IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i3p369-385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Candidates and the Energy Issue: Nuclear Power Position and Electoral Success

Author

Listed:
  • Clau Dermont
  • Lorenz Kammermann

Abstract

Members of parliament are key actors for the implementation of energy transitions, such as phasing out nuclear power. Before legislators can cast their maybe decisive vote in parliament, they need to run for office and actively strive for election. This paper assesses what political candidates oppose renewable energy transitions and questions whether the energy issue matters in national elections, and thus has consequences for the implementation of new sustainable energy sources. We analyze these questions by first describing the specific characteristics of political candidates. The paper then evaluates the relevance of the energy issue for electoral success in three national elections in Switzerland (2007, 2012, and 2015). Based on candidate data from the voting advice application smartvote.ch, we find that female candidates support ETs more than men do; that especially the French‐speaking part of the country is more in favor of a nuclear phase‐out, and that younger candidates are also more open toward restructuring the energy system than older candidates are. Our models further show that the energy issue does not matter in elections, independently from its salience in the respective election campaigns. Candidates are thus relatively free to choose their position on the issue and do not have to fear consequences at the ballot. However, candidates of center parties, in contrast to the pole parties, are sensitive to the energy issue and reflect public mood in their positions. 国会成员是落实例如逐步淘汰核能等能源转型的关键行动者。立法者在国会投出其可能具有决定性的一票之前,需要争取职位和积极参与选举。本文评估了政治候选人就可再生能源转型所反对的是什么,并质疑能源议题在国家选举中是否重要,因此对落实新的可持续能源具有重要性。我们首先通过描述政治候选人的特征,对上述问题进行了分析。本文随后评价了能源议题与瑞士三次国家选举(2007年、2012年和2015年)所获成功的相关性。基于由投票建议软件smartvote.ch得出的候选人数据,我们发现,女性候选人比男性候选人更支持能源转型;尤其是瑞士法语区更支持淘汰核能;年轻候选人比年长候选人更对能源系统重组持开放态度。我们的模型进一步显示,能源议题在选举中不具有重要性,它与其在各自竞选活动中的重要性不相关。因此,候选人能相对自由地选择其在该议题上的立场,并且不必担心投票结果。然而,与极端党派相反的是,中立党派的候选人对能源议题具有敏感性,且在其立场上反映了公众情绪。 Los miembros del parlamento son actores clave para la implementación de las transiciones de energía, como la eliminación gradual de la energía nuclear. Antes de que los legisladores puedan emitir su voto quizás decisivo en el parlamento, deben postularse para un cargo y luchar activamente por las elecciones. Este documento evalúa qué candidatos políticos se oponen a las transiciones de energía renovable y cuestiona si el tema de la energía es importante en las elecciones nacionales y, por lo tanto, tiene consecuencias para la implementación de nuevas fuentes de energía sostenibles. Analizamos estas preguntas describiendo primero las características específicas de los candidatos políticos. Luego, el documento evalúa la relevancia del tema energético para el éxito electoral en tres elecciones nacionales en Suiza (2007, 2012 y 2015). Según los datos de candidatos de la aplicación de consejos de votación smartvote.ch, encontramos que las candidatas apoyan a los ET más que los hombres; que especialmente la parte francófona del país está más a favor de una eliminación nuclear, y que los candidatos más jóvenes también están más abiertos a la reestructuración del sistema energético que los candidatos mayores. Nuestros modelos muestran además que el tema de la energía no importa en las elecciones, independientemente de su importancia en las respectivas campañas electorales. Por lo tanto, los candidatos son relativamente libres de elegir su posición sobre el tema y no tienen que temer las consecuencias en la votación. Sin embargo, los candidatos de los partidos centrales, en contraste con los partidos de polo, son sensibles al tema de la energía y reflejan el estado de ánimo público en sus posiciones.

Suggested Citation

  • Clau Dermont & Lorenz Kammermann, 2020. "Political Candidates and the Energy Issue: Nuclear Power Position and Electoral Success," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 369-385, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:3:p:369-385
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12374
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12374?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christoph H. Stefes, 2020. "Opposing Energy Transitions: Modeling the Contested Nature of Energy Transitions in the Electricity Sector," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 292-312, May.
    2. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    3. Dermont, Clau & Ingold, Karin & Kammermann, Lorenz & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2017. "Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 359-368.
    4. Michaël Aklin & Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "Political Competition, Path Dependence, and the Strategy of Sustainable Energy Transitions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 643-658, July.
    5. Nick Johnstone & Ivan Haščič & David Popp, 2017. "Erratum to: Renewable Energy Policies and Technological Innovation: Evidence Based on Patent Counts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 441-444, October.
    6. Laird, Frank N. & Stefes, Christoph, 2009. "The diverging paths of German and United States policies for renewable energy: Sources of difference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2619-2629, July.
    7. Kriesi, Hanspeter & Jegen, Maya, 2000. "Decision-making in the Swiss Energy Policy Elite," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 21-53, April.
    8. Yeo, Sara K. & Cacciatore, Michael A. & Brossard, Dominique & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Runge, Kristin & Su, Leona Y. & Kim, Jiyoun & Xenos, Michael & Corley, Elizabeth A., 2014. "Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 727-736.
    9. Birkland, Thomas A., 1998. "Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 53-74, January.
    10. Rinscheid, Adrian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2018. "Divesting, Fast and Slow: Affective and Cognitive Drivers of Fading Voter Support for a Nuclear Phase-Out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 51-61.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph H. Stefes & Carol Hager, 2020. "Resistance to Energy Transitions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 286-291, May.
    2. Philip Baxter & Justin V. Hastings & Philseo Kim & Man‐Sung Yim, 2022. "Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(2), pages 219-246, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    2. Christoph H. Stefes, 2020. "Opposing Energy Transitions: Modeling the Contested Nature of Energy Transitions in the Electricity Sector," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 292-312, May.
    3. Dumas, Marion & Rising, James & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2016. "Political competition and renewable energy transitions over long time horizons: A dynamic approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 175-184.
    4. Adrian Rinscheid, 2020. "Business Power in Noisy Politics: An Exploration Based on Discourse Network Analysis and Survey Data," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 286-297.
    5. Roger Karapin, 2020. "Household Costs and Resistance to Germany's Energy Transition," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 313-341, May.
    6. Matthew Lockwood & Caroline Kuzemko & Catherine Mitchell & Richard Hoggett, 2017. "Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 312-333, March.
    7. Downie, Christian, 2017. "Business actors, political resistance, and strategies for policymakers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 583-592.
    8. Ingold, Karin & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle & Kammermann, Lorenz, 2019. "The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: Citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    9. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How do electoral competition and special interests shape the stringency of renewable energy standards?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(1), pages 23-34, January.
    10. Tobin Im & Kris Hartley, 2019. "Aligning Needs and Capacities to Boost Government Competitiveness," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 119-137, March.
    11. Abigail Sullivan & Dave D. White & Kelli L. Larson & Amber Wutich, 2017. "Towards Water Sensitive Cities in the Colorado River Basin: A Comparative Historical Analysis to Inform Future Urban Water Sustainability Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-27, May.
    12. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    13. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    14. Baccini, Leonardo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2012. "Legislative fractionalization and partisan shifts to the left increase the volatility of public energy R&D expenditures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 45571, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Henrik Haller & Anna-Sara Fagerholm & Peter Carlsson & Wilhelm Skoglund & Paul van den Brink & Itai Danielski & Kristina Brink & Murat Mirata & Oskar Englund, 2022. "Towards a Resilient and Resource-Efficient Local Food System Based on Industrial Symbiosis in Härnösand: A Swedish Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Carol Hager & Nicole Hamagami, 2020. "Local Renewable Energy Initiatives in Germany and Japan in a Changing National Policy Environment," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 386-411, May.
    17. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    18. Kapeller, Sandro & Biegelbauer, Peter, 2020. "How (not) to solve local conflicts around alternative energy production: Six cases of siting decisions of Austrian wind power parks," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    19. De Groote, Olivier & Gautier, Axel & Verboven, Frank, 2024. "The political economy of financing climate policy — Evidence from the solar PV subsidy programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    20. Lean, Hooi Hooi & Smyth, Russell, 2013. "Are fluctuations in US production of renewable energy permanent or transitory?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 483-488.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:3:p:369-385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.