Data dan Analisa Disertasi Maulana Agung Wibowo

<i>Climate change constitutes a multidimensional global crisis, reflecting the failure of environmental governance to coordinate economic, social, technological, and institutional systems in an integrated and functional manner. Structural fragmentation has weakened cross-sectoral cohesion, triggered policy inconsistencies, and enabled the dominance of technocratic strategies that fail to address the systemic roots of carbon emissions. Climate policy frameworks have largely assumed a symbolic character, reinforcing institutional status quos rather than delivering structural transformation. This study aims to identify the structural drivers of carbon emissions through inter-systemic interactions, assess the alignment between axiological values and institutional strategies across national climate documents, and formulate a conceptual framework for adaptive, just, and sustainable governance transformation.</i><i>The research employs a polycentric governance perspective and applies a mixed-methods design integrating qualitative and quantitative secondary data. Qualitative data derive from thematic coding of 73 countries’ climate governance documents submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS). Quantitative data stem from reputable sources such as the World Bank, UNDP, ITU, and WIPO, encompassing carbon emissions indicators and relevant economic, social, technological, and political-legal dimensions.</i><i>The study uses Shannon entropy for data normalisation and applies three analytical approaches. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) identifies carbon emission determinants and evaluates climate governance typologies. Evolutionary Game Simulations with Imperfect Information explore strategic responses to risks and returns under various governance configurations. These two methods underpin a Critical Discourse Analysis that deciphers normative biases, policy discourses, and institutional transformation pathways.</i><i>The structural model confirms that per capita emissions do not result from indirect inter-systemic interactions. Instead, political institutional quality serves as the systemic node that determines the extent to which dominant variables—such as sectoral productivity and innovation readiness—translate into environmental outcomes. The root causes of emissions stem from fragmented systemic characteristics and limited inter-sectoral integration, rather than technical capacity deficits or sector-specific policy failures.</i><i>The analysis of climate governance across 73 countries reveals that institutional effectiveness depends on the cooperation between strategic approaches and normative orientations. Structural modelling of technocratic-market versus community-regenerative typologies shows that market-oriented strategies significantly influence institutional adjustment, whereas normative values alone exert a negligible impact. Under conditions of imperfect information, national policies favour economic efficiency and market logic, resulting in disjointed planning between NDCs and LT-LEDS. Approximately 44% of countries act as status-quo stabilisers, prioritising short-term economic growth and political stability while compromising long-term institutional resilience—highlighting a reliance on pragmatic incentive structures within underdeveloped institutional settings.</i><i>Overall, the findings demonstrate that global climate governance strategies do not merely reflect policy failures but rather function as systemic mechanisms that sustain elite dominance through accumulative (greed), defensive (fear), and hegemonic (power) motives, mediated by egocentric governance architectures. Five core social problems—unequal crisis burden distribution, value-strategy disconnection, market-solution dominance, marginalisation of socio-ecological interests, and institutional legitimacy crises—emerge not as anomalies but as systemic symptoms of power reproduction. Accordingly, the climate transition agenda cannot rely solely on technocratic tools or market instruments; it requires a paradigmatic reconstruction of value systems, incentive architectures, and institutional functions.</i><i>Within this context, the recognition of nature as a national asset—operationalised through the concept of Regenerative Gross Domestic Product, ecological equity shares based on environmental impacts, and institutional representation via national treasury bodies—offers not just a conceptual innovation. Yet, it is a transformative foundation for redefining the economic, ecological, and justice relationship within a sustainable climate governance framework.</i>