Policy Sciences

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 225–249

The Role of Assessments and Institutions for Policy Learning: A Study on Swedish Climate and Nuclear Policy Formation

  • Måns Nilsson
Article

Abstract

This study examines two challenges related to the integration of environmental concerns into public policymaking: how to shape institutions that facilitate policy learning in national policymaking processes, and how to create effective supporting assessment processes. A simple construct of policy learning is applied empirically; distinguishing what is learned in terms of conceptual and technical learning, and unpacking the process of learning into three elements: knowledge acquisition, interpretation, and institutionalization. Two empirical policy cases, climate and nuclear policy formation in Sweden, are analyzed over two decades, detecting patterns of learning and investigating what institutions have facilitated or obstructed them. The analysis is based on a study of actual policy outputs, an examination of reasoning and argumentation in policy documents, and evidence from testimonial interviews. Results indicate that climate policy has undergone fundamental learning processes whereas nuclear policy has been more intractable. Most learning has occurred in some agency and committee processes, while ministries and political levels have suffered from weak capacities and incentives to learn. Key drivers of learning included trust building among key agents coupled to international driving forces. Ultimately, institutional rules, capacities, and incentives are more important factors for enhancing learning than what types of assessments feed in.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Energikonsult, Å. F. (2002). Barsebäck 2: Underlag för Prövning av Stängning (Barsebäck 2: Factual Basis for Consideration of Closure). Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet.Google Scholar
  2. Anshelm, J. (2000). Mellan Frälsning och Domedag: om Kärnkraftens Politiska Idéhistoria i Sverige 1945–1999 (Between salvation and armageddon: On Nuclear Political History in Sweden 1945–1999). Stockholm: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Azar, C. and K. Lindgren (1998). Energiläget år 2050 (The Energy Situation Year 2050). Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.Google Scholar
  6. Bennet, C. J. and M. Howlett (1992). ‘The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy Sciences 25: 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brännlund, R. (2000). Effekter på Svensk Industri av Förändrad Koldioxidbeskattning (Impacts on Swedish Industry from Changed Carbon Dioxide Taxation) Report to the Swedish Commission on Climate Change. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  8. Brännlund, R. (2003). Fördelningseffekter av Begränsad Utsläppshandel Kombinerat med Nationellt Utsläppstak (Distribution Effects of Limited Emissions Trading Combined with a National Cap) Expert Report to the Governmental Commission on Flexible Mechanisms in Climate Policy. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  9. Brewer, G. and P. Stern, eds., (2005). Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Bruijn, H. and E. ten Heuvelhof (2000). Networks and Decision Making. Utrecht: LEMMA.Google Scholar
  11. COWI (2000). Evaluering af 1997s Energipolitiske Program: Analyse af Udvalgte Aspekter (Evaluation of the 1997 Energy Policy Program: Analysis of Selected Aspects).Google Scholar
  12. Dekker, S. and D. Hansén (2004). ‘Learning under pressure: The effects of politicization on organizational learning in public bureaucracies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(2): 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easterby-Smith, M. and M. A. Lyles eds. (2003). The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Energimyndigheten, Fjärrvärmeföreningen, Kraftverksföreningen and Naturvårdsverket (1999). Hållbar Energiframtid? Långsiktiga Miljömål med Systemlösningar för El och Värme. Slutrapport från SAME-projektet. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets förlag.Google Scholar
  15. Energimyndigheten and Naturvårdsverket (2004). Sveriges Klimatstrategi: ett Underlag till Utvärderingen av det Svenska Klimatarbetet (Sweden's Climate Strategy: A Report for the Evaluation of Swedish Climate Efforts. Stockholm: Energimyndigheten.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (2004). Integrating Environmental Considerations into Other Policy Areas – A Stocktaking of the Cardiff Process. COM(2004) 394 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. European Environment Agency (2005). Environmental Policy Integration in Europe: State of Play and an Evaluation Framework. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
  18. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2003). Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.Google Scholar
  19. Fiorino, D. (2001). ‘Environmental policy as learning: A new view of an old landscape’, Public Administration Review 61(3): 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hajer, M. (2003). ‘Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void’, Policy Sciences 36: 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, P. (1993). ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25: 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heclo, H. (1974). Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Huber, G. P. (1991). ‘Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures’, Organizational Science 2(1): 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ingenjörsvetenskapsakademin (2003). Energiframsyn Sverige i Europa: Energin – mot en ny era! (Energy foresight Sweden in Europe: Energy – Towards a New Era!). Stockholm: IVA.Google Scholar
  25. Institutet för Tillväxtpolitiska Studier (2004). Basindustrin och Kyoto: Effekter på Konkurrenskraften av Handeln med Utsläppsrätter (Basic Materials Industry and Kyoto: Impacts on Competitiveness from Emissions Trading. Stockholm: ITPS.Google Scholar
  26. J and W (2002). Underlag för Prövningen av Stängningen av den andra Kärnkraftsreaktorn vid Barsebäck (Factual Basis for Considering the Closure of the Second Reactor at Barsebäck). Stockholm: Näringsdepartementet.Google Scholar
  27. Jachtenfuchs, M. (1997). International Policy-making as a Learning Process? Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  28. Jahn, D. (1998). ‘Environmental performance and policy regimes: Explaining variations in 18 OECD countries’, Policy Sciences 31: 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, S. (1997). Social Learning in the Risk Society. Committee for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies. Cambridge: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  30. Jänicke, M. and H. Weidner (1997). ‘Summary’, in M. Jänicke and H. Weidner, eds., National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of Capacity Building. Berlin: Springer, pp. 299–313.Google Scholar
  31. Kaijser, A. (2001). ‘From tile stoves to nuclear plants – the history of Swedish energy systems’, in S. Silveira ed., Building Sustainable Energy Systems: Swedish Experiences. Stockholm: Svensk Byggtjänst, pp. 57–93.Google Scholar
  32. Kaijser, A., A. Mogren and P. Steen (1988). Att Ändra Riktning: Energipolitik och Ny Teknik (Changing Direction: Energy Policy and New Technology). Stockholm: National Energy Administration.Google Scholar
  33. Klimatdelegationen (1995). Jordens Klimat Förändras: en Analys av Hotbild och Globala Åtgärdsstrategier (Earth's Climate is Changing: An Analysis of Threats and Global Mitigation Strategies). Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.Google Scholar
  34. Klimatdelegationen (1998). Om 50 år (In 50 Years). Stockholm.Google Scholar
  35. Korfmacher, K. (1998). ‘Water quality modelling for environmental management’, Policy Sciences 35–54.Google Scholar
  36. Kågesson, P. (2003). Debattartikel DN 17 februari 2003. Dagens Nyheter.Google Scholar
  37. Leijonhufvud, S. (1994). Parentes? En Historia om Svensk Kärnkraft (Parenthesis? A Story About Swedish Nuclear Power). Västerås: ABB Atom.Google Scholar
  38. Leiserowitz, A., R. W. Kates and T. Parris (2005). ‘Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development?’, Environment 47(9): 22–38.Google Scholar
  39. Lenschow, A., ed., (2002). Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in Europe. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  40. Lundqvist, L. (2001). ‘Implementation from above: The ecology of power in Sweden's environmental governance’, Governance 14(3): 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Löfstedt, R. (2001). ‘Playing politics with energy policy: The phase-out of nuclear power in Sweden’, Environment 43: 20–33.Google Scholar
  42. Lönnroth, M., T. B. Johansson and P. Steen (1978). Sol eller Uran: Att Välja Energiframtid (Sun or uranium: Choosing Energy Future). Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  43. Molander, P., J.-E. Nilsson and A. Schick (2002). Does Anyone Govern? The Relationship between the Government Office and the Agencies in Sweden. Stockholm: SNS.Google Scholar
  44. Naturvårdsverket (2004). Miljömålen – Allas Vårt Ansvar! (Environmental Objectives: Our Common Responsibility). Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.Google Scholar
  45. Naturvårdsverket and Energimyndigheten (2004). Sveriges Klimatstrategi – ett Underlag till Utvärderingen av det Svenska Klimatarbetet (Sweden's Climate Strategy – A Basis for the Evaluation of the Swedish Climate Efforts). Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket and Energimyndigheten.Google Scholar
  46. Nilsson, M. (2005). ‘Learning, frames and environmental policy integration: The case of Swedish energy policy’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23: 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. OECD (1997). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries. Paris: Organisation for economic cooperation and development.Google Scholar
  48. Peters, B. G. (1998). ‘Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination’, Public Administration 76: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Regeringens proposition (1988a). 1987/88:85. Miljöpolitiken inför 1990-talet (Environmental Policy for the 1990s). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  50. Regeringens proposition (1988b). 1987/88:90. Energipolitik inför 1990-talet (Energy Policy for the 1990s). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  51. Regeringens proposition (1991). 1990/91:88. Om Energipolitiken (On Energy Policy). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  52. Regeringens proposition (1993). 1992/93:179. Klimatpolitisk Proposition (Climate Policy Bill). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  53. Regeringens proposition (1997). 1996/97:84. En Uthållig Energiförsörjning (A Sustainable Energy Supply). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  54. Regeringens proposition (2000). 2000/01:130. Svenska Miljömål – Delmål och Åtgärdsstrategier (Swedish Environmental Objectives: Targets and Strategies). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  55. Regeringens proposition (2002a). 2001/02:55. Sveriges Klimatstrategi (Sweden's Climate Strategy). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  56. Regeringens proposition (2002b). 2001/02:143. Samverkan för en Trygg, Effektiv och Miljövänlig Energiförsörjning (Co-operation for Safe, Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Energy Supply). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  57. Regeringens proposition (2003). 2002/03:40. Elcertifikat för att Främja Förnybara Energikällor (Electricity Certificates to Promote Renewable Energy Sources). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  58. Regeringens proposition (2004). 2003/04:132 Handel med Utsläppsrätter (Trade with Emissions Rights). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  59. Regeringskansliet (1991). Ds 1991:4. Energiutredningar åren 1989 och 1990: Sammanfattning av Rapporter och Remissinstansernas Synpunkter (Energy Assessments 1989 and 1990: Summary of Reports and Consultation Viewpoints). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  60. Rotmans, J. (1998). ‘Methods for IA. The challenges and opportunities ahead’, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3: 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sabatier, P. (1988). ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein’, Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sabatier, P. (1993). ‘Policy change over a decade or more’, in P. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith, eds., Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 13–40.Google Scholar
  63. Scharpf, F. W. (1989). ‘Decision rules, decision styles and policy choices’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 1(2): 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schön, D. and M. Rein (1994). Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  65. Shulock, N. (1999). ‘The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(2): 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sjöberg, K. (2004). Luftkvalitet i Tätorter (Air Quality in Cities). Stockholm: IVL.Google Scholar
  67. Socialdemokraterna (1990). Energipolitiken: Problem och Möjligheter (Energy Policy: Problems and Opportunities). Stockholm: Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti.Google Scholar
  68. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (1990). SOU 1990:21. Den Elintensiva Industrin under Kärnkraftsavvecklingen (Electricity-intensive Industry Under Nuclear Phase-out). Betänkande från EL90. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  69. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (1995). SOU 1995:139–140. Omställning av Energisystemet (Restructuring the Energy System). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  70. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2000a). SOU 2000:23. Förslag till Svensk Klimatstrategi (Proposals for a Swedish Climate Strategy). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  71. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2000b). SOU 2000:52. Framtidens Miljö – Allas Vårt Ansvar (The Future Environment – Our Common Responsibility). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  72. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2002). SOU 2002:7 Konkurrensen på Elmarknaden (The Competition on the Electricity Market). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  73. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2003a). SOU 2003:38. Svåra Skatter (Difficult Taxes). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  74. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2003b). SOU 2003:60 Handla för Bättre Klimat (Trade for a Better Climate). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  75. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2003c). SOU 2003:80. EFUD - en Del i Omställningen av Energisystemet (EFUD – One Part of the Restructuring of the Energy System). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  76. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2003d). SOU 2003:120. Handla för Bättre Klimat – Tillstånd och Tilldelningar, m.m. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  77. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2003e). SOU 2003:123 Ansvarskommitténs Delbetänkande Utvecklingskraft för Hållbar Välfärd (Progress Report from the Accountability Committee). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  78. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (2004). SOU 2004:62 Handla för Bättre klimat–Handel med Utsläppsrätter 2005–2007 m.m (Trade for Better Climate – Trade with Emissions Permits 2005–2007 etc). Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
  79. Steen, P., T. B. Johansson, R. Fredriksson, and E. Bogren (1978). Energi – Till Vad och Hur Mycket? (Energy – for What and How Much?). Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  80. Svenning, O. (2005). Göran Persson och Hans Värld (Göran Persson and his World). Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
  81. Södersten, B. ed. (1991). Framtid med Kärnkraft (Future with Nuclear Power). Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  82. Uhrwing, M. (2001). Tillträde till Maktens rum – Intresseorganisationer och Miljöpolitiskt Beslutsfattande (Access to the Rooms of Power – Interest Organizations and Decision Making in Environmental Politics). Hedemora: Gidlunds förlag.Google Scholar
  83. Wildavsky, A. B. (1987). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  84. Virgin, I. (1998). LNB debattartikel 980701 Barsebäckskarusellen Snurrar Vidare (The Barsebäck Carusel Keeps on Going Around). Stockholm: Liberala Nyhetsbyrån.Google Scholar
  85. Vägverket (2005). Klimatstrategi för Vägtransportsektorn (Climate Strategy for the Road Transpor Sector). Borlänge: Vägverket.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Måns Nilsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations