Advertisement

Conclusions and Discussion

  • Oscar Fitch-Roy
  • Jenny Fairbrass
Chapter
Part of the Progressive Energy Policy book series (PEP)

Abstract

This chapter lays out the principal findings that flow from the preceding analysis and reflects on them in the light of the original objectives of the research. A range of findings is presented which largely complement existing explanations, although they also emphasise the potential for the idea of ‘technology neutrality’ to drive both cohesion and division in the policy community. This complicating factor is offered as an additional explanation for the nature of the 2030 EU climate and energy targets. Finally, the chapter assesses the book’s contribution to existing theoretical and empirical literature.

Keywords

Technology neutrality Problem surfing Spillover Strange bedfellows 

References

  1. Boasson, E. L., & Huitema, D. (2017). Climate Governance Entrepreneurship: Emerging Findings and a New Research Agenda. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1343–1361.Google Scholar
  2. Boasson, E. L., & Wettestad, J. (2013). EU Climate Policy: Industry, Policy Interaction and External Environment. Oxford: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Boscarino, J. E. (2009). Surfing for Problems: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bürgin, A. (2015). National Binding Renewable Energy Targets for 2020, but Not for 2030 Anymore: Why the European Commission Developed from a Supporter to a Brakeman. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(5), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coen, D. (2007). Empirical and Theoretical Studies in EU Lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coen, D., & Richardson, J. (2009). Institutionalizing and Managing Intermediation in the EU. In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors, and Issues (pp. 337–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fairbrass, J. (2013). Natural Allies or Strange Bedfellows? The Emerging Relations Between Business, Civil Society, and Government in Response to the Challenge of Climate Change. In E. Monaghan et al. (Eds.), New Climate Alliances. Centre for Low Carbon Futures (pp. 19–22). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  9. Finnegan, W. (2015). Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life. London: Corsair.Google Scholar
  10. Fuchs, D., & Feldhoff, B. (2016). Passing the Scepter, Not the Buck: Long Arms in EU Climate Politics. Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(6), 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenwood, J. (2011). Interest Representation in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Kohler-Koch, B. (1994). Changing Patterns of Interest Intermediation in the European Union. Government and Opposition, 29(2), 166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindblom, C. E. (1982). The Market as Prison. The Journal of Politics, 44(2), 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2001). Interest Groups and EU Policy-Making: Organisational Logic and Venue Shopping. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and Policy-Making (pp. 247–268). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pigou, A. C. (1932). The Economics of Welfare (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Richardson, J., & Coen, D. (2009). Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors, and Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rozbicka, P., & Spohr, F. (2016). Interest Groups in Multiple Streams: Specifying Their Involvement in the Framework. Policy Sciences, 49(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szulecki, K., et al. (2016). Shaping the ‘Energy Union’: Between National Positions and Governance Innovation in EU Energy and Climate Policy. Climate Policy, 16(5), 548–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wettestad, J., & Jevnaker, T. (2016). Rescuing EU Emissions Trading: The Climate Policy Flagship. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ydersbond, I. M. (2016). Where Is Power Really Situated in the EU? Oslo: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and Choice in European Public Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 25–57). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy Policy GroupUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK
  2. 2.Norwich Business SchoolUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations