(How) do climate institutions matter? Presenting and applying a new framework for the comparative analysis of climate institutions

Climate institutions, including climate laws and advisory bodies, have proliferated globally. But do they matter? Existing work either analyses quantitatively how these institutions correlate with policy outcomes, like stringency or emissions reductions, or qualitatively examines a single type of institution. Neither strand provides tools to systematically analyse the effects of these institutions on the policymaking process itself. We therefore propose the Climate Institutions Analysis Framework (CIAF), which traces how institutions' formal functions interact with country-specific contextual variables to address 'strategic challenges'. Comparing climate institutions in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia, we show that they support agenda-setting, increase transparency, signal commitment, and hold governments accountable. Notably, similarly designed institutions can produce divergent effects across countries due to variation in context. By conceptualising a new class of effects and their mechanisms, our framework contributes to debates about policy sequencing amid climate backlash and to comparative analysis of meso-level institutions.