IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/soasur/v28y2021i2p205-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Cross-country Analysis of Nuclear Power Discourse in Politically Distinct India and Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Yelizaveta Mikhailovna Sharonova

Abstract

Nuclear power has always been a controversial issue since it was discovered as a source of power for civil use. Despite being a global phenomenon, nuclear power is viewed differently around the world, and consequently, different discourses have had different outcomes. This study does a comparative analysis of nuclear power discourses between India and Russia, two countries of distinct political systems. This study analyses the media coverage and content of the main discourse themes in India’s and Russia’s print media from March 2011 to March 2019. The study finds that in both countries, despite their different political set-ups, nuclear power discourse has a pro-nuclear character.

Suggested Citation

  • Yelizaveta Mikhailovna Sharonova, 2021. "Quantitative Cross-country Analysis of Nuclear Power Discourse in Politically Distinct India and Russia," South Asian Survey, , vol. 28(2), pages 205-221, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:soasur:v:28:y:2021:i:2:p:205-221
    DOI: 10.1177/0971523121992662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0971523121992662
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0971523121992662?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. Lijphart, Arend, 1996. "The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 258-268, June.
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Valentine, Scott Victor, 2010. "The socio-political economy of nuclear energy in China and India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3803-3813.
    3. Buizer, Marleen & Van Herzele, Ann, 2012. "Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 93-101.
    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. Valentine, Scott Victor, 2014. "The socio-political economy of electricity generation in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 416-429.
    2. Tranchant Jean-Pierre, 2016. "Is Regional Autonomy a Solution to Ethnic Conflict? Some Lessons from a Dynamic Analysis," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(4), pages 449-460, December.
    3. Lars Sorge & Anne Neumann & Christian von Hirschhausen & Ben Wealer, 2019. "Nuclear Power, Democracy, Development, and Nuclear Warheads: Determinants for Introducing Nuclear Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1811, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Chi, Cheryl S.F. & Chen, Ling, 2012. "The sources of divergent practices in China's nuclear power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 348-357.
    5. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    6. Phil Johnstone & Andy Stirling, 2015. "Comparing Nuclear Power Trajectories inGermany And the UK: From ‘Regimes’ to ‘Democracies’ in Sociotechnical Transitions and Discontinuities," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-18, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Collin Constantine, 2022. "Income Inequality in Guyana: Class or Ethnicity? New Evidence from Survey Data," Working Papers 631, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    8. Helga Malmin Binningsbø, 2013. "Power sharing, peace and democracy: Any obvious relationships?," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 16(1), pages 89-112, March.
    9. Rajiv Krishnan Kozhikode, 2016. "Dormancy as a Strategic Response to Detrimental Public Policy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 189-206, February.
    10. Joan Esteban & Debraj Ray, 2008. "Polarization, Fractionalization and Conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 45(2), pages 163-182, March.
    11. Jobert, Thomas & Karanfil, Fatih & Tykhonenko, Anna, 2013. "On the structure and form of the GDP–nuclear nexus: New perspectives and new findings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1553-1561.
    12. Britta Rennkamp & Radhika Bhuyan, 2016. "The social shaping of nuclear energy technology in South Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series 019, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Jon Fraenkel & Bernard Grofman, 2004. "A Neo-Downsian Model of the Alternative Vote as a Mechanism for Mitigating Ethnic Conflict in Plural Societies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 487-506, February.
    14. Marleen Buizer & Bas Arts & Judith Westerink, 2016. "Landscape governance as policy integration ‘from below’: A case of displaced and contained political conflict in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(3), pages 448-462, May.
    15. Ann Herzele & Noelle Aarts, 2013. "“My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 63-81, March.
    16. Arend Lijphart, 2000. "Definitions, Evidence, and Policy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 425-431, October.
    17. Nachane, Dilip M., 2010. "Liberalization, globalization and the dynamics of democracy in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 38356, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Van Herzele, Ann, 2015. "What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    19. Ramana, M.V. & Saikawa, Eri, 2011. "Choosing a standard reactor: International competition and domestic politics in Chinese nuclear policy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 6779-6789.
    20. Evensen, Darrick & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2024. "Political economy of low-carbon electricity: Governance effects across 198 countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).

    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:soasur:v:28:y:2021:i:2:p:205-221. 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.