**2. The complexity of policy discourse**

In the study of public responses to social and environmental problems two opposing per‐ spectives have dominated the academic debate: the objectivist (or naïve realist) and the so‐ cial constructivist approaches. Objectivists define social problems as objectively given, selfevident, without any measurement problem. From this perspective, changes in the atmosphere and their consequences can be determined in an objective and definitive way. They also assume that rational and well informed actors can develop an optimal adaptation strategy [14]. Yet from a constructivist point of view, a social problem *"exists primarily in terms of how it is defined and conceived in society"* [15]. Thus, climate change only turns into a social problem when individuals or groups conceive it to be a threat to nature and society. The individual as well as the collective perception of risk are thereby influenced by social, cultural and political contexts [14, 16].

In this paper we will apply a specific form of quantitative discourse analysis to the de‐ bate on global warming and related policy decisions. Since qualitative discourse analysis runs short in terms of transparency, comparability and replicability, we use various methods of quantitative structural analysis to specify the role of actors and their interre‐ lations within the policy discourses on climate change [6]. Recent methodological devel‐ opments, namely the combination of category-based, computer-assisted, qualitative content analysis and social network analysis [7-9] provide new possibilities to analyze discourse coalitions, actor constellations, conflict structures, and their dynamics at the

The specific goal of our paper is to trace and interpret the evolution of German public discourse on climate change in terms of punctuated equilibrium theory (PE theory), which is a distinctive version of evolution theory in the natural and social sciences. It re‐ jects gradualist assumptions and emphasizes discontinuities in processes at all levels which have been triggered by great and singular events [10]. When applied to social de‐ velopments, PE theory explains policy change as a result of major shifts in the public perception of a policy issue, which in turn is triggered by focal, and often "external" events [11]. These processes are intermediated by negative and positive feedback mecha‐

Our study will assess core propositions of PE theory with respect to the impact of the finan‐ cial crisis on the German climate discourse between 2007 and 2010. Germany has been wide‐ ly acknowledged to be a front-runner in climate policy on the European and global level. A commonly accepted explanation is that intense public participation and strong public con‐ sensus based on "ecological modernization" have contributed to this success. Even though this consensus has dominated the German discourse for over two decades, some scholars [12, 13] have issued concerns that it might prove to be unstable. Since its peak in 2007, public attention to the issue of climate change has been declining. Our data show that this downswing seems to have been strongly amplified due to the financial and economic crisis in 2008 and 2009. In the context of this massive downturn, actors changed their discursive be‐

Our paper proceeds in three steps. In the next section we will give a short outline of various theoretical perspectives in the analysis of policy discourse, emphasizing punctuated equili‐ brium theory. Our third section proposes a formal and quantitative approach to structural analysis of discourse configurations that are linked to actor networks. In the fourth section we will apply this approach to policy discourse in the domain of global warming in Germa‐ ny under the influence of the recent economic crisis. In the conclusions we summarize our

In the study of public responses to social and environmental problems two opposing per‐ spectives have dominated the academic debate: the objectivist (or naïve realist) and the so‐

level of discourses and policy debates.

158 Environmental Change and Sustainability

nisms that accelerate or slow down developments.

havior, impacting actor positions and frame constellations.

findings and raise some question for further analysis.

**2. The complexity of policy discourse**

Over the last twenty years environmental issues have inspired discourse analysis within different sub-disciplines of social sciences, e.g. communication science, science and tech‐ nology studies, as well as policy science. These studies share the conviction that the con‐ structivist perspective is especially fertile with respect to issues that are characterized by long time frames, large uncertainty and high ambiguity. Climate change matches all these characteristics:

*Long time frames.* Significant changes within the atmosphere emerge "creepingly" over long periods that do not correspond to the time horizon of everyday life experience. Society thus depends on scientific research to detect, anticipate and communicate these risks. In that way, scientific facts only attract public interest and political concern if they can be linked to social threats and possible solutions [1, 14].

*Uncertainty.* While human influence on climate change is widely accepted in contemporary science, uncertainties remain about its future development and consequences [17, 18]. Scien‐ tific forecasts vary along modeling techniques and measurement methods [14]. Uncertainty complicates risk assessment and communication. Under these conditions, objective cost-ben‐ efit analysis of precautionary measures turns into a "mission impossible".

*Ambiguity.* This property can be defined as a *"state of having many ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena"* [19]. While uncertainty may be reduced by further informa‐ tion, additional information does not reduce ambiguity. Even if there is a complete spread of scientific information, different people will have different perceptions of the problem. For instance, climate change can be understood as a risk to biodiversity, human health, econom‐ ic development, social equity or political stability. These different problem definitions may not be reconcilable, and hence create vagueness, confusion and conflict [2].

Some social scientists concerned with climate change see their research on a "pragmatic middle ground" between objectivism and constructivism, denying neither that threats are objectively given nor that public perception is subject to significant variation. Especially risk communication researchers are concerned with how objective expert information can be ef‐ fectively communicated to the public [20]. However, these approaches fail to acknowledge the role of actors and their particular interests to influence public perception – from risks as‐ sessment to the reporting and public interpretation of these risks [14]. The constructivist per‐ spective highlights that actor relations and cultural contexts in science, culture and the public sphere are more relevant for the debate on climate change than is the quality of infor‐ mation [14]. Thus, public discourse has to be linked to actor constellations in the policy proc‐ ess. It is this relational dimension that differentiates our method of discourse analysis from traditional forms of discourse analysis within other sub-disciplines of social sciences.

Policy research has traditionally regarded policy making as a linear problem-solving process of a simple "conceive-decide-implement" sequence, starting with problems that are defined in an objectivist perspective [21]. However, the growing complexity of policy problems nurtured skepticism about the rationality of such processes. Policy analysts now increasingly acknowledge that distinct value orientations, specific information proc‐ essing capacities, and subjective lines of argumentation and interpretation are influencing the policy process. In this perspective, public discourses have to be seen as essential components of policy making [6, 22].

With respect to discourses on climate change, a number of studies have examined the rise and decline of issue attention in public arenas as well as the evolution of political agendas in this policy domain. Studies focused on changes of the public perception of climate change as a social problem as well as the role of different social sub-systems such as science, politics and the media during the successive stages of the issue's career [12, 23, 24]. Some scholars tried to map problem perceptions and conflict lines to explore the possibilities of policy con‐ sensus [25, 26]. Malone [27] used a network approach to map similarities between "families" of arguments. Analyzing narrative structures within environmental discourse, Hajer [28] ex‐ amined how actors build discourse coalitions around story lines that integrate situational factors, general problem interpretations and policy interests within a coherent narrative. Fisher et al. [29], using a methodology similar to ours, analyze discussions about climate change within US Congress and display how consensus around the issue emerged during its 110th session (January 3, 2007–January 3, 2009).

While all these studies have emphasized the need for communication and mediation in pub‐ lic debates, only some of them have conceptualized discourse as an integral part of the poli‐ cy process. In addition, some of the studies display quite serious methodological deficiencies. For instance, interpretative "process tracing" and "case studies" often raise problems with respect to transparency, replicability and comparability [5]. Qualitative ap‐ proaches inherently concentrate attention only to relatively few actors and relations, without taking into account the vast plurality and heterogeneity of actors, the multiplicity of linkag‐ es, and the complexity of discourse configurations.

For some time, there have been certain theories in policy analysis in which emphasize dis‐ course elements such as ideas or beliefs. One example is the Advocacy Coalition Frame‐ work, which describes the policy process as a struggle between different coalitions that share similar belief systems and tries to establish these beliefs as the dominant policy inter‐ pretation within a policy subsystem [30]. In the perspective of the Multiple Stream Ap‐ proach, policy entrepreneurs use discursive tactics to link policy problems to their preferred policy solutions [2].

