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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Varone, Frederic & Aebischer, Bernard, 2001. "Energy efficiency: the challenges of policy design," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 615-629, June.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    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. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    7. 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.
    8. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    9. Dayashankar Maurya, 2019. "Understanding public health insurance in India: A design perspective," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 1633-1650, October.
    10. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Wagon, Felix & Fridgen, Gilbert & Tiefenbeck, Verena, 2024. "Shaping stable support: Leveraging digital feedback interventions to elicit socio-Political acceptance of renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    16. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    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.