IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v16y2016i4p50-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy Technology, Politics, and Interpretative Frames: Shale Gas Fracking in Eastern Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Goldthau
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool

Abstract

This article explores competing interpretive frames regarding shale gas in Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania. These countries face the choice of embracing shale gas as a potential revolutionizing domestic source of energy, against the backdrop of Russia serving as the dominant gas supplier. This makes them interesting cases for studying how policy narratives and discourses coalesce around a novel technology. The findings, which are based on sixty-six semistructured research interviews, point to differing and indeed competing frames, ranging from national security, environmental boons to economic sellout and authoritarianism, with different sets of institutions sharing those frames. This suggests that enhancing energy security by way of deploying novel energy technologies such as shale gas fracking is not simply a function of resource endowments and technological progress. Instead, it is the result of complex dynamics unfolding among social stakeholders and the related discursive processes, which eventually will determine whether—or not—shale gas will go global.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Goldthau & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2016. "Energy Technology, Politics, and Interpretative Frames: Shale Gas Fracking in Eastern Europe," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(4), pages 50-69, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:16:y:2016:i:4:p:50-69
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/GLEP_a_00375
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF 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. Jarrod Hayes & Janelle Knox-Hayes, 2014. "Security in Climate Change Discourse: Analyzing the Divergence between US and EU Approaches to Policy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 14(2), pages 82-101, May.
    2. Robert Falkner & Nico Jaspers, 2012. "Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 12(1), pages 30-55, February.
    3. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    4. Darrick Evensen & Christopher Clarke & Richard Stedman, 2014. "A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 65-77, March.
    5. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Brown, Marilyn A., 2015. "Deconstructing facts and frames in energy research: Maxims for evaluating contentious problems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 36-42.
    6. Mattias Wahlström & Magnus Wennerhag & Christopher Rootes, 2013. "Framing “The Climate Issue”: Patterns of Participation and Prognostic Frames among Climate Summit Protesters," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(4), pages 101-122, November.
    7. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    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. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Axsen, Jonn, 2018. "Functional, symbolic and societal frames for automobility: Implications for sustainability transitions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 730-746.
    2. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Iskandarova, Marfuga & Geels, Frank W., 2023. "“Bigger than government”: Exploring the social construction and contestation of net-zero industrial megaprojects in England," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Ćetković, Stefan & Buzogány, Aron, 2020. "Between markets, politics and path-dependence: Explaining the growth of solar and wind power in six Central and Eastern European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    4. Lukas Hermwille & Lisa Sanderink, 2019. "Make Fossil Fuels Great Again? The Paris Agreement, Trump, and the USFossil Fuel Industry," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 45-62, November.
    5. Eve Bratman & Ted Auch & Bryan Stinchfield, 2022. "The Fracking Frontier in the United States: A Case Study of Foreign Investment, Civil Liberties and Land Ethics in the Shale Industry," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 53(3), pages 469-494, May.
    6. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Scarpaci, Joseph, 2016. "Energy justice and the contested petroleum politics of stranded assets: Policy insights from the Yasuní-ITT Initiative in Ecuador," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 158-171.
    7. Kuchler, Magdalena & Höök, Mikael, 2020. "Fractured visions: Anticipating (un)conventional natural gas in Poland," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    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. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    2. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    3. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Clarke, Christopher E. & Hart, Philip S. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Stedman, Richard C., 2015. "Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 131-140.
    5. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    6. Grecu, Eugenia & Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela & Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu, 2018. "The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 691-700.
    7. Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will, 2020. "Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Backstrom, Jesse, 2019. "Strategic Reporting and the Effects of Water Use in Hydraulic Fracturing on Local Groundwater Levels in Texas," Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University 307177, Center for Growth and Opportunity.
    10. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2014. "The role of the state in regulatory policy for nanomaterials risk: Analyzing the expansion of state-centric rulemaking in EU and US chemicals policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 169-178.
    12. Wang, Jianliang & Feng, Lianyong & Steve, Mohr & Tang, Xu & Gail, Tverberg E. & Mikael, Höök, 2015. "China's unconventional oil: A review of its resources and outlook for long-term production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 31-42.
    13. Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    14. Steinar Andresen & G. Kristin Rosendal & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2018. "Regulating the invisible: interaction between the EU and Norway in managing nano-risks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 513-528, August.
    15. Benjamin P. Warner & Daniel L. Childers & Christopher Kuzdas & Gabriela Stocks, 2018. "Smallholder Adaptation to Drought in Costa Rica's Crony Capitalist Rice Economy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 49(6), pages 1392-1421, November.
    16. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    17. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    18. Zhou, Zhongbing & Qin, Quande, 2020. "Epistemological dominance and ignorance of the comparative advantages of China's shale gas: Evidence from international scientific journals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    19. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    20. Anna Korppoo, 2022. "Russian discourses on benefits and threats from international climate diplomacy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-24, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:16:y:2016:i:4:p:50-69. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.