IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1687-d215715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory Measurements in Policy Coordinated Practices: The Case of Promoting Renewable Energy and Cleaner Transport in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Hansson

    (Faculty of Logistics, Molde University College – Specialized University in Logistics, Britvegen 2, 6410 Molde, Norway
    Political Science Division, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Lena Nerhagen

    (Department of Transport Economics, The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Box 920, 781 29 Borlänge, Sweden)

Abstract

International organisations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU), are seeking to implement a cohesive Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) system in order to achieve better regulation and increased unity and transparency. Central to these evaluations is the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and related tools. A comprehensive analysis of the use of impact assessment in the EU shows that many assessments lack important economic components. This paper draws on an extensive document study of the Swedish policy making process related to the EU Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. The aim of the paper is to examine how CBA is presented, negotiated and accounted for by central actors within a policy setting influenced by negotiation and policy coordination. The paper departs from a theoretical perspective on policy coordination and shows how this factor must be considered when explaining the low use of CBA. It concludes that the Swedish policy tradition, wherein the national government relies on consensus-based coordination between agencies, might counteract a more explicit assessment of different policy options. The paper also proposes a model that can be used for further studies on CBA and policy coordination.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Hansson & Lena Nerhagen, 2019. "Regulatory Measurements in Policy Coordinated Practices: The Case of Promoting Renewable Energy and Cleaner Transport in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1687-:d:215715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1687/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1687/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Knill, Christoph, 1999. "Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 113-139, May.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg & Mette K. Skamris holm & Søren L. Buhl, 2003. "How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, January.
    3. Lorenzo Casullo & Nathan Zhivov, 2017. "Assessing Regulatory Changes in the Transport Sector: An introduction," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2017/05, OECD Publishing.
    4. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2014. "Is CBA Ranking of Transport Investments Robust?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 48(2), pages 189-204, May.
    5. Claudio M. Radaelli, 2004. "Getting to Grips with Quality in the Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Europe," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 271-276, October.
    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. Mohammadreza Gholikhani & Seyed Amid Tahami & Mohammadreza Khalili & Samer Dessouky, 2019. "Electromagnetic Energy Harvesting Technology: Key to Sustainability in Transportation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Stanisław Jaworski & Mariola Chrzanowska & Monika Zielińska-Sitkiewicz & Robert Pietrzykowski & Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Piotr Zielonka, 2023. "Evaluating the Progress of Renewable Energy Sources in Poland: A Multidimensional Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Inna Čábelková & Wadim Strielkowski & Irina Firsova & Marina Korovushkina, 2020. "Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Sources: a Case Study from the Czech Republic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Johanna Jussila Hammes, 2021. "The Impact of Career Concerns and Cognitive Dissonance on Bureaucrats’ Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 409-424, October.
    5. Hansson, Lisa, 2020. "Regulatory governance in emerging technologies: The case of autonomous vehicles in Sweden and Norway," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Fei Mo & Derek Wang, 2019. "Environmental Sustainability of Road Transport in OECD Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Mustafa S. Al-Tekreeti & Salwa M. Beheiry & Vian Ahmed, 2021. "A Framework for Assessing Commitment Indicators in Sustainable Development Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Nerhagen, Lena & Brandt, Daniel & Mortazavi, Reza, 2023. "Use of public transport as a means to reach national climate objectives - On the importance of accounting for spatial differences and costs," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 56-65.

    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. Hansson, Lisa, 2020. "Public administrators’ roles in the policy adaptation of transport directives: How knowledge is created and reproduced," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 208-216.
    2. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bert van Wee & Eric J. E. Molin & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Different Cost Performance: Different Determinants? The Case of Cost Overruns in Dutch Transportation Infrastructure Projects," Papers 1307.2179, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    3. José Martins & Rui Cunha Marques & Carlos Oliveira Cruz & Álvaro Fonseca, 2017. "Flexibility in planning and development of a container terminal: an application of an American-style call option," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(7), pages 828-840, October.
    4. Mauro Bambi & Cristina Girolami & Salvatore Federico & Fausto Gozzi, 2017. "Generically distributed investments on flexible projects and endogenous growth," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 521-558, February.
    5. Cantarelli, C.C. & Flyvbjerg, B. & Buhl, S.L., 2012. "Geographical variation in project cost performance: the Netherlands versus worldwide," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 324-331.
    6. Holz-Rau, Christian & Scheiner, Joachim, 2011. "Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 336-346, March.
    7. Erica Bosio & Simeon Djankov & Edward Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2022. "Public Procurement in Law and Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1091-1117, April.
    8. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    9. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier, 2018. "Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry," Papers 1805.12106, arXiv.org.
    10. Prakash, Nishith & Rockmore, Marc & Uppal, Yogesh, 2019. "Do criminally accused politicians affect economic outcomes? Evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    11. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flybjerg & Eric J. E. Molin & Bert van Wee, 2013. "Cost overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness," Papers 1307.2176, arXiv.org.
    12. Olav Torp & Ole Jonny Klakegg, 2016. "Challenges in Cost Estimation under Uncertainty—A Case Study of the Decommissioning of Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-21, October.
    13. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    14. Eliasson, Jonas & Savemark, Christian & Franklin, Joel, 2020. "The impact of land use effects in infrastructure appraisal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 262-276.
    15. Vincent van den Berg, 2013. "Over- and Under-Bidding in Tendering," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-033/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Joseph Sturm & Mashrur Chowdhury & Anne Dunning & Jennifer Ogle, 2011. "Analysis of cost estimation disclosure in environmental impact statements for surface transportation projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 525-544, May.
    17. Eliasson, Jonas, 2023. "Tillbaka till framtiden: en nygammal planprocess [Back to the future: a renewed infrastructure planning process]," MPRA Paper 118658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Cantarelli, C.C. & Molin, E.J.E. & van Wee, B. & Flyvbjerg, B., 2012. "Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 49-56.
    19. van den Berg, Vincent A.C. & Rouwendal, Jan, 2016. "Tender auctions with existing operators bidding," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 1-10.
    20. Rubina Canesi & Beatrice Gallo, 2023. "Risk Assessment in Sustainable Infrastructure Development Projects: A Tool for Mitigating Cost Overruns," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1687-:d:215715. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.