IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v40y2021i3p312-332..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking the procedural in policy instrument ‘Compounds’: a renewable energy policy perspective
[Introducing vertical policy coordination to comparative policy analysis: The missing link between policy production and implementation]

Author

Listed:
  • Ishani Mukherjee

Abstract

Contemporary research in the policy sciences placeseffectiveness as the central goal of policy design. This emphasis permeates both micro-level design considerations for specific policy calibrations, as well as more meso-level policy tool and tool mixes. Effective instrument design, therefore, augments the task of looking at individual tools to considering them as tool ‘compounds’, that comprise of substantiveand procedural means interacting through the process of designing tools and subsequent tool calibrations. The academic study of policy tools thus far has proffered several perspectives on how they can individually be distinguished by their different substantive components and categorized based on common governance resources that need to be mobilized to create them. However, it is eventually how well policy tools are able to coordinate the support of common procedural means and how well they are able to align their enactment plans, which determine how effectively they work together as a deliberate toolkit. In line with the growing literature on policy design and multi-component policy means, this paper magnifies policy instrument design as a complex of procedural and substantive means. To illustrate the notion of such designcompounds, this paper synopsizes the state of knowledge on the formulation of three classes of energy policies as an illustration of how substantive and procedural components interact during policy instrument design.

Suggested Citation

  • Ishani Mukherjee, 2021. "Rethinking the procedural in policy instrument ‘Compounds’: a renewable energy policy perspective [Introducing vertical policy coordination to comparative policy analysis: The missing link between ," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 312-332.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:312-332.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14494035.2021.1955488
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Braathen, Nils Axel, 2007. "Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy: How Many Stones Should be Used to Kill a Bird?," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 185-235, May.
    2. Kent, Anthony & Mercer, David, 2006. "Australia's mandatory renewable energy target (MRET): an assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1046-1062, June.
    3. Butler, Lucy & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2008. "Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1854-1867.
    4. Bertoldi, Paolo & Huld, Thomas, 2006. "Tradable certificates for renewable electricity and energy savings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 212-222, January.
    5. Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2016. "Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 301-313, December.
    6. Steven Bernstein & Matthew Hoffmann, 2018. "The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 189-211, June.
    7. Lipp, Judith, 2007. "Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5481-5495, November.
    8. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    9. Hess, David J. & Lee, Dasom, 2020. "Energy decentralization in California and New York: Conflicts in the politics of shared solar and community choice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Roger Fouquet, 2016. "Path dependence in energy systems and economic development," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(8), pages 1-5, August.
    11. Sun, Peng & Nie, Pu-yan, 2015. "A comparative study of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard policy in renewable energy industry," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 255-262.
    12. Shammin, Md Rumi & Bullard, Clark W., 2009. "Impact of cap-and-trade policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2432-2438, June.
    13. del Río, Pablo & Calvo Silvosa, Anxo & Iglesias Gómez, Guillermo, 2011. "Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: A qualitative analysis of different options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1897-1908, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Beryl A. Radin, 2009. "What can we expect from performance measurement activities?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 505-512.
    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. Tasic Slavisa, 2011. "Are Regulators Rational?," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, April.
    18. Boonekamp, Piet G.M., 2006. "Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency—A qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2848-2873.
    19. Linder, Stephen H. & Peters, B. Guy, 1989. "Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 35-58, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Zhang, Xiaoling & Wang, Yue, 2017. "How to reduce household carbon emissions: A review of experience and policy design considerations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 116-124.
    3. del Río, Pablo, 2010. "Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 4978-4989, September.
    4. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    5. Wang, Yunfei & Li, Jinke & O'Leary, Nigel & Shao, Jing, 2024. "Excess demand or excess supply? A comparison of renewable energy certificate markets in the United Kingdom and Australia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. Michael Howlett & Pablo del Rio, 2015. "The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1233-1245, October.
    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. 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.
    9. Choi, Gobong & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Heo, Eunnyeong & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2018. "Prices versus quantities: Comparing economic efficiency of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard in promoting renewable electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 239-248.
    10. del Río, Pablo & Tarancón, Miguel-Ángel, 2012. "Analysing the determinants of on-shore wind capacity additions in the EU: An econometric study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 12-21.
    11. Bersalli, Germán & Menanteau, Philippe & El-Methni, Jonathan, 2020. "Renewable energy policy effectiveness: A panel data analysis across Europe and Latin America," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. del Río, Pablo & Mir-Artigues, Pere, 2012. "Support for solar PV deployment in Spain: Some policy lessons," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5557-5566.
    13. Matsuo, Tyeler & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "Managing tradeoffs in green industrial policies: The role of renewable energy policy design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 11-26.
    14. Kwon, Tae-hyeong, 2018. "Policy synergy or conflict for renewable energy support: Case of RPS and auction in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 443-449.
    15. Shen, Neng & Deng, Rumeng & Liao, Haolan & Shevchuk, Oleksandr, 2020. "Mapping renewable energy subsidy policy research published from 1997 to 2018: A scientometric review," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Christian Adam & Yves Steinebach & Christoph Knill, 2018. "Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 269-290, September.
    17. Ishani Mukherjee & M. Kerem Coban & Azad Singh Bali, 2021. "Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 243-268, June.
    18. Hong, Soonpa & Yang, Taeyong & Chang, Hyun Joon & Hong, Sungjun, 2020. "The effect of switching renewable energy support systems on grid parity for photovoltaics: Analysis using a learning curve model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Buckman, Greg & Sibley, Jon & Ward, Megan, 2019. "The large-scale feed-in tariff reverse auction scheme in the Australian Capital Territory 2012, to 2016," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 176-185.
    20. 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.

    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:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:3:p:312-332.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.