Measurement and Characterisation of Energy Policy Change Over Time Case-study of UK Electricity Policy

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D in Public Policy, Edinburgh University

2 Assistant Professor in public policy, Sharif Policy Research Institute

3 PhD candidate in Technology Management, Iran Science & Technology University

Abstract

By empirical analysis of the extent and aspects of UK electricity policy change over more than a decade, the present article attempts to develop a theoretical framework for policy change characterisation and measurement. Based on Hall’s (1993), components of policy paradigm, objectives, institutions, instruments and technology preference (socio-technical configuration) were chosen as the theoretical framework.
The research is of qualitative methodology and case-study design, utilising semi-structured interviews, survey and secondary studies during 2000-2012.
The results showed that despite common belief on fundamental changes of the policies, UK electricity policy has not been completely changed in two components: policy paradigm which still depicts an ambivalence between market paradigm and state interventionism, and the socio-technical configuration which is yet locked as centralised and large-scale in hand of the Big Six. The framework could benefit analysis of Iran’s energy policy changes to yield a comprehensive and analytical view.

Keywords

References

  • CCC, 2008. Building a Low-Carbon Economy: The UK’s Contribution to Tackling Climate Change. London, Committee on Climate Change.
  • CHPA, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation. The Combined Heat and Power Association.
  • Cornwall, N., 2012. EMR: Managing new risks, in: Electricity Market Reform: Playing out the Middle Game. Presented at the Cornwall Energy Conference, London.
  • DECC, 2012a. Energy Bill 2012.
  • DECC, 2012b. Electricity Market Reform Annex D: Institutional Framework.
  • DECC, 2011. Planning our electric future: A White paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity. DECC.
  • DECC, 2009a. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National strategy for climate and energy. The Stationary Office, London.
  • DECC, 2009b. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. HMSO.
  • DTI, 2007. Meeting the Energy Challenge: An Energy White Paper. London.
  • DTI, 2006. The Energy challenge: Energy Review report. The Stationary Office.
  • DTI, 2003. Energy White Paper: Our energy future-Creating a low-carbon economy. HMSO.
  • DTI, 1995. The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK: Conclusions of the government’s nuclear review. HMSO.
  • EC, 2007. An Energy Policy for Europe- a Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament.
  • EFET, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation. European Federation of Energy Traders.
  • Exeter EPG, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation. Exeter Energy Policy Group.
  • FoE, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation. Friends of the Earth.
  • FoE, 2008. Energy and Climate Change fact sheet.
  • Green Peace, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation.
  • Hall, P.A., 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp. Polit. 275–296.
  • Helm, D., 2007. Introduction: the return of energy policy. New Energy Paradigm 1–8.
  • Helm, D., 2005. The assessment: the new energy paradigm. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 21, 1–18.
  • Henry, A.D., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D. and Weible, C.M., 2014. Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside of Western Europe and North America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), pp.299-312.HMG, 2010. The Coalition: Our programme for Government. Cabinet office.
  • HMT, 2010. Energy Market Assessment. Treasury, London.
  • Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. and Sabatier, P., 2014, The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research, in: P. Sabatier and C. Weible (Eds) Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), pp. 183–223.
  • JESS, 2006. Long-Term Security of Energy Supply (DTI Report). London.
  • Kern, F., 2010. The politics of governing ‘system innovations’ towards sustainable electricity systems. University of Sussex.
  • Kern, F., Mitchell, C., 2010. Policy Paradigms as part of the landscape: How do policy paradigms influence attempts to govern transitions, in: 14th IRSPM Conference, Berne, Switzerland, Wth-9th April 2010.
  • Kuzemko, C., 2011. UK Energy governance in the twenty-first century: unravelling the ties that bind. University of Warwick.
  • Mitchell, C., 2008. The political economy of sustainable energy. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Newbery, D., 2011. Reforming competitive electricity markets to meet environmental targets. Cambridge Electricity Policy Research Group: CWPE 1154 & EPRG 1126.
  • Newey, G., 2012. The dangers of energy “targetism,” Policy Exchange.
  • Pearson, P., Watson, J., 2012. UK Energy Policy 1980-2010: A history and lessons to be learnt.
  • PIU, 2002. The Energy review, Cabinet Office for Performance and Innovation Unit.
  • Platchkov, L., Pollitt, M., Shaorshadze, I., 2011. The implications of recent UK energy policy for the consumer: A report for the Consumers’ Association. ESRC Electr. Policy Res. Group Camb. Electr. Policy Res. Group.
  • RCEP, 2000. Energy: The Changing Climate. the Twenty-second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. London.
  • Rogge, K.S., Reichardt, K., 2016. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy.
  • Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework. An Assessment, in: Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Co/San Francisco/Oxford: West view, pp. 117–166.
  • Sabatier, P., Weible, C., 2007. The advocacy coalition: Innovations and clarifications. Theor. Policy Process 2, 189–220.
  • Scottish Government, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation. Scottish Government.
  • Scrase, J.I., Smith, A., Kern, F., 2010. Dynamics and deliberations: comparing heuristics for low carbon innovation policy. Brighton Sci. Technol. Policy Res. 1–42.
  • Skea, J., Ekins, P., Winskel, M., 2011. Energy 2050: Making the transition to a secure low carbon energy system. Earthscan London.
  • Steward, 2013. Contracts for Difference - Devilishly Detailed. IGov.
  • Szarka, J., 2010. Bringing interests back in: using coalition theories to explain European wind power policies. J. Eur. Public Policy 17, 836–853.
  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A. and McQueen, K., 2009, Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), pp. 121–140.
  • Winskel, M., 2012. Accelerated energy innovation, and its implications for innovation theory. 2nd Aalto Event on Science and Technology Studies: Energy In Society. Helsinki.
  • Winskel, M., Radcliffe, J., 2012. The UK Accelerated Innovation System for Energy: A critical review and a commentary. the 9th BIEE (British Institution for Energy Economists) Academic Conference, European Energy in a Challenging World: The impact of emerging markets. Oxford.
  • WWF, 2011. Response to the EMR Consultation. World Wildlife Fund.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 7, Issue 3
2021
Pages 37-54

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics