Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 43–65 | Cite as

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

  • Lorenz KammermannEmail author
  • Karin Ingold
Research Article

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.

Keywords

Policy design Acceptance Technocracy Democracy Governance Renewable energy policy 

References

  1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Policy Studies Journal, 18, 543–571.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2002). Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bygrave, S., & Ellis, J. (2003). Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in industry: Successful approaches and lessons learned: workshop report, Paris.Google Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1992). Politics, economics, and welfare. New Brunswick: Transaction Publications.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilley, B. (2017). Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. N. (2002). Types of multi-level governance. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5, 11.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302786.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2012). Tales from the crypt. Administration and Society, 45, 357–381.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2017). Policy design: From tools to patches. Canadian Public Administration, 60(1), 140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ingold, K. (2008). Analyse des mécanismes de décision: le cas de la politique climatique suisse, Politikanalyse (Vol. 8). Zürich: Rüegger.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298.  https://doi.org/10.2307/974990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lubell, M. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 537–559.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Macnaghten, P., & Jacobs, M. (1997). Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change, 7(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory and Decision, 31, 49–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2009). Weber, wilson, and hegel: Theories of modern bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1136–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vatter, A. (2016). Das politische System der Schweiz (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Research and TechnologyDübendorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Oeschger Center for Climate ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations