Mikael Hildén

Prof. Mikael Hildén


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
21 July 2014 in Environmental Politics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MHMikael Hildén
Mikael Hildén
AJAndrew Jordan
Andrew Jordan
TRTim Rayner
Tim Rayner
A key dimension of the debate about policy innovation is the extent to which new policies achieve significant and lasting effects on the problems they purport to address. However, little is known about such effects. We break new ground by investigating how far current evaluation practices in a policy system with relatively ambitious climate policies – the European Union – identify the most effective (carbon-reducing) policies. We find that a small number of policy instruments are projected to deliver the lion’s share of emission reductions. Setting aside the special case of emissions trading, these instruments are not particularly innovative. If significant practical and political obstacles can be addressed, more (detailed) evaluations could enhance the evidence base and also the political prospects for delivering deeper emissions cuts through to 2050. An evaluation perspective could also offer a very different way to consider policy innovation dynamics.

24 May 2018 in Policy Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DHDave Huitema
Dave Huitema
AJAndrew Jordan
Andrew Jordan
SMStefania Munaretto
Stefania Munaretto
MHMikael Hildén
Mikael Hildén
The experimentalist 'turn' in science In the last two decades, many areas of the social sciences have embraced an 'experimentalist turn'. It is well known for instance that experiments are a key ingredient in the emergence of behavioral economics, but they are also increasingly popular in sociology, political science, planning, and in architecture (see McDermott 2002). It seems that the potential advantages of experiments are better appreciated today than they were in the past. But the turn towards experimentalism is not without its critics. In her passionate plea for more experimentation in political science for instance, McDermott (2002: 42) observes how many political scientists are hesitant: they are more interested in large-scale multiple regression work, lack training in experimentation, do not see how experiments could fit into a broader research strategy, and alternative movements in political science (such as constructivists and postmodernists) consider that experimental work is not able to capture complexities and nuances. Representing some of these criticisms, Howe (2004) suggests

15 February 2013 in Public Understanding of Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MLMatti Luokkanen
Matti Luokkanen
SHSuvi Huttunen
Suvi Huttunen
MHMikael Hildén
Mikael Hildén
We analyze how metaphors are used in presenting and debating novel technologies that could influence the climate and thereby also future climate change policies. We show that metaphors strengthen a policy-related storyline, while metaphors are rarer in purely descriptive accounts. The choice of metaphor frames the technologies. War metaphors are used equally in arguments that are for, against and neutral with respect to the further development of geoengineering, but differences arise in the use of metaphors related to controllability, health and mechanisms. Controllability metaphors are often used in justifying further research and development of good governance practices, whereas health metaphors tend to be used against the very idea of geoengineering by portraying technological interventions in the climate as an emblematic case of an unacceptable development. These findings suggest that metaphors are early indications of restrictions in the interpretative flexibility that influences future governance of geoengineering and geoengineering research.

23 January 2019 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SHSampsa Hyysalo
Sampsa Hyysalo
JLJani Lukkarinen
Jani Lukkarinen
PKPaula Kivimaa
Paula Kivimaa
RLRaimo Lovio
Raimo Lovio
ATArmi Temmes
Armi Temmes
MPMari Pantsar
Mari Pantsar
Sustainability transitions require new policy pathways that significantly reduce the environmental impacts caused by, for example, energy production, mobility and food production. Transition management (TM) is one of the approaches aiming at the creation of new ways to govern transitions. It uses transitions arenas (TA) as a key process and platform where new policy pathways are created in collaboration with multiple (frontrunner) stakeholders. TM’s ambitious and demanding agenda is not easy to implement. There is a continued need for testing and developing new ways of carrying out its key processes. We redesigned the TA process in the context of energy system change in Finland by 2030, focusing on interim goals, mid-range change pathways and developing a new notation system that allows participants to directly create the pathways. The resulting renewed TA process results in more specific and detailed mid-range pathways that provide more concreteness to how to implement long-term transition goals. It helps to bridge long-term national visions/strategies and low carbon experiments that are already running. The Finnish TA work created eight ambitious change pathways, pointing towards new and revised policy goals for Finland and identifying specific policy actions. Evaluation of the TA, 6–9 months after its completion underscores that an effective TA needs to be embedded by design in the particular political context that it seeks to influence. It is too early to say to what degree the pathways will be followed in practice but there are positive signs already.

3 July 2020 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DRDuncan Russel
Duncan Russel
SCSergio Castellari
Sergio Castellari
ACAlessio Capriolo
Alessio Capriolo
SDSuraje Dessai
Suraje Dessai
MHMikael Hildén
Mikael Hildén
JTJenny Tröltzsch
Jenny Tröltzsch
Climate change adaptation (CCA) is argued to require coordinated policy responses because it is a complex, long-term, knowledge intensive, cross-sectoral, and multi-level governance challenge that involves many interdependencies and actors with different perceptions, goals, and approaches. This study, therefore, examines approaches of a set of European Union (EU) member states (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (England)) to pursue a more coordinated approach to CCA policy. It specifically addresses the co-ordination approaches that the selected countries use for the development and implementation of their national CCA policies in the immediate period following the publication of the EU’s 2013 Adaptation Strategy. The analysis demonstrates that while useful coordination processes have been established in the analyzed EU member states, they have difficulty in challenging existing institutional hierarchies and decision rules. Consequently, longer-term opportunities for managing CCA conflicts and synergies among sectoral policies have to date been limited.

1 July 2008 in Sustainable Development
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MHMikael Hildén
Mikael Hildén
URUlla Rosenström
Ulla Rosenström