook of Experimental Economics (eds Kagel, J. & Roth, A.) 111–194 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Helm, D. Climate-change policy: why has so little been achieved? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 24, 211–238 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Sen, A. K. Isolation, assurance, and the social rate of discount. Q. J. Econ. 81, 112–124 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Cole, D. H. & Grossman, P. Z. Institutions matter: Why the herder problem is not a Prisoner's Dilemma. Theory Decis. 69, 219–231 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Cole, D. H. in Distribution of Responsibilities in International Law (eds Nollkaemper, A. & Jacobs, D.) 347 (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).

  33. 33

    Keohane, R. O. The demand for international regimes. Intl. Organ. 36, 325–355 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Ostrom, E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 92, 1–22 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Ostrom, E. in Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research (eds Ostrom, E. & Walker, J.) 19–79 (Russell Sage Foundation, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L. & Sakano, T. Success through commitment and trust: the soft side of strategic alliance management. J. World Business 36, 223–240 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Cardenas, J-C., Ahn, T. K. & Ostrom, E. in Advances in Understanding Strategic Behaviour: Game Theory, Experiments and Bounded Rationality (ed. Huck, S.) 258–286 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Aumann, R. A. & Hart, S. Long cheap talk. Econometrica 71, 1619–1660 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Volcovici, V. US–China climate deal called “breakthrough” but no long-term cuts yet. Reuters (11 June 2013);

  40. 40

    Special Envoy for Climate Change Report of the US–China Climate Change Working Group to the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (US Department of State, 10 July 2013);

  41. 41

    Landler, L. U.S. and China reach climate accord after months of talks. New York Times (11 November 2014);

  42. 42

    Plumer, B. The US and China just reached a major climate deal on cutting emissions. Vox (11 November 2014).

  43. 43

    Walton, R. E. & McKersie, R. B. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System (Cornell Univ. Press, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Najam, A. in Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 1999/2000 (eds Bergesen, H. O., Parmann, G. & Thommessen, Ø. B.) 65–75 (Earthscan, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Ostrom, E. in Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy (eds Bromley, D. W. et al.) 293–318 (ICS Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    McCarthy, S. Bitter recriminations highlight climate-summit rift. Globe and Mail (22 November 2013).

  47. 47

    Prins, G. & Rayner, S. Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature 449, 973–975 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Financial support for this project is provided by the Swedish Research Council (FORMAS) grant, COMMONS. My Ostrom Workshop colleagues E. Brondizio and M. McGinnis provided invaluable support and advice. I am grateful to P. Grossman, M. Oppenheimer, B. Rudyk, R. Stewart, M. Vandenbergh, J. Walker and participants in the Workshop on Building Block Strategies for Global Climate Action at NYU Law School (December 2013) for comments and suggestions. Last but certainly not least, P. Lezotte provided exceptional editorial assistance.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel H. Cole.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cole, D. Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Clim Change 5, 114–118 (2015).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing