actions (Etheredge 1981, cited in Bennett and
Howlett 1992). This essentially outlines how
C2CL should be understood.
Just like government learning also lesson
drawing comes very close to how C2CL is
understood in this chapter. Rose (1991) defined it
as ‘a particular type of learning in which policymakers learn from both, the positive and negative
experiences of others: ‘confronted with common
problems, policy-makers in cities, regional governments, and nations can learn from how their
counterparts elsewhere respond. More than that,
it raises the possibility that policy-makers can
draw lessons that will help them deal better with
their own problems’ (Rose 1991). Also, lesson
drawing should be understood as a framework
‘which favors an analytical approach in which
learning from evidence-based actions, rather than
just copying “best practices,” is a preferred form
of policy transfer and considered key to successful policy change’ (Radaelli 2004 and Rose
2002 cited in Montero 2017).
Another often applied theoretical framework
when examining the sharing of information and
knowledge is policy transfer. Policy transfer
documents and explains the (international)
movement of policies (Lovell 2016) and aims to
understand the different factors that restrict or
facilitate this transfer process (Dolowitz and
Marsh 1996, 2000). It relates to a notion of some
national policymakers who follow the assumption that importing ‘innovatory policy developed
elsewhere in the belief that it will be similarly
successful in a different context’ (Stone 1999).
An approach that mainly emerged as a critical
response to policy transfer is policy mobility. It
highlights the mobile and changeable character
of policies, assuming that ‘policies rarely travel
as complete “packages,” they move in bits and
pieces—as selective discourses, inchoate ideas,
and synthesised models—and they therefore
“arrive” not as replicas but as policies already-intransformation’ (Peck and Theodore 2010, 170).
In sum, policy mobility acknowledges how
knowledge is mobilised and aims at understanding how ideas become hegemonic and global (McCann 2011). What significantly
distinguishes C2CL from both, policy transfer
and policy mobility is the rather minor role of the
actual policy. Instead C2CL, as understood in
this chapter, focuses on the learning processes
among individuals of different cities and how
they can be established and optimised.
To sum it up, the authors understand C2CL as
a process of mutual learning among municipal
policymakers and their peers in other cities that
face comparable challenges and work in similar
environments. Those learning exchanges are of
particular importance because of rapidly occurring changes, with one of the main causes being
climate change, and the consequential necessity
to adapt fast. The emphasis is on a two-way
traffic flow of information. This means that the
involved individuals should mainly learn and
improve together. Also, it is important to keep in
mind that C2CL never means city A is learning
from city B but person A from city A is learning
from and with person B from city B. Ultimately,
the social and personal skills of the involved
stakeholders will determine the outcome and
development of learning exchanges among cities.
3 Exploring Transnational City
Networks that Address Climate
Change Adaptation
3.1 Networks in the Academic
Literature
Cities are increasingly playing a key role within
the global debates and policies about climate
governance (Bulkeley 2010; Rosenzweig et al.
2010). The start was made in the early nineties
when a few pioneering municipalities framed the
first transnational climate change networks. Their
aim was to share data, experiences and roadmaps
about their policies (Bulkeley and Schroeder
2012). Subsequently, in the last decade, there has
been a consistent growth of cities’ networks
(ibd.). The key move was about local governments taking the lead ahead of their national
governments, aspiring to put their names on the
global map (Pattberg and Widerberg 2015).
Increasingly considered as global climate governors (Gordon, 2016) cities started facing an
City-to-City Learning Within City Networks …
227
Howlett 1992). This essentially outlines how
C2CL should be understood.
Just like government learning also lesson
drawing comes very close to how C2CL is
understood in this chapter. Rose (1991) defined it
as ‘a particular type of learning in which policymakers learn from both, the positive and negative
experiences of others: ‘confronted with common
problems, policy-makers in cities, regional governments, and nations can learn from how their
counterparts elsewhere respond. More than that,
it raises the possibility that policy-makers can
draw lessons that will help them deal better with
their own problems’ (Rose 1991). Also, lesson
drawing should be understood as a framework
‘which favors an analytical approach in which
learning from evidence-based actions, rather than
just copying “best practices,” is a preferred form
of policy transfer and considered key to successful policy change’ (Radaelli 2004 and Rose
2002 cited in Montero 2017).
Another often applied theoretical framework
when examining the sharing of information and
knowledge is policy transfer. Policy transfer
documents and explains the (international)
movement of policies (Lovell 2016) and aims to
understand the different factors that restrict or
facilitate this transfer process (Dolowitz and
Marsh 1996, 2000). It relates to a notion of some
national policymakers who follow the assumption that importing ‘innovatory policy developed
elsewhere in the belief that it will be similarly
successful in a different context’ (Stone 1999).
An approach that mainly emerged as a critical
response to policy transfer is policy mobility. It
highlights the mobile and changeable character
of policies, assuming that ‘policies rarely travel
as complete “packages,” they move in bits and
pieces—as selective discourses, inchoate ideas,
and synthesised models—and they therefore
“arrive” not as replicas but as policies already-intransformation’ (Peck and Theodore 2010, 170).
In sum, policy mobility acknowledges how
knowledge is mobilised and aims at understanding how ideas become hegemonic and global (McCann 2011). What significantly
distinguishes C2CL from both, policy transfer
and policy mobility is the rather minor role of the
actual policy. Instead C2CL, as understood in
this chapter, focuses on the learning processes
among individuals of different cities and how
they can be established and optimised.
To sum it up, the authors understand C2CL as
a process of mutual learning among municipal
policymakers and their peers in other cities that
face comparable challenges and work in similar
environments. Those learning exchanges are of
particular importance because of rapidly occurring changes, with one of the main causes being
climate change, and the consequential necessity
to adapt fast. The emphasis is on a two-way
traffic flow of information. This means that the
involved individuals should mainly learn and
improve together. Also, it is important to keep in
mind that C2CL never means city A is learning
from city B but person A from city A is learning
from and with person B from city B. Ultimately,
the social and personal skills of the involved
stakeholders will determine the outcome and
development of learning exchanges among cities.
3 Exploring Transnational City
Networks that Address Climate
Change Adaptation
3.1 Networks in the Academic
Literature
Cities are increasingly playing a key role within
the global debates and policies about climate
governance (Bulkeley 2010; Rosenzweig et al.
2010). The start was made in the early nineties
when a few pioneering municipalities framed the
first transnational climate change networks. Their
aim was to share data, experiences and roadmaps
about their policies (Bulkeley and Schroeder
2012). Subsequently, in the last decade, there has
been a consistent growth of cities’ networks
(ibd.). The key move was about local governments taking the lead ahead of their national
governments, aspiring to put their names on the
global map (Pattberg and Widerberg 2015).
Increasingly considered as global climate governors (Gordon, 2016) cities started facing an
City-to-City Learning Within City Networks …
227