Strangers at the gate: the role of multidimensional ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in biofuel policy developments in the USA and European Union
- 56 Downloads
This article contributes to scholarly understanding of how policy ideas and institutions interact to affect policy change by investigating why legislation mandating the use of biofuels in transport vehicles has been upheld in the USA but scaled back in the European Union. To explain this puzzle, the article advances propositions regarding the role of multidimensional policy ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in legislative agenda-setting. Using structural topic modelling and qualitative methods, the analyses demonstrate that differences in action frames follow from agenda-setting institutions. The corporate structure of the European Commission ensures that EU agenda-setters are reasonably attentive to policy anomalies. By contrast, individuals with agenda-setting authority in the US Congress are liable to discount anomalies by limiting their focus to certain aspects of multidimensional policy issues. Moreover, individuals with gatekeeping authority may prevent repeal bills from accessing the legislative agenda.
KeywordsAction frames Agenda-setting Institutional gatekeeping Policy anomalies Policy change Policy ideas
- Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Béland, D., & Cox, R. (2011). Introduction: Ideas and politics. In D. Béland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(1), 993–1022.Google Scholar
- Bouwen, P. (2009). European Commission. In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, actors and issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bracmort, K. (2018). The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
- Casinge, E. (2015). Parliament rubber stamps EU biofuels reform amid final controversy. Euractiv. April 29. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/parliament-rubber-stamps-eu-biofuels-reform-amid-final-controversy/.
- Commission of the European Communities. (1997). Energy for the future: Renewable sources of energy. In White paper for a community strategy and action plan. COM(97) 599 final 26 November, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Green paper. In Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply. COM(2000)769 final, 29 November. Brussels.Google Scholar
- Commission of the European Communities. (2003a). Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. Official Journal of the European Union L, 123/42. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009L0028-20130701andrid=17.
- Commission of the European Communities. (2003b). Directive 2003/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003L0017andfrom=EN.
- Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Biofuels progress report. Report of the progress made in the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in the member states of the European Union. COM(2006)845. Brussels.Google Scholar
- Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028andrid=1.
- Commission of the European Communities. (2015). Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/98/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L1513andfrom=EN.
- Council of the European Union. (2014). Proposal on indirect land-use change: Council reaches agreement. 13 June. Available at: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/proposal-indirect-land-use-change-council-reaches-agreement/.
- Doornbosch, R., & Steenblik, R. (2007). Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the disease? Roundtable on sustainable development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28(1), 38–50.Google Scholar
- Duffield, J. A., & Collins, K. (2006). Evolution of renewable energy. Choices: The magazine of food, farm and resource issues, 21(1), 9–14.Google Scholar
- Eisenstein, J., Ahmed, A., & Xing, E. P. (2011). Sparse additive generative models of text. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning. Bellevue, WA. Retrieved from http://repository.emu.edu/machine_learning/210/.
- Elster, J. (1994). The nature and scope of rational-choice explanation. In M. Martin & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 311–322). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Regulatory impact analysis: Renewable fuel standard Program. EPA420-R-07-004. Washington, DC. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Assessment and Standards Division.Google Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Biofuels and the environment: The first triennial report to congress. EPA/600/R-10/183F. December. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Biofuels and the environment: The second triennial report to congress. EPA/600/R-18/195. June 29. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2010). `Report from the Commission on indirect land-use change related to biofuels and bioliquids. In COM(2010) 8ll final (p. 14). Dec 22, 2010, Brussels.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2012). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 90/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. In COM(2012) 595 final. Oct 17, 2012. Brussels.Google Scholar
- Hall, M. (2013). Parliament’s lead biofuels MEP in last ditch battle for ILUC recognition. Euractiv. September 11. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/parliament-s-lead-biofuels-mep-in-last-ditch-battle-for-iluc-recognition/.
- Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Keating, D., & Simon, F. (2018). EU strikes deal on 32% renewable energy target and palm oil ban after all-night session. Euractiv. 14 June. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eu-strikes-deal-on-32-renewable-energy-target-and-palm-oil-ban-after-all-night-session/.
- Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
- Kreppel, A., & Oztas, B. (2017). Leading the band or just playing the tune? Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission, Comparative Political Studies, 50(8), 1118–1150.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
- Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. The American Economic Review, 68(1), 146–160.Google Scholar
- Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
- Shapiro, S. A. (1994). Political oversight and the deterioration of regulatory policy. Administrative Law Review, 46, 1.Google Scholar
- Taddy, M. (2012). On estimation and selection for topic models. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 1184–1193). Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved from http://www.jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v22/tady12/taddy12.pdf.
- United States. Department of Energy. (2018). Key federal legislation. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/key_legislation. Accessed 15 July 2018.