nach oben

Policy Sciences

Erschienen in:

03.12.2018 | Research Article

Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy

verfasst von: Lorenz Kammermann, Karin Ingold

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper is about stakeholders’ acceptance regarding regulatory instruments in energy policy. We expect that today’s introduced instruments not only correspond most to technocratic principles and what elected officials prefer, but that they correlate with the preferences of a wider number of public and private actors in policymaking. We therefore compare the already introduced policy instruments to instrument preferences of the public administration, elected officials, but also NGOs and utilities. In doing so, we contribute to the question of whether or not the instruments already introduced today correspond to technocratic or democratic principles, or to the preferences of the larger governance arrangement involving other public and private actors. We compare three cantons in Switzerland and gather data through a systematic literature review, expert interviews, and surveys. The comparison of the data suggest that the currently selected policy instruments correspond to technocratic principles, but that they also and often correspond to the preferences of public and private actors. More concretely, whereas in one canton, NGO preferences align with the introduced instruments, in another canton, this is the case for utilities. In the third canton, all different actor types display similar preferences very much in accordance with the currently employed instrument mix. We thus conclude that depending on the region, different principles and preferences are reflected in the current policy mix.

Vorheriger Artikel From Three Mile Island to Fukushima: the impact of analogy on attitudes toward nuclear power

Nächster Artikel The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The exact wording of the question is as follows (translated from German): ‘In the following you will find a selection of potential or already implemented measures that support the expansion of renewable electricity production in the canton of XX. Which of the following measures should, from the position of your organization, be employed primarily or secondarily by the canton of XX? You may add further measures on the blank lines on the bottom of the list.’

The MCA model is then evaluated for its robustness. The threshold of indifference is set at 1. Lowering the threshold to 0 would make the model more sensitive and in this way more vulnerable to small differences in the evaluation of the instruments that might be purely based on the qualitative assessment and coding. An indifference threshold set at 2 would, on the other hand, overstress the assumption that decision makers and other actors are somewhat indifferent about the differences between policy options that have similar attributes. The threshold of preference is set at 2 for all models. Lowering the threshold to 1 is not possible because it would overlap with the indifference threshold. Raising it to 3 is an option as long as the veto threshold is set at 4 or higher. When running, the model with a preference threshold of 3 does not return large differences to the original model. The order of the instruments does not change. The alternate threshold returns, however, a less distinct ranking.

Both in Lucerne and Thurgau, the number of actors being part of the utility or NGO groups and being active in RE policy is very limited. We thus only have very few responses in the respective groups.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.

Beccali, M., Cellura, M., & Mistretta, M. (2003). Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renewable Energy, 28, 2063–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00102-2.CrossRef

Berardo, R., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 632–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x.CrossRef

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2002). Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19, 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002.CrossRef

Bressers, H. T. A., & O’Toole, L. J. (1998). The selection of policy instruments: A network-based perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239.CrossRef

Bressers, H. T. A., & O’Toole, L. J. (2005). Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context. In F. P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 132–153). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Buchanan, J. T., Henig, E. J., & Henig, M. I. (1998). Objectivity and subjectivity in the decision making process. Annals of Operations Research, 80, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018980318183.CrossRef

Bygrave, S., & Ellis, J. (2003). Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in industry: Successful approaches and lessons learned: workshop report, Paris.

Carpenter, D. P. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton studies in American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt7t5st. Accessed 14 July 2018.

Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02506.x.CrossRef

Cheng, Q., & Yi, H. (2017). Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 683–691.CrossRef

Christensen, P., Kornov, L., & Nielsen Holm, E. (2012). Between governance and government: Danish EIA in uncharted waters. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333212500214.CrossRef

Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1992). Politics, economics, and welfare. New Brunswick: Transaction Publications.

Dermont, C., Ingold, K., Kammermann, L., & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2017). Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance. Energy Policy, 108, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.062.CrossRef

Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Figueira, J. R., Mousseau, V., & Roy, B. (2016). ELECTRE Methods. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 155–186). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Gilley, B. (2017). Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 9–22.CrossRef

Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., & Lubell, M. (2016). The promise and performance of collaborative governance. In S. Kamieniecki & M. E. Kraft (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of US environmental policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744671.013.0019.

Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green markets: Environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16, 419–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1994.tb00132.x.CrossRef

Gunningham, N. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental regulation. In F. P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 333–352). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Henggeler Autunes, C., & Oliveira Henriques, C. (2016). Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria analysis models and methods for problems in the energy sector. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 1071–1170). New York: Springer.

Henstra, D. (2016). The tools of climate adaptation policy: Analysing instruments and instrument selection. Climate Policy, 16, 496–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946.CrossRef

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. N. (2002). Types of multi-level governance. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5, 11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302786.

Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy and Society, 23, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(04)70030-2.CrossRef

Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1.CrossRef

Howlett, M. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society, 34, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.002.CrossRef

Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2012). Tales from the crypt. Administration and Society, 45, 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459725.CrossRef

Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2017). Policy design: From tools to patches. Canadian Public Administration, 60(1), 140–144.CrossRef

Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Rayner, J. (2014). The elements of effective program design: A two-level analysis. Politics and Governance, 2, 1. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v2i2.23.CrossRef

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2.

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.12924/pag2013.01020170.CrossRef

Ingold, K. (2008). Analyse des mécanismes de décision: le cas de la politique climatique suisse, Politikanalyse (Vol. 8). Zürich: Rüegger.

Ingold, K., Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Kammermann, L. (2018). The acceptance of instruments in policy mix situations: A citizens’ perspective on the Swiss energy transition. In Conference Paper.

Kellenberger, S. (2004). Les instruments volontaires dans la politique climatique et énergétique Suisse: motifs de leur motifs de leur introduction et chances de leur application. Chavannes-Lausanne. Retrieved from IDHEAP website: https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_72204C123592.P001/REF. Accessed 14 July 2018.

Kenis, P., & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In B. Marin & R. Mayntz (Eds.), Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations (pp. 25–59). Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag.

Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support?: Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008.CrossRef

Landry, R., & Varone, F. (2005). Choice of policy instruments: Confronting the deductive and the interactive approaches. In F. P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 106–131). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298. https://doi.org/10.2307/974990.CrossRef

Lubell, M. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12028.CrossRef

Lubell, M., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Integrated water resources management: A comparative laboratory for water governance. International Journal of Water Governance, 1, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.7564/13-IJWG14.CrossRef

Macnaghten, P., & Jacobs, M. (1997). Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change, 7(1), 5–24.CrossRef

Magill, R. S., & Clark, T. N. (1975). Community power and decision making: Recent research and its policy implications. Social Service Review, 49(1), 33–45.CrossRef

Martin, N., & Rice, J. (2015). Improving Australia’s renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Energy Policy, 84, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.04.034.CrossRef

Metz, F. (2017). Explaining policy design with network structures. A comparison of water protection policies for the reduction of micropollutants in four Rhine river riparian countries. Berlin: Springer.

Metz, F., & Ingold, K. (2017). Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy. Policy Sciences, 50, 721–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9295-z.CrossRef

Newig, J. (2012). More effective natural resource management through participatory governance? Taking stock of the conceptual and empirical literature—And moving forward. In K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, & M. Pregernig (Eds.), Environmental governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806077.00011.

Nohrstedt, D. (2010). Do advocacy coalitions matter?: Crisis and change in Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun038.CrossRef

Öberg, P., Lundin, M., & Thelander, J. (2015). Political power and policy design: Why are policy alternatives constrained? Policy Studies Journal, 43, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12086.CrossRef

Peters, B. G. (2002). The politics of tool choice. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 552–564). Oxford: Oxford University Press USA.

Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134132.CrossRef

Roy, B. (2016). Paradigms and challenges. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & J. R. Figueira (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 19–42). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Sager, F. (2017). Infrastrukturpolitik: Verkehr, Energie und Telekommunikation. In P. Knoepfel, I. Papadopoulos, P. Sciarini, A. Vatter, & S. Häusermann (Eds.), NZZ Libro Handbuch der Schweizer Politik: Manuel de la politique Suisse (6th ed., pp. 721–748). Zürich: Verl. Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2009). Weber, wilson, and hegel: Theories of modern bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1136–1147.CrossRef

Schneider, A. (2012). Policy design and transfer. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097571.ch17.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044.CrossRef

Sovacool, B. K. (2009). The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efficiency policy. Energy Policy, 37, 1529–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.016.CrossRef

Stavins, R. N. (1997). Environmental protection: The changing nature of national governance. Retrieved from Harvard University—Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) website: https://ssrn.com/abstract=11016. Accessed 14 July 2018.

Swiss Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC. (2017). Energy Strategy 2050. Retrieved from https://www.uvek.admin.ch/uvek/en/home/energy/energy-strategy-2050.html. Accessed 14 July 2018.

Taefi, T. T., Kreutzfeldt, J., Held, T., & Fink, A. (2016). Supporting the adoption of electric vehicles in urban road freight transport—A multi-criteria analysis of policy measures in Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 91, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.003.

Varone, F., & Aebischer, B. (2001). Energy efficiency: The challenges of policy design. Energy Policy, 29, 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00156-7.CrossRef

Vatter, A. (2016). Das politische System der Schweiz (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800308.CrossRef

Wolsink, M. (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 822–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.006.CrossRef

Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35, 2683–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001.CrossRef

Yi, H., & Feiock, R. C. (2014). Renewable energy politics: Policy typologies, policy tools, and state deployment of renewables. Policy Studies Journal, 42, 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12066.CrossRef

Titel: Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy
verfasst von: Lorenz Kammermann
Karin Ingold
Publikationsdatum: 03.12.2018
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9341-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Utilizing Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework toward an understanding of crisis-driven policy

Multilevel policy implementation and the where of learning: the case of the information system for school buildings in Italy

From Three Mile Island to Fukushima: the impact of analogy on attitudes toward nuclear power

Yes, but what about the authority of policy analysts? A commentary and discussion of Perl et al., ‘Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a post-fact world?’

Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda

Note from the Editor: Lasswell Prize Announcement for Volume 51 (2018)