In the present paper we use Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PE theory), which emphasizes the role of policy venues, policy images, and the impact of large singular events: policy ac‐ tors try to alter the institutional arena within which a given issue is negotiated (venue) to promote their values and policy beliefs (policy image). Actors attempt to transform the over‐ all "issue culture" by persuading undecided participants or mobilizing hitherto uninvolved actors. In this content external and/or internal focal events can have a deep impact on policy development. Public attention to specific issues may suddenly rise or shift towards other is‐ sues, thereby attracting new policy actors and restructuring policy discourse. However, it depends on policy feedbacks whether this intrusion creates a serious challenge to the domi‐ nant policy image or the deep-rooted actor constellations. Positive feedbacks (e.g. bandwag‐ on effects, social learning or political entrepreneurship) enhance policy change whereas negative feedbacks (e.g. access barriers or coalition building to sustain the present policy im‐ age) reinforce existing images or constellations [11, 31-33].

mation [14]. Thus, public discourse has to be linked to actor constellations in the policy proc‐ ess. It is this relational dimension that differentiates our method of discourse analysis from

Policy research has traditionally regarded policy making as a linear problem-solving process of a simple "conceive-decide-implement" sequence, starting with problems that are defined in an objectivist perspective [21]. However, the growing complexity of policy problems nurtured skepticism about the rationality of such processes. Policy analysts now increasingly acknowledge that distinct value orientations, specific information proc‐ essing capacities, and subjective lines of argumentation and interpretation are influencing the policy process. In this perspective, public discourses have to be seen as essential

With respect to discourses on climate change, a number of studies have examined the rise and decline of issue attention in public arenas as well as the evolution of political agendas in this policy domain. Studies focused on changes of the public perception of climate change as a social problem as well as the role of different social sub-systems such as science, politics and the media during the successive stages of the issue's career [12, 23, 24]. Some scholars tried to map problem perceptions and conflict lines to explore the possibilities of policy con‐ sensus [25, 26]. Malone [27] used a network approach to map similarities between "families" of arguments. Analyzing narrative structures within environmental discourse, Hajer [28] ex‐ amined how actors build discourse coalitions around story lines that integrate situational factors, general problem interpretations and policy interests within a coherent narrative. Fisher et al. [29], using a methodology similar to ours, analyze discussions about climate change within US Congress and display how consensus around the issue emerged during

While all these studies have emphasized the need for communication and mediation in pub‐ lic debates, only some of them have conceptualized discourse as an integral part of the poli‐ cy process. In addition, some of the studies display quite serious methodological deficiencies. For instance, interpretative "process tracing" and "case studies" often raise problems with respect to transparency, replicability and comparability [5]. Qualitative ap‐ proaches inherently concentrate attention only to relatively few actors and relations, without taking into account the vast plurality and heterogeneity of actors, the multiplicity of linkag‐

For some time, there have been certain theories in policy analysis in which emphasize dis‐ course elements such as ideas or beliefs. One example is the Advocacy Coalition Frame‐ work, which describes the policy process as a struggle between different coalitions that share similar belief systems and tries to establish these beliefs as the dominant policy inter‐ pretation within a policy subsystem [30]. In the perspective of the Multiple Stream Ap‐ proach, policy entrepreneurs use discursive tactics to link policy problems to their preferred

In the present paper we use Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PE theory), which emphasizes the role of policy venues, policy images, and the impact of large singular events: policy ac‐

traditional forms of discourse analysis within other sub-disciplines of social sciences.

components of policy making [6, 22].

160 Environmental Change and Sustainability

its 110th session (January 3, 2007–January 3, 2009).

es, and the complexity of discourse configurations.

policy solutions [2].

In general, most analyses based on PE theory track policies over long periods to identify pat‐ terns of policy stasis and abrupt punctuations. Our analysis will concentrate on rather short intervals, starting one year before the financial crisis as a "punctuating event" and ending in the first quarter of 2010.

This study conceptualizes discourses as communication processes permitting "*policy issues and conflicts to be collectively understood and defined, (...), meanings to be shared and reconstructed, and arguments to be set forth, debated, and eventually institutionalized*" [34]. Such a view of poli‐ cy discourse implicitly uses a network perspective of policy making in which decisions and programs are not merely structured by formal institutions and few governmental actors but rather by complex informal relations between multiple and heterogeneous policy actors [35]. Policy systems are functionally differentiated into various sub-systems evolving around spe‐ cific policy issues, and are composed of actors who regularly seek to influence policy proc‐ esses that are guided by beliefs and interests.

It is useful to distinguish among two types of policy discourse: *sub-system specific* and more *general public discourse*. Discourses take place in different forums or arenas in which individ‐ ual or collective actors present their issue interpretation while the audience is observing and evaluating. Actors contribute to discourses in order to persuade others and the audience to adopt their issue perspective [36, 37]. According to PE theory, a high degree of consensus within sub-system specific discourses favors policy making in terms of routine procedures, and in most cases policies evolve in an incremental manner [32]. During the normal course of policy making, actors tend to communicate predominantly within established policy cir‐ cles [38]. If one or several sub-system members disagree with the dominant problem percep‐ tion, they try to change the venue of discussion, i.e. they push the issue to the public arena where a broader and more heterogeneous audience can be addressed.

Based on different communication technologies, there are various kinds of public discourse arenas of which this study considers the mass media to have the largest impact on the policy debate. Although principally everybody can participate in the mass media forum (at least as a member of the audience), editors and journalists enjoy privileged positions since they ex‐ ert some control with respect to who can say what, when and how. Thus, public arenas can be biased by power coalitions in which media actors play an important role as well. In con‐ trast to discourses at the sub-system level, issues are discussed controversially in public dis‐ courses. Heterogeneous actors contribute to different problem definitions, and dominant or consensual policy images are established only by way of tedious debates.

Another facet of discourse arenas is their limited *carrying capacity*: only few problems can be addressed at once [39]. While the respective subsystems specialize on a given issue, in most cases a bunch of issues compete for attention. Their competitiveness depends on *novelty* and *dramatic value*. According to Downs [40], public attention follows a cyclical pattern of rise and decline. Such issue cycles have been extensively discussed in the literature, wherein two points have been emphasized: firstly, major external events catalyze issue attention because they create a sense of dramatic crisis that cannot be sustained in their absence [41, 42]. Sec‐ ondly, claims-making activities alone cannot explain that one issue attracts more public at‐ tention than another [43], but they play an important role in connecting a specific event to the definition of a policy problem [44].

This study distinguishes four stages of collective problem redefinition within public dis‐ course [45]:

*Entry and exit.* Individual and corporate actors (just like the discourse arena) have limited carrying capacities. Because of limitations in time, budget and personnel, they can only process few issues at a time [39]. When there is extensive media coverage of an issue, some actors that were not interested in the issue prior to a media hype now become engaged in public discourse either because they realize the problem's importance or because they use it as an occasion for self-promotion or other policy strategies.

*Framing*. Problem definitions depend on framing, which is "*a way of selecting, organizing, in‐ terpreting, and making sense of a complex reality to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing, per‐ suading and acting*" [46]. Frames enable actors to get some understanding of complex situations and facilitate communication and action with regard to a perceived problem. The way an issue is framed impacts on whether people notice a problem, how they understand it and what viable solution they take into consideration. The framing of an issue is not neces‐ sarily constant – neither the individual nor the collective way of framing. Actors aim to get their frame recognized as the authoritative version of "reality" [36].

*Salience.* This concept describes how much a frame dominates the discourse [47]. A frame has a low salience if it is used rarely by few actors whereas its salience is high if it is used repeatedly by many actors. When attention to an issue rises or declines, shifts in actor con‐ stellations also generate changes in frame constellations. New actors contribute to new frames while old frames vanish when their supportive actors leave the discourse arena [45].

*Proposal and debate.* Changes in the collective framing of an issue also changes influence de‐ bates on policy measures. Based on the multiple stream approach, proponents of PE theory expect that political actors are sometimes more interested in making sure that "their" policy solutions are adopted than in what problem these solutions address [45, 48]. During phases of collective problem redefinition policy entrepreneurs promote their policy ideas as solu‐ tions for the problem under discussion. As these ideas do not derive rationally from prob‐ lem perceptions, they are nevertheless expected to be compatible with different problem interpretations.

An extended application of this approach to policy discourse would suggest that we have data on various discourse arenas and policy venues. Within the constraints of this study we had to concentrate on the discourse at the mass media level. In this respect, our theorybased expectations are that the financial and economic crisis was a punctuating event with regard to actor and discourse dynamics. During and after the crisis we expect significant change in the actor constellation and in the structure of discourse. Both will be measured and described with some methods of social network analysis.
