5. The Deductive Analysis of Framing Climate Change
Research question 3 asked how consequential actors’ framing of climate change are similar or different across countries (RQ3a) and within countries (RQ3b). Research question 3 was further elaborated to include three hypotheses that assessed the expected differences across nations. To answer research question 3, this chapter will focus on the deductive phase of framing climate change among the consequential actors of the three nations examined in the study. Frequency distributions and Chi-square analyses were employed, with archival data being supplemented whenever necessary.
5.1 Frame Differences Across Nations
As shown in Table 5.1, among the 555 consequential actors analysed, 40% of them were categorised as public accountability and governance frame, 15% as the economic development and competitiveness frame, 25% as the social progress frame and 19% as the environmental morality and ethics frame. Cases identified as having no frame, a fragmented frame or a mixed frame, 40-cases, were coded as missing and excluded from the analysis.15 The remaining 555-cases were then subjected to a Chi-square analysis, which demonstrated a significant difference between nations [χ2 (6, 555)= 115.996, p < .001].
Table 5.1 Frame Differences Across Nations (%, N=555)
Frame China Public Accountability and Governance 44.2 22.9a 42.0 40.0 Economic Development and Competitiveness 1.2a 12.0 24.1a 15.0
Social Progress 38.2a 54.2a 10.4a 25.0
Environmental morality and ethics 16.4 10.8 a 23.5a 19.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
χ2 (6, 555) =115.996, p <.001.
Note. Superscript a denotes actors in the cell with the absolute value of adjusted residuals >1.96.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The study proposed three hypotheses to evaluate the differences in frame distribution among the three nations. Hypothesis 1a posited that the Chinese consequential actors’
websites would reflect the public accountability and governance frame more than those of the other two nations. This hypothesis was partially supported as South African consequential actors (see Table 5.1) applied this frame the least (22.9%). However, both China (44.2%) and the US (42%) had residuals of less than 1.96. Taken only on frequency values, China and the US had a similar application of the public accountability and governance frame, which suggested that they are not statistically different from each other.
Hypothesis 1b posited that the websites of South African consequential actors
reflected the social progress frame more than those of the other two nations. This hypothesis was supported by South African actors contributing the most and all three nations having residuals of more significant than 1.96. The results from Table 5.1 (see p. 118) showed that 56.9% of consequential actors in South Africa applied the frame. This finding was about 18%
higher than consequential actors in China (38.2%) and more than 5-times as much as
consequential actors in the US (10.4%). Chinese consequential actors applied the frame about three and a half times more than their US counterparts.
Hypothesis 1c proposed that the websites of US consequential actors were more likely to be framed by the economic development and competitiveness frame than those of China and South Africa. This hypothesis was also supported with both the US and China having residuals bigger than 1.96. Table 5.1 (see p. 118) showed that US consequential actors made the most applications of the frame (24.1%), while China applied the frame the least (1.2%).
Taking only the frequency differences, South African actors (12%) would find themselves in the middle. However, it had a residual score of lower than 1.96 which suggested that the finding was not significant.
‧
Finally, hypothesis 1d proposed that the websites of US consequential actors reflected the environmental morality and ethics frame more than those of the other two nations. The hypothesis was supported. Table 5.1 showed that US consequential actors made significantly more applications of the environmental morality and ethics frame (23.5%). This finding was about 2-times more than their South African counterparts (10.8%), which made the least number of applications. Taken only frequency of applications, China (16.4%) fits in between these two nations, but had an adjusted residual score of lower than 1.96, suggesting that the application of the frame was not significant.
5.2 Frame Differences Within Nations
Next, research question 3b asked about how consequential actors’ framing of climate change was similar or different within countries. However, due to the sub-sample distribution leading to expected frequencies of n < 5 for several cells in Table 5.2, a Chi-square test could not be conducted. Thus, Table 5.2 shows only frames’ frequency distribution by organisation type.
Table 5.2 Frequency Distribution of Frames Within Nations (%, N=555)
Frames China South Africa US
Organisation Type Corp (n = 136)
First, the frequency distribution amongst consequential actors in China suggested that most corporations, about 52.2%, applied the public accountability and governance frame.
This frame was also found to be the dominant frame of the CPC. The remaining
consequential corporate actors tended towards the social progress frame (45.6%), with a few exceptions. By comparison, eNGOs were found to show preference the environmental
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
morality and ethics frame (92.9%) with only 3.6% tending to prefer the social progress frame.
In general, the findings reflected the official national policy. Corporations, alike to the national policy, was found to be split between a policy-driven approach and a social
development approach to climate change framing. Similarly, eNGOs were nearly all confined to the environmental frame, a reflection of national legislation that limits eNGOs to the environmental policy domain.
