Evaluating national climate policy performance requires frameworks that integrate multiple dimensions while accommodating diverse development pathways. This study develops a Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) framework to construct a Climate Policy Performance Index (CPPI) for 187 countries. The index integrates four dimensions—mitigation, adaptation, economic capacity, and governance—using explicit utility functions and policy-aligned weights derived from climate policy priorities. Results reveal substantial cross-national heterogeneity, with CPPI scores ranging from 33.67 (Turkmenistan) to 78.46 (Norway). Nordic countries lead with balanced excellence across dimensions, while alternative high-performance pathways emerge through mitigation leadership (Uruguay and Costa Rica) or governance–economy strength (Singapore). Regional analysis identifies Europe as the top-performing region, whereas Sub-Saharan Africa achieves unexpectedly high rankings despite low emissions owing to weak institutional capacity. The relationship between income and climate performance is non-monotonic: lower-middle-income countries achieve aggregate scores comparable to those of high-income nations, with near-perfect mitigation performance compensating for weaker governance. Sensitivity analysis shows that ranking robustness is comparable across equal, adaptation-focused, and multiplicative weighting schemes, whereas mitigation-focused weights yield substantially different orderings (ρ = 0.47). The CPPI correlates moderately with ND-GAIN (r = 0.40) and weakly and negatively with CO2 per capita (r = −0.28), indicating that the framework captures distinct aspects of climate policy performance. The proposed methodology advances beyond existing indices by providing axiomatic foundations, transparent utility specifications, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis, offering a theoretically grounded tool for cross-national climate policy evaluation.
Pavlova et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: