IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v31y2013i2p340-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fighting the Pipe: Neoliberal Governance and Barriers to Effective Community Participation in Energy Infrastructure Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Groves

    (ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, Cardiff University, 55 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales)

  • Max Munday

    (Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, Wales)

  • Natalia Yakovleva

    (Winchester Business School, West Downs 119, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, Hampshire, England)

Abstract

Development of effective participatory mechanisms within infrastructure planning governance has been dependent on how far the outputs of participatory processes have an impact upon strategic policy priorities. However, neoliberal modes of governance are characterised by ‘recentralisation’ within arms-length regulatory bodies and private corporations. Tensions between participatory governance and recentralisation are exemplified by the relationship between energy privatisation and energy infrastructure planning. With this study we examine these tensions using a case study of a critical infrastructure project in the UK, the South Wales Gas Pipeline. Findings confirm arguments in the literature that siting conflicts often centre on policy issues as much as local concerns. The study reveals that the neoliberal recentralisation of some governance functions exacerbates such conflicts. We argue that, although new efforts to secure effective participation in neoliberal regimes are necessary, they will face obstacles in the form of risk-based governance structures, as exemplified by the privatised energy sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Groves & Max Munday & Natalia Yakovleva, 2013. "Fighting the Pipe: Neoliberal Governance and Barriers to Effective Community Participation in Energy Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(2), pages 340-356, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:31:y:2013:i:2:p:340-356
    DOI: 10.1068/c11331r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c11331r
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c11331r?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. Christophe Defeuilley, 1999. "Competition and Public Service Obligations: Regulatory Rules and Industries Games," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 25-48, March.
    2. Moran, Michael, 2007. "The British Regulatory State: High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199219216.
    3. Gerald Manners, 1997. "Gas Market Liberalization in Britain: Some Geographical Observations," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 295-309.
    4. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    5. Richard Cowell, 2013. "The Greenest Government Ever? Planning and Sustainability in England after the May 2010 Elections," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 27-44, February.
    6. David Hall & Emanuele Lobina, 2004. "Private and public interests in water and energy," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(4), pages 268-277, November.
    7. Simon Guy & Stephen Graham & Simon Marvin, 1996. "Privatized Utilities and Regional Governance: The New Regional Managers?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(8), pages 733-739.
    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. Berka, Anna L. & Harnmeijer, Jelte & Roberts, Deborah & Phimister, Euan & Msika, Joshua, 2017. "A comparative analysis of the costs of onshore wind energy: Is there a case for community-specific policy support?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 394-403.
    2. Berka, Anna L. & Creamer, Emily, 2018. "Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3400-3419.

    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. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    2. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    4. Diane Sharratt & Bitten H. Brigham & Martin Brigham, 2007. "The Utility of Social Obligations in the UK Energy Industry," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1503-1522, December.
    5. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Coffey, Stephanie, 2016. "Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 867-880.
    6. József Kádár & Martina Pilloni & Tareq Abu Hamed, 2023. "A Survey of Renewable Energy, Climate Change, and Policy Awareness in Israel: The Long Path for Citizen Participation in the National Renewable Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    9. Jamie Morgan & Brendan Sheehan, 2015. "The Concept of Trust and the Political Economy of John Maynard Keynes, Illustrated Using Central Bank Forward Guidance and the Democratic Dilemma in Europe," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(1), pages 113-137, March.
    10. García, Victoria Gómez & Bartolomé, Mercedes Montero, 2010. "Rural electrification systems based on renewable energy: The social dimensions of an innovative technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 303-311.
    11. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    12. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    13. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    14. Mumtaz Derya Tarhan, 2015. "Renewable Energy Cooperatives: A Review of Demonstrated Impacts and Limitations," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 4(1), pages 104-120, August.
    15. Shan Zhou & Douglas S. Noonan, 2019. "Justice Implications of Clean Energy Policies and Programs in the United States: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    17. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    18. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    19. Rogers, J.C. & Simmons, E.A. & Convery, I. & Weatherall, A., 2008. "Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4217-4226, November.
    20. Dessi, F. & Ariccio, S. & Albers, T. & Alves, S. & Ludovico, N. & Bonaiuto, M., 2022. "Sustainable technology acceptability: Mapping technological, contextual, and social-psychological determinants of EU stakeholders’ biofuel acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(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:sae:envirc:v:31:y:2013:i:2:p:340-356. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.