Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: structural topic model based on US Committee reports, European Commission reports and European Parliament reports pertaining to biofuels. Topic labels are based on FREX scores (see appendix for more information)
Source: structural topic model based on US Committee reports, European Commission reports and European Parliament reports pertaining to biofuels. Environmental dimension is an aggregate of topics 6, 10, 13, 16 and 19; energy security is an aggregate of topics 25 and 26; economy dimension is an aggregate of topics 1,2,3,9 and 11. Topic labels are based on FREX scores (see appendix for more information)
Source: structural topic model based on US Congressional reports, European Commission reports and European Parliament reports pertaining to biofuels. Topic labels are based on FREX scores (see appendix for more information)
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The term “mandate” is used in the USA, while “target” is used in the EU. We use the two terms interchangeably.
In spatial modelling terms, when two or more dimensions of a multidimensional policy are consistent or complementary, the decision is effectively one-dimensional; there is no trade-off between dimensions. When understandings of problems change, however, choices may become multidimensional, as actors are required to trade-off between inconsistent dimensions. Jones (1994) argues that the salient dimension—the dimension to which actors are most attentive—will determine the decision.
The Commission is also most successful in its agenda-setting powers, that is, realizing outcomes consistent with its legislative proposals, when the latter are congruent with the policy preferences of legislators in the Parliament and Council (Kreppel and Oztas 2017).
While researchers can bias results by arbitrarily selecting the number of topics, or by abusing thresholds and stopword filters, a standard procedure is to select the number of topics based on the size of the residual. As for thresholds and stopword filters, a good rule of thumb is to use them sparingly.
FREX terms for each of the 28 topics in our structural topic model are available in “Appendix”.
The 18 individuals interviewed over the period 2011–2014 about EU biofuel developments consisted of five Commission officials, two EU member state representatives, one staff member to a MEP rapporteur, four representatives of Brussels-based environmental and industry organizations, and two private individuals with expertise on models of biofuels environmental effects. Four of these interviews were conducted by phone; the remainder were in person. Two industry organization officials were interviewed twice over the three-year period. The 22 interviews in Washington, DC, over the period 2011–2013 were with 11 current or former government/political staff, three industry organization representatives, four environmental group representatives, and four arms’ length consultants/experts. Two interviews were by phone; the remainder were in person. Most interviews were an hour’s length in duration.
The target increased from 7% of the total RFS in 2010 to 58% of the RFS in 2022 (Bracmort 2018: 1–2). For purposes of meeting annual RFS volumes, the US distinguishes between conventional biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel), advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based biodiesel.
In an interview on 18 April 2013 in Washington, a former official in the Office of the Energy Secretary described the mid-2000s context as follows: With “gas prices and consumption soaring, and greater dependence on volatile areas of the world for supplies”, there was an “ethanol euphoria” that created “a shared vision across different parties”.
As quoted in Grossman (2012, 47). Also see, for example, United States Senate, Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act of 2007. 110th Congress, 1st Session, 17 April.
This term was used by an EPA official in an interview in Washington, 11 October 2011, as well as by an official in the Congressional Research Service in an interview on April 19, 2012, in Washington, DC.
Interview conducted 19 April 2012 in Washington, DC.
This description was provided by a former official in the Bush Administration in an interview in Washington on 11 October 2011. The support of the Senate and President for EISA was only secured when provisions in the bill that would have repealed tax subsidies for oil and gas were removed (Bang 2010: 1651).
This view was expressed by a staffer for the Democratic Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in an interview in Washington, DC, 7 October 2011.
See Commission of the European Communities 2003a: Article 4, clause 2; and Commission of the European Communities 2009, Clause (1). The latter states that the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources is needed to reduce GHG emissions as well as important in “promoting the security of energy supply, promoting technological development and innovation, and providing opportunities for employment and regional development, especially in rural and isolated areas”.
Breetz’s (2017: 29) attribution of the influence of the Natural Resource Defence Council on Speaker Pelosi was confirmed in two separate interviews conducted by one of the authors with by a former official in the Bush Administration (11 October 2011) and a staff person to a Democrat House Committee Chair on 7 October 2011.
The hyphenated terms were used by two interviewees—one, an assistant to the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; the other, in the office of the Secretary for Energy at the time EISA passed—in interviews on October 7 and 11, 2011, respectively, in Washington, DC. A staffer for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee stated in an interview with one of the authors in Washington, DC, 7 October 2011: “In the Senate, we were told by the House and the leadership of both chambers to support the House changes [agreed by Speaker Pelosi to secure the support of environmental groups]”.
Information obtained in an April 2011 interview with a Commission official responsible for drafting the 2009 RED.
For example, the 2011 Report of the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that ILUC effects can occur, was debated in the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space and Technology (Hearing on Conflicts and Unintended Consequences of Motor Fuel Standards, 2 November 2011; see also Hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 5, 2013).
Within the RFS, there are sub-mandates for advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels, biomass-based diesel and other advanced biofuels.
See, for example, the following hearings: the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, on 8 April 2014; the House Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health and Environment and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 10 December 2014.
Information obtained in an interview 19 April 2012, Washington, DC.
A Senate bill to repeal the RFS, the Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal Act, introduced in June 2013, secured bipartisan support. In the 114th and 115th Congresses, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein and Republican Senator Pat Toomey united behind bills which would have eliminated the corn ethanol mandate while keeping intact the mandates for other biofuels.
Illustrative is the testimony of Michael McAdams, President of the Advanced Biofuels Association, to the US Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power on 23 July 2013, when it held hearings with stakeholders to address economic, technological and environmental issues around the RFS.
Information obtained by one of the authors in confidential interviews with representatives of biofuel industry groups and the National Corn Growers’ Association in Washington DC in April 2012. At that time, a representative of the National Corn Growers’ Association described “a reluctance on the part of the Republican leadership” to move on bills introduced by Republican members of the House to repeal the RFS. In his (prescient) view, “the dysfunctionality of the Congress” would help to keep the RFS.
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.
Bang, G. (2010). Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy in the United States? Energy Policy, 38, 1645–1653.
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Ideas and policy change. Governance, 26(2), 239–258.
Bednar, J., Ferejohn, J., & Garrett, G. (1996). The politics of European federalism. International Review of Law and Economics., 16(3), 279–294.
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.
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(1), 993–1022.
Blyth, M. (2007). Powering, puzzling, or persuading? The mechanisms of building institutional orders. International Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 761–777.
Bouwen, P. (2009). European Commission. In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, actors and issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bracmort, K. (2018). The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Breetz, H. L. (2017). Regulating carbon emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC): US and California case studies. Environmental Science and Policy, 77, 25–31.
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/.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. O. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: an alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
Crombez, C., Groseclose, T., & Krehbiel, K. (2006). Gatekeeping. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 322–334.
Denzau, A. T., & Mackay, R. J. (1983). Gatekeeping and monopoly power of committees: An analysis of sincere and sophisticated behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 27(4), 740–761.
Doornbosch, R., & Steenblik, R. (2007). Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the disease? Roundtable on sustainable development. Paris: OECD.
Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28(1), 38–50.
Duffield, J. A., & Collins, K. (2006). Evolution of renewable energy. Choices: The magazine of food, farm and resource issues, 21(1), 9–14.
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.
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.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Biofuels and the environment: The first triennial report to congress. EPA/600/R-10/183F. December. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Biofuels and the environment: The second triennial report to congress. EPA/600/R-18/195. June 29. Washington, D.C.
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.
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.
Grossman, P. Z. (2012). The logic of deflective action: US energy shocks and the US policy process’. Journal of Public Policy, 32(1), 33–51.
Grossman, P. Z. (2013). US energy policy and the pursuit of failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.
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/.
Humalisto, N. H. (2015). Climate policy integration and governing indirect land-use changes—Actors in the EU’s biofuel policy-formulation. Land Use Policy., 45, 150–158.
Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Kollman, Ken. (1997). Inviting friends to lobby: Interest groups, ideological bias, and congressional committees. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 519–544.
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.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
Lupo, N. (2018). The Commission’s power to withdraw legislative proposals and its parliamentarisation: Between technical and political grounds. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(2), 311–331.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Mondou, M., Skogstad, G., & Houle, D. (2014). Policy Image resilience, multidimensionality, and policy image management: A study of US biofuel policy. Journal of Public Policy, 34(1), 155–180.
Nugent, N., & Rhinhard, M. (2016). Is the European Commission really in decline? Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(5), 1199–1215.
Palier, B. (2004). French welfare reform in comparative perspective. Revue française de sociologie, 45(Supplement), 97–124.
Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. The American Economic Review, 68(1), 146–160.
Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical explanation and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 21–38.
Princen, S., & Rhinard, M. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1119–1132.
Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. The American Political Science Review, 74(2), 432–446.
Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: Freeman.
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., et al. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1992). Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: Evidence from local government. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 737–747.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238–1240.
Shapiro, S. A. (1994). Political oversight and the deterioration of regulatory policy. Administrative Law Review, 46, 1.
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37(3), 503–519.
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 85–104.
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1994). Positive theories of congressional institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(2), 149–179.
Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.
Skogstad, G. (2017). Policy feedback and self-reinforcing and self-undermining processes in EU biofuels policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(1), 21–41.
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.
Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tullock, G. (1981). Why so much stability? Public Choice, 37(2), 189–204.
United States. Department of Energy. (2018). Key federal legislation. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/key_legislation. Accessed 15 July 2018.
Weyland, K. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion: Lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), 262–295.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Topic 19: Sustainability
FREX: call, sustain, must, particular, stress, develop, european, sector, import, countri, product, incent, promot, energi, generat, encourag, ensur, second-gener, take, effici, certif, support, biofuel, believ, measur
Topic 16: fuel oxygenation
FREX: gasolin, mtbe, billion, administr, gallon, ethanol, epa, requir, blend, waiver, rfs, renew, mandat, oxygen, percent, program, air, fuel, act, motor, standard, vehicl, bill, year, grant
Topic 7: R&D
FREX: depart, recommend, fund, research, defens, encourag, scienc, altern, militari, technolog, feedstock, million, biomass, demonstr, develop, request, budget, strategi, effort, advanc, support, system, provid, plant, center
Topic 1: Food Prices
FREX: food, sustain, land, countri, criteria, negat, price, impact, product, particular, social, generat, wast, biodivers, biofuel, secur, environment, effect, crop, water, develop, climat, benefit, agricultur, second
Topic 24: Tax Instruments
FREX: excis, tax, duti, oil, reduct, paper, propos, road, transport, european, taxat, rate, sector, reduc, object, promot, altern, pure, white, direct, communiti, biofuel, depend, eec, miner
Topic 17: Demonstration Grants
FREX: hear, busi, small, program, aviat, author, subcommitte, heard, amend, engin, rfcic, invest, held, issu, renew
Topic 14: Government procurement
FREX: ethanol, nation’, per, gallon, petroleum, reduc, percent, standard, feder, farm, benefit, provid, testifi, renew, domest
Topic 15: Renewable energy targets
FREX: bioliquid, target, criteria, member, direct, state, electr, set, scheme, sustain, bind, share, sector, renew, achiev
Topic 6: GHG reduction
FREX: greenhous, indirect, land-us, gas, chang, emiss, save, advanc, land, direct, report, iluc, bioliquid, overal, articl
Topic 10: Emissions/Air pollution
FREX: petrol, blend, strategi, limit, emiss, gas, pollut, greenhous, air, higher, specif, direct, fuel, vehicl, vapour
Topic 26: Energy security
FREX: power, sourc, object, energi, hear, farm, farmer, import, senat, small, help, new, hectar, solar, innov
Topic 22: Legislation
FREX: propos, parliament, council, member, posit, target, common, state, set, amend, direct, european, mandatori, text, promot
Topic 23: Project Funding
FREX: section, program, biobas, project, bioenergi, assist, establish, provid, facil, percent, biomass, biorefineri, system, grant, studi
Topic 13: Climate change
FREX: climat, refineri, program, rfs, fund, econom, disproportion, technolog, small, act, ghg, global, chang, new, hardship
Topic 2: Job creation
FREX: chemic, biobas, manufactur, materi, raw, petroleum, industri, process, job, corn, oil, biomass, plant, green, chemistri
Topic 28: Emissions/Air pollution
FREX: altern, offer, materi, can, wast, diesel, car, gasolin, technolog, process, bio-ethanol, will, hydrogen, raw, distribut
Topic 12: Transport
FREX: target, car, base, generat, second, strategi, crop, measur, qualiti, heat, model, technolog
Topic 20: Economic incentives
FREX: credit, biodiesel, mixtur, taxpay, unit, agribiodiesel, diesel, gallon, qualifi, tax, person, sold
Topic 18: Cellulosic biofuels
FREX: cellulos, ethanol, unit, infrastructur, emiss, convent, standard, can, percent, billion, advanc, aviat
Topic 3: Rural development
FREX: research, biobas, agricultur, depart, chemic, biomass, per, rural, process, feder, agenc, product
Topic 21: ILUC
FREX: iluc, assess, sector, reduct, option, bioenergi, oblig, advanc, transport, food-bas, ghg, sustain
Topic 8: Advanced Fuels
FREX: bio, scenario, advanc, share, gaseous, liquid, base, transport, total, iluc, aviat, euco
Topic 5: Certification
FREX: call, certif, note, scheme, land, palm, global, biodivers, deforest, union, social, sustain
Topic 4: Infrastructure
FREX: infrastructur, sulfur, grant, diesel, retail, instal, nation, ethanol, fuel, associ, percent, approxim
Topic 25: Energy diversification
FREX: land, iluc, expect, mtoe, save, report, progress, mha, main, chang, agricultur, biodivers
Topic 9: Feedstock research
FREX: research, amend, bill, center, engin, feedstock, develop, program, studi, bioga, believ, effort
Topic 11: Market Share
FREX: will, share, oil, member, market, achiev, trade, biofuel, state, countri, oblig, region
Topic 27: Cost competitiveness
FREX: crop, scenario, cost, tax, lead, price, estim, exempt, market, measur, share, land
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Skogstad, G., Wilder, M. Strangers at the gate: the role of multidimensional ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in biofuel policy developments in the USA and European Union. Policy Sci 52, 343–366 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09351-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09351-5