Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy
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.
KeywordsPolicy design Acceptance Technocracy Democracy Governance Renewable energy policy
- 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.Google Scholar
- Bygrave, S., & Ellis, J. (2003). Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in industry: Successful approaches and lessons learned: workshop report, Paris.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1992). Politics, economics, and welfare. New Brunswick: Transaction Publications.Google Scholar
- Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Ingold, K. (2008). Analyse des mécanismes de décision: le cas de la politique climatique suisse, Politikanalyse (Vol. 8). Zürich: Rüegger.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Vatter, A. (2016). Das politische System der Schweiz (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar