The research arrives at a moment when the question of state capacity has become urgent far beyond South Asia. Classic accounts of state-building, from Charles Tilly’s work on war-making to Fukuyama’s writing on governance and world order, have long treated capacity as something that accumulates slowly through revenue extraction, bureaucracy and coercive reach. Wealthy, well-staffed agencies were assumed to be the precondition for effective policy. Yet scholars such as David Leonard, Erin McDonnell and the ‘pockets of effectiveness’ literature have documented a puzzling counter-pattern: effective agencies and successful reforms sometimes flourish inside institutionally fragile states. The new study pushes this idea further by asking not whether such pockets exist, but what mechanisms allow them to emerge and to operate across multiple scales of government simultaneously.

To answer that question, the authors assembled three policy cases that span the full vertical architecture of Indian governance. At the national level they examined the National Action Plan on Climate Change, the flagship framework unveiled in 2008 that organized India’s climate response into a set of national missions. At the sub-national level they turned to law and order reforms in Bihar, an eastern Indian state that for decades was synonymous with poor governance before undergoing a striking turnaround in policing and criminal justice after 2005. At the city level they studied climate action in Rajkot, a fast-growing Gujarati municipality that developed a climate-resilient city action plan with help from international networks such as ICLEI and the CapaCITIES programme. Three cases, three scales, one central puzzle: how did low-capacity settings produce real policy outcomes?

The answer, the authors argue, lies in four interconnected strategies that recur across all three cases. The first is socio-political learning, the process by which policymakers absorb lessons from other jurisdictions, from their own past failures and from shifting social expectations, and convert those lessons into new policy designs. The concept echoes Hugh Heclo’s famous description of politics as ‘puzzling’ as well as powering, and the study revives that pairing as an analytical toolkit. Learning in weak states, the authors show, is not a luxury reserved for rich bureaucracies; it can be a substitute for them, allowing governments to borrow, adapt and improvise rather than build every institutional component from scratch.

The second strategy is what the literature calls puzzling: deliberate, iterative experimentation in which officials treat policy problems as puzzles to be solved rather than commands to be transmitted. In the Bihar case, police leadership experimented with fast-track courts, conviction-rate monitoring and organizational restructuring to attack a justice system that had effectively collapsed. In the national climate case, policymakers cycled through paradigms, from early framings that treated climate change as an environmental side-issue to later framings that embedded it within development and energy policy. The study draws on prior work by Deshpande and colleagues on India’s policy styles to show that this iterative puzzling, rather than any single master plan, produced the National Action Plan’s distinctive architecture of national missions tailored to different sectors.

The third and fourth strategies, political will and powering, address the political economy that surrounds any reform. Political will in the study refers to the sustained commitment of top leaders to back reforms even when they threaten entrenched interests, a factor that proved decisive in Bihar, where the state’s leadership after 2005 prioritized restoring law and order in a state long dominated by what commentators had called ‘jungle raj’. Powering, meanwhile, captures the mobilization of coalitions, resources and authority needed to push reforms through resistant bureaucracies and political networks. The authors show that these four strategies do not operate in isolation. Learning identifies what to do; puzzling works out how to do it; political will supplies the commitment; and powering assembles the coalition that makes implementation possible.

What makes the study technically interesting is its multi-scalar design. Most state-capacity research focuses on a single level, usually the national state, and most climate governance research either examines international negotiations or individual municipalities. By tracking the same mechanisms across national, state and city levels, Jha and Deshpande demonstrate that policy capacity is not simply a property that a government either has or lacks. It is built relationally, through linkages between scales. The national climate plan created frameworks and missions that cities could localize; international municipal networks such as ICLEI imported templates and technical expertise that a small city bureaucracy could never have generated alone; and sub-national reform in Bihar showed that a state written off as weak could reorganize its core coercive institutions within a few years when the political and bureaucratic incentives aligned.

The Bihar case is likely to draw the most attention from readers of comparative politics. Scholars such as Mukherjee and Moore have described Bihar’s incapacity as in part ‘by design’, the product of political strategies that deliberately kept state institutions weak to serve patronage networks. The new study does not dispute that history, but it documents what happened when the political calculus changed: fast-track courts cleared backlogs, conviction rates rose, and police reforms began to professionalize a force that had been deeply politicized. The lesson is uncomfortable for deterministic accounts of state-building. If weakness was politically constructed, it can also be politically dismantled, and the speed of that dismantling can surprise observers who assume capacity changes only over generations.

The climate cases carry equally consequential implications. India’s cities are on the front line of climate change, facing heat waves, flooding and infrastructure stress, yet most municipal governments have limited revenue, thin technical staff and fragmented authority. Studies by Bhardwaj and Khosla on how Indian city bureaucracies respond to climate change, and by Deshpande on municipal capacities under climate uncertainty, have described cities ‘superimposing’ climate tasks onto existing departments rather than building new institutions. The new research reframes this improvisation not merely as a deficit but as a strategy: low-capacity cities can assemble functional climate capacity by combining external network resources, national mission frameworks and internal learning. Rajkot’s climate-resilient action plan, developed under the CapaCITIES programme, illustrates how a mid-sized municipality can translate global climate discourse into a concrete local planning document without a large dedicated bureaucracy.

The authors are careful about the limits of their claims. The study is a qualitative case analysis built on published literature, policy documents and publicly accessible sources, and the authors state no competing interests. Three Indian cases cannot establish that the four strategies will travel to other weak states, and the abstract itself flags that future research should explore both the potential and the limitations of building policy capacity in weak states. There is also a normative tension the study leaves open: political will and powering depend on leaders and coalitions, which means the mechanisms that build capacity can also be captured by the same patronage politics that destroyed it. Whether learning-driven capacity endures after its political sponsors leave office remains an open empirical question.

Even so, the findings land at a propitious time. Donor agencies and international organizations have spent decades importing institutional blueprints into weak states with discouraging results, and the ‘pockets of effectiveness’ literature suggests the problem lies partly in ignoring how effective governance actually emerges. By specifying mechanisms, learning, puzzling, political will and powering, and by showing them operating across scales, the study offers a more actionable account than vague appeals to ‘political commitment’. For the growing community of researchers working on climate governance in the Global South, the message is particularly pointed: the capacity to act on climate change may not wait for the slow construction of a strong state, but can be assembled, case by case and scale by scale, by governments that learn faster than they grow.

Subject of Research: Building policy capacity across multiple scales of government in a weak or middling state, using Indian climate and governance reforms as case studies

Article Title: Governing across scales: building policy capacity in weak state

Article References: Jha, H., & Deshpande, T. (2026). Governing across scales: building policy capacity in weak state. Global Public Policy and Governance, 6(1), 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-026-00142-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43508-026-00142-2

Keywords: state capacity, policy capacity, India, Bihar, climate governance, National Action Plan on Climate Change, multi-level governance, policy learning, political will, urban climate action, public administration, Global Public Policy and Governance

Nationally Determined Contributions are cornerstone commitments under the Paris Agreement, detailing how countries plan to limit global warming through emissions reductions and resilience-building measures. While these pledges are crucial, the study highlights a fundamental misalignment: NDCs tend to present a top-down framework that inadequately reflects or integrates the heterogeneous and complex nature of urban governance. Cities, as epicenters of population density, economic activity, and emissions, possess distinct challenges and capacities that require tailored climate strategies rigorously synchronized with national ambitions.

The authors underscore that this governance gap persists because fragmented institutional structures and competing priorities undermine cohesive climate policy integration. At the national level, climate action is often crafted with macroeconomic and international negotiation considerations in mind, while municipal governments grapple with on-the-ground realities such as infrastructure constraints, social inequities, and diverse stakeholder interests. Consequently, NDCs frequently lack the granularity needed to effectively guide urban climate efforts, leaving a vacuum that cities struggle to fill without adequate support or coordination mechanisms.

Technical examination within the study reveals that the multilevel governance gap is not merely a function of administrative oversight but is embedded in the structural design of climate policy frameworks. The researchers employ a comparative analysis of NDCs from various countries and their corresponding urban climate plans, exposing inconsistencies in ambition levels, funding allocations, and monitoring mechanisms. Their findings demonstrate that cities are often excluded from the formulation process of NDCs, resulting in limited opportunity to influence national targets or secure resources crucial for local implementation.

This exclusion has significant implications for climate action efficacy. Urban environments are responsible for over 70% of global CO2 emissions, according to the study’s synthesis of recent emission inventories. Without coherent integration, the ambitious carbon reduction goals articulated by countries risk stagnation at the local level, hampering efforts toward sustainable development and climate resilience. The authors argue that closing this gap is indispensable for achieving the temperature thresholds delineated in the Paris Agreement.

Moreover, the paper articulates that cities often develop their own climate action plans to fill the void left by insufficient national guidance. However, such fragmentation can create misalignment with broader national strategies, leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities for synergies. This scenario complicates accountability and tracking of progress toward global climate targets, heightening the risk of underperformance and policy incoherence across different levels of governance.

In response, the researchers call for an overhaul of multilevel climate governance structures to foster better collaboration and integration. They advocate for the institutionalization of vertical coordination mechanisms that formalize the participation of municipal authorities in NDC development processes. This includes establishing platforms for knowledge exchange, shared goal-setting, and joint monitoring, allowing cities to voice their needs and leverage national resources optimally.

From a technical standpoint, the study also identifies the necessity of enhancing data systems and modeling tools that bridge the scale between national targets and urban emissions profiles. The lack of high-resolution, disaggregated data impedes the formulation of precise policies and the tracking of emissions at the city level. By investing in improved spatial analytics and integrating urban climate data into national inventories, policymakers can generate actionable insights that drive better-informed decision-making.

Financial mechanisms represent another critical dimension. The authors highlight that funding flows underpinning NDC implementation often bypass urban projects due to centralized budgetary control and the absence of dedicated channels for municipal climate finance. Closing this gap requires reimagining fiscal frameworks that allocate resources equitably, prioritize cities’ climate interventions, and incentivize innovation in sustainable urban infrastructure and services.

The research equally illuminates the role of social equity in bridging the governance gap. Cities are home to diverse populations with varying vulnerabilities, and climate policies must reflect these complexities to be effective and just. National frameworks, when disconnected from local realities, risk perpetuating inequalities or failing to protect marginalized communities. Therefore, integrated governance must embed equity considerations from the outset, ensuring that climate resilience enhances social as well as environmental outcomes.

Importantly, the paper points to emerging examples of best practices where countries have successfully institutionalized multilevel governance approaches. These cases demonstrate that enabling legal frameworks, participatory planning processes, and coordinated budgeting can synergize national ambitions with robust urban implementation. Such models provide valuable blueprints for policy reform across different geopolitical contexts.

The study’s findings present urgent implications as the global community accelerates toward the critical COP summits and mid-century climate neutrality goals. Without addressing the multilevel governance gap, the potential of cities to drive transformative climate action will remain underutilized, undermining collective climate security. Bridging this divide could unlock scalable opportunities for innovation, climate finance mobilization, and community engagement, yielding resilient urban futures compliant with international commitments.

From a broader perspective, the research advocates for reconceptualizing climate governance as a truly multiscalar endeavor. This means reshaping the relationship between national governments and cities into a collaborative partnership framed by mutual accountability and shared ambition. Doing so would represent a paradigm shift in climate policy architecture, fostering coherence and enhancing adaptive capacities at all levels.

For scientists, policymakers, and urban planners alike, this study serves as both a diagnostic and prescriptive guide. It illuminates the systemic fractures in current climate governance and charts a feasible pathway to close existing gaps. The integration of technical innovations in data management, financial realignment, and inclusive policymaking emerges as essential pillars for this transformation.

In conclusion, Tollin and colleagues’ 2026 exploration reveals the critical urgency of harmonizing urban climate action with the commitments embedded in Nationally Determined Contributions. Their comprehensive analysis underscores that without improved coordination, the ambitions set on the global stage will struggle to materialize in the urban realities that shape global emissions trajectories. As cities continue to grow and face escalating climate risks, embracing a multilevel governance framework is not merely desirable but imperative for durable climate progress and sustainable urban futures.

Subject of Research:
Multilevel climate governance focusing on the integration of urban climate action within Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement.

Article Title:
Urban climate action in the Nationally Determined Contributions: exploring the multilevel climate governance gap.

Article References:
Tollin, N., Gragnani, P., Simon, D. et al. Urban climate action in the Nationally Determined Contributions: exploring the multilevel climate governance gap. npj Urban Sustain (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-026-00396-z

Image Credits:
AI Generated

Urban areas account for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissions, making them critical frontiers in mitigating climate change. Sustainability professionals operate at the intersection of policy, technology, and community engagement, orchestrating initiatives that harmonize environmental imperatives with socio-economic realities. Bush et al.’s study relies on empirical data gathered from diverse metropolitan contexts, offering a granular understanding of how sustainability practitioners confront barriers and leverage opportunities within urban systems.

One of the key technical findings revolves around the strategic integration of environmental data analytics within urban planning frameworks. Professionals harness advanced modeling tools to predict the impacts of climate interventions, thereby informing evidence-based decision-making. This quantitative approach, combined with qualitative insights from stakeholder consultations, ensures policies are both scientifically grounded and socially acceptable. The interplay between data-driven methodologies and participatory governance models exemplifies the sophistication of contemporary sustainability practice.

Moreover, the research underscores the importance of cross-sector collaboration, identifying sustainability professionals as essential brokers who bridge gaps between municipal governments, private sector actors, and civil society organizations. Their capacity to navigate divergent interests and facilitate dialogue is instrumental in cultivating consensus around ambitious urban sustainability agendas. The study highlights numerous instances where these professionals have orchestrated partnerships that amplify resource mobilization and enhance scalability of climate initiatives.

The technological dimension features prominently in the professionals’ toolkit, with the adoption of smart city solutions proving transformative. Internet-of-Things (IoT) sensors, real-time air quality monitoring, and energy-efficient infrastructure projects are being integrated into urban landscapes under their stewardship. Such innovations not only improve environmental performance but also enable cities to adapt dynamically to evolving climate threats. Bush et al. reveal how these technologies necessitate a reconfiguration of traditional professional roles, embedding digital fluency alongside environmental expertise.

Equally significant is the focus on equity and inclusivity, as sustainability professionals advocate for climate justice in urban policy design. The study reveals that practitioners often engage marginalized communities disproportionately affected by environmental degradation, ensuring their voices inform decision-making processes. This dimension marks a paradigm shift from technocratic planning toward a more democratic and socially conscious model of urban sustainability. Addressing systemic inequalities is thus inseparable from the broader fight against climate change.

Governance structures within cities are also analyzed through the lens of sustainability expertise. Professionals influence the development of regulatory frameworks that incentivize green building codes, renewable energy adoption, and sustainable transportation networks. Their role in policy innovation extends beyond advisory functions, encompassing active participation in drafting legislation and monitoring compliance. Bush and colleagues argue that embedding professional sustainability roles institutionally is crucial for sustained climate action momentum.

From a methodological standpoint, the research utilizes mixed-methods approaches, merging policy document analysis with in-depth interviews and survey data. This triangulation provides a robust foundation for understanding the nuanced contributions of sustainability professionals. The article situates these findings within theoretical paradigms of urban sustainability transitions, linking individual agency to systemic change dynamics. Such theoretical integration enhances the explanatory power of the study, bridging academic discourse and pragmatic application.

Critically, the paper addresses the challenges confronting sustainability professionals, including resource constraints, political resistance, and knowledge gaps. These hurdles underscore the complexity of operationalizing climate initiatives in urban contexts marked by competing priorities and institutional inertia. The authors advocate for capacity-building efforts that equip practitioners with advanced skills in negotiation, systems thinking, and interdisciplinary collaboration. This professional development is framed as essential to surmounting entrenched barriers.

The systemic nature of urban sustainability necessitates that practitioners adopt a holistic perspective. The researchers highlight how sustainability professionals synthesize environmental, economic, and social dimensions into integrated strategies. This multidimensional outlook contrasts with siloed approaches, fostering synergies that optimize outcomes across diverse urban subsystems. Such integration is operationalized through frameworks like the Urban Nexus, which balance water, energy, and food security in climate action planning.

Another pivotal insight concerns the role of innovation labs and pilot projects spearheaded by sustainability experts. These experimental platforms function as incubators for scalable, context-specific solutions that can be mainstreamed into urban policy. The research spotlights initiatives ranging from green roofs to decentralized energy grids, demonstrating how professionals harness innovation to address localized challenges while contributing to global climate goals. This iterative process of testing and learning strengthens urban adaptability.

Communication emerges as a vital competency, with sustainability professionals tasked with translating complex scientific knowledge into accessible narratives for diverse audiences. This science communication function enhances public engagement and garners political support, both indispensable for advancing climate agendas. The study illustrates how storytelling, visualization tools, and participatory workshops are employed to foster collective understanding and action. Effective communication thus bridges the gap between abstract climate models and lived urban realities.

The findings also emphasize the ethical dimensions underpinning sustainability work. Professionals navigate tensions between competing values, such as economic growth versus environmental preservation. The article probes the normative judgments embedded in professional practice, advocating for reflexivity and transparency in decision-making processes. Such ethical mindfulness strengthens legitimacy and trust, key currencies in public policy implementation.

Looking ahead, the authors propose a strengthened institutional recognition of sustainability professionals through formal accreditation and standardized competencies. This professionalization would enhance legitimacy, career pathways, and influence within urban governance structures. Increasingly, metropolitan governments are recognizing the indispensable nature of these roles in achieving net-zero emissions targets and resilient urban futures. The study thus serves as a clarion call for embedding sustainability expertise within the core architecture of city management.

In sum, Bush et al.’s research provides an incisive exploration of the evolving and critical role sustainability professionals play in steering cities toward environmental and social resilience amid climate crises. Their work advances our understanding of the technical, social, and political dynamics shaping urban climate action. As cities worldwide grapple with unprecedented challenges, the professional cadre that navigates these complexities emerges as a linchpin in unlocking sustainable transformations.

Subject of Research: Roles of sustainability professionals in advancing climate action and sustainable urban development.

Article Title: Sustainability professionals’ roles in advancing action for climate change and sustainable cities.

Article References:
Bush, J., Hürlimann, A., March, A. et al. Sustainability professionals’ roles in advancing action for climate change and sustainable cities. npj Urban Sustain 5, 60 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00249-1

Image Credits: AI Generated