IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v52y2019i1d10.1007_s11077-018-9341-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy

Author

Listed:
  • Lorenz Kammermann

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Research and Technology
    University of Bern)

  • Karin Ingold

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Research and Technology
    University of Bern
    University of Bern)

Abstract

This paper is about stakeholders’ acceptance regarding regulatory instruments in energy policy. We expect that today’s introduced instruments not only correspond most to technocratic principles and what elected officials prefer, but that they correlate with the preferences of a wider number of public and private actors in policymaking. We therefore compare the already introduced policy instruments to instrument preferences of the public administration, elected officials, but also NGOs and utilities. In doing so, we contribute to the question of whether or not the instruments already introduced today correspond to technocratic or democratic principles, or to the preferences of the larger governance arrangement involving other public and private actors. We compare three cantons in Switzerland and gather data through a systematic literature review, expert interviews, and surveys. The comparison of the data suggest that the currently selected policy instruments correspond to technocratic principles, but that they also and often correspond to the preferences of public and private actors. More concretely, whereas in one canton, NGO preferences align with the introduced instruments, in another canton, this is the case for utilities. In the third canton, all different actor types display similar preferences very much in accordance with the currently employed instrument mix. We thus conclude that depending on the region, different principles and preferences are reflected in the current policy mix.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9341-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9341-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9341-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9341-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Carlos Henggeler Antunes & Carla Oliveira Henriques, 2016. "Multi-Objective Optimization and Multi-Criteria Analysis Models and Methods for Problems in the Energy Sector," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1067-1165, Springer.
    3. Daniel Henstra, 2016. "The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 496-521, May.
    4. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    5. Beccali, M. & Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M., 2003. "Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 2063-2087.
    6. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    7. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    8. Taefi, Tessa T. & Kreutzfeldt, Jochen & Held, Tobias & Fink, Andreas, 2016. "Supporting the adoption of electric vehicles in urban road freight transport – A multi-criteria analysis of policy measures in Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 61-79.
    9. 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.
    10. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    11. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2009. "The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efficiency policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1529-1541, April.
    12. Bernard Roy, 2016. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 19-39, Springer.
    13. Per Christensen & Lone Kørnøv & Eskild Holm Nielsen, 2012. "Between Governance And Government: Danish Eia In Uncharted Waters," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(04), pages 1-18.
    14. Cheng, Quan & Yi, Hongtao, 2017. "Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 683-691.
    15. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee & Jeremy Rayner, 2014. "The Elements of Effective Program Design: A Two-Level Analysis," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-12.
    16. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    17. Bruce Gilley, 2017. "Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 9-22, March.
    18. John T. Buchanan & Erez J. Henig & Mordecai I. Henig, 1998. "Objectivity and subjectivity in thedecision making process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 333-345, January.
    19. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    20. Varone, Frederic & Aebischer, Bernard, 2001. "Energy efficiency: the challenges of policy design," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 615-629, June.
    21. Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks, 2002. "Types of Multi-Level Governance," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 3, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    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. 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.

    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. 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).
    2. Karoline S. Rogge & Elisabeth Dütschke, 2017. "Exploring Perceptions of the Credibility of Policy Mixes: The Case of German Manufacturers of Renewable Power Generation Technologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-23, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    4. Shyu, Chian-Woei, 2024. "Referendum as a policy instrument to enhance energy democracy in formulating energy transition path, agenda, and policies: A case study of Taiwan's referendums in 2018 and 2021," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    6. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    7. Youhyun Lee & Inseok Seo, 2019. "Sustainability of a Policy Instrument: Rethinking the Renewable Portfolio Standard in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, May.
    8. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    9. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    10. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    11. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. Trotter, Philipp A. & Brophy, Aoife, 2022. "Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    13. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    14. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    15. Polzin, Friedemann & Egli, Florian & Steffen, Bjarne & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1249-1268.
    16. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    17. Paweł Ziemba, 2019. "Inter-Criteria Dependencies-Based Decision Support in the Sustainable wind Energy Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-29, February.
    18. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Batel, Susana & Aas, Oystein & Sovacool, Benjamin & Labelle, Michael Carnegie & Ruud, Audun, 2017. "A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 27-31.
    19. Zhou, Lingyi & Dai, Yixin, 2020. "Which is more effective in China? How communication tools influence public acceptance of nuclear power energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.

    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:kap:policy:v:52:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9341-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.