Second, South African consequential actors were also found to reflect the national position. Overall, 55% of corporations, 35.7% of eNGOs and 77.8% of political parties preferred the social progress frame. The remaining corporations were found to be split between the public accountability and governance frame (28.3%) and the economic
development and competitiveness (16.7%) frames, while 22.2% of political parties supported the public accountability and governance frame. Furthermore, the majority of eNGOs
(64.3%) were found to prefer the environmental morality and ethics frame. This finding reflected the expectation generated by the literature and archival data that South Africa was mostly focused on social development concerns, even in the context of climate change.
Lastly, US consequential actors had a broader national frame distribution.
Nevertheless, for consequential corporations, the public accountability and governance frame is the dominant choice. Around 54.8% of consequential corporations, 3.9% of eNGOs and one political party were found to prefer this frame. The second most dominant frame was ground to be the economic development and competitiveness frame. The study found that around 30.3% of corporations, 5.2% of eNGOs and the Republican Party tended to apply the frame. Furthermore, the social progress frame received the least applications, with only 11.4% of corporations and 7.8% of eNGOs found to apply it. Finally, as was also the case with the other two nations, most eNGOs were found to show a preference for the
environmental morality and ethics frame (83.1%). Unlike in the other three nations, the US
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
also had the highest proportion of corporations (3.5%) applying the environmental morality and ethics frame. The dominance of the first two frames amongst organisational actors reflected the bipartisan split in the literature regarding the US socio-political setting.
5.3 Summary of Deductive Analysis
To summarise (also see Table 5.2), the chapter first looked at differences across nations using Chi-Square analysis, before taking a closer look within nations using frequency analysis. Partial support for the first hypothesis showed that South African actors made the least applications of the public accountability and governance frame leading to the inference that both the US and China applied the frame more often. The within national comparison further showed that more than half of all corporate actors in China and the US, as well as the CPC and the Democratic Party, tended to apply the public accountability and governance frame. This finding corresponds with findings in Chapter 4 that suggested both China and the US would have a strong legal and policy foundation for addressing climate change. Second, the study found that South African consequential actors applied the social progress frame about 18% more than Chinese actors and about 5-times more than US actors. The within nation comparison further showed that 55% of all corporate actors, 35.7% of all eNGOs and 77% of political parties preferred the social progress frame. This finding reflected that of Chapter 4, which suggested South Africa would be a nation focused on social development even in the context of climate change. Third, the study found that the US made the most applications of the economic development and competitiveness frame, with mostly corporate actors (24.1%) and the Republican party applying the frame. Finally, the study found that the US made the most use of the environmental morality and ethics frame. The within-nation comparison further suggested that this frame was mostly adopted by eNGOs, although 3.5%
of US corporations also applied it. The last two findings, taken in combination with the first
‧
finding, suggests that the US reflects a national split across partisan political lines, but with its eNGOs acting independently towards a pro-environmental ideal.
Table 5.1 Summary of key research questions and findings
Research Questions Key Findings RQ3a: How are
Between countries, the differences could be explained with reference to four hypotheses:
H1a: Partially Supported. South African consequential actors were found to apply the frame the least (22.9%). While not statistically significant, there appears to be a similar application of the frame between China (44.2%) and the US (42%).
H1b: Supported. South African actors (56.9%) contributed the most to the social progress frame. This was about 18% higher than China (38.2%) and 5-times higher than the US (10.4%).
H1c: Supported. US consequential actors were found to make the most applications (24.1%) and China the least (1.2%). South African actors (12%) did not significantly apply the frame. The finding suggested that market economies would be more likely to apply the economic development and competitiveness frame.
H1d: Supported. US consequential actors (23.5%) made the most
applications, about 2-times that of South Africa (10.8%). China (16.4%) did not significantly apply the frame. This finding fits the narrative that the US eNGOs are freer to act.
RQ3b: How are
The within nation frame adoption tended to reflect the findings in research question 2 and 3a.
1) In China, most corporations (51.8%) and the CPC were found to prefer the public accountability and governance frame. The remaining corporations (45.3%) tended to apply the social progress frame.
2) In South Africa, about 55% of all corporate actors, 35.7% of all eNGOs and 77% of political parties preferred the social progress frame. The remaining corporation mostly preferred the public accountability and governance frame (28.3) and the economic development and
competitiveness frame (16.7%).
3) In the US, around 54.8% of consequential corporations, 3.9% of eNGOs and the Democratic party were found to prefer the public accountability and governance frame. Around 30.3% of corporations, 5.2% of eNGOs and the Republican Party tended to apply the economic development and competitiveness frame. Only 11.4% of corporations and 7.8% of eNGOs were found to apply the social progress frame.
4) In all cases, eNGOs preferred the environmental ethics and morality frame, including China (92.9%), South Africa eNGOs (64.3%) and the US (83.1%). South African eNGOs were most likely to apply the social progress frame (35.7%).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學