Climate finance can be characterized by insufficiently firm goal setting and by a highly fragmented governance architecture composed of loosely coordinated institutions. Transnational networks can fill this governance gap to steer climate finance in such a situation. This paper examines 63 climate finance networks, including public, private, and hybrid ones, to analyse networks functions and determine when they emerged and how they are institutionalized. Most of the networks arose recently when bottom-up efforts began to be widely adopted as a way to mainstream finance combating climate change. In contrast to public networks, private and hybrid networks more frequently display firmly defined forms of institutionalization, such as requirements for members to pay a fee and carry out compulsory actions. In addition, private and hybrid networks tend to take on the governance functions of target setting and rule making more than public networks